Sarathen

I'm starting to think we have three separate groups here, and the overly generalized term 'romance' is sort of obscuring that. 1. No non-platonic relationships/references ever, kthxbai. It doesn't belong at all. 2. Gimme dialogue options, side interactions, etc. that give me various options for non-platonic relationships with my companions/other NPC. 3. I want my uncanny valley sex, stat.

That's an absolutely fair point, and my comment was only intended to reflect my own opinion, not be a subtle jab that we shouldn't be discussing this at all. For me, and only speaking for myself, I see it more as the difference between *how* the game works and how the narrative unfolds, how your companions react, what their personalities are and what drives them, the different cultures of the world and so on. There are innumerable elements of gameplay that I've liked/hated, but the only story-oriented criticism I tend to have is for gaping plot holes and characters that wind up acting completely contrary to the personality the writer already defined. I realize I'm not explaining this very well. If it helps, I'm one of those 'story first, gameplay second' kind of people. I'll put up with all sorts of frustrating gaming experiences if the story is good enough that I need to reach its conclusion, no matter what that might be. Or phrased a little more concisely: PST is my favorite game of all-time-ever-seriously-you-guys. Edited because damn, benadryl makes my typing terrible.

This times a hundred. In the end, I want Obsidian to tell me the story they want to tell. I'm enjoying reading about people's ideas for areas, game mechanics, pacing, quest options, skills and character generation. But when it comes to the world, the characters and the narrative- I want Obsidian to tell me their story, not the one I told them I wanted to hear.

I don't think someone liking one of the relationship options from ME2 is a blanket statement that they like all Bioware style romances, or that they want DA/ME clones. DA romantic relationships are annoying, and this is from someone who generally likes having at least some form of non-platonic interaction in games. The "I will give you 20 gifts and now you are my boy/girlfriend and you want to keep my eyelashes in a jar after our awkward underware-clad sex scene" is....ugh. I just don't understand your vehemence against optional relationships in RPGs. The 'maybe you'd get sex in real life' is just as obnoxious as other people's 'you'd like multiplayer if you actually had any friends'. They're both very condescending and not really justifiable, considering you have no insight into or knowledge of these people's lives. Some people seem deadset against the idea just based on principle, and not concerns about it affecting game development. (I'm not saying you are one of those, but they are out there.) To use your words, I guess I 'just don't get' why people get so up an arms about the inclusion of something they don't like, when it's completely optional.

Guilty confession: I could not resist 'romancing' Garrus in ME. I just couldn't. I'm weak for his awesome-ness. As far as other romances in games, I don't think it needs to be or should be primarily oriented around nailing your preferred companion or NPC. But non-platonic relationships in a story are realistic. Heck, there are plenty of depictions of long term, short term, purely physically, primarily emotional (et cetera, et cetera, et cetera) relationships in literature that wouldn't be remotely classified as 'romance'. It's just part of life. So it makes sense to include elements of that in a game. Don't make it a dating sim, but have interactions like Annah's suppressed attraction to TNO, Fall-from-Grace's evolving affections that can never be realized. Let your companions develop their own relationships with each other, give them the ability to deny your hero's advances (just not that in to you) and to outright reject you later (yeah, about burning down that orphanage...). When it comes down to it, all this would add complexity to the storytelling/game mechanics/dialog trees. Especially when you add in player-created characters, that would need different responses/dialogue. So if the resources to do it right just aren't there, don't try to halfass it, please. Just don't swing the other way and make affection/attraction conspicuously absent if you DO have the right people and ability to do it well.

I like this! With one request, while we're wishing for fishes: I'd prefer to be able to skip the tutorial if I wanted and use an alternate character creation screen. Having to sit through a tutorial/basic opening section more than once kinda sucks when you go to replay or if you like to make multiple characters with different classes/personalities.

I was wondering that as well, especially after the Twitter exchange between GOG and Obsidian. I thought I'd seen a comment from GOG that they were going to do so, but I can't find it now. And late to the party, but thank you, Obsidian! I always prefer to use GOG over Steam, for a variety of reasons, so it's great to see you partnered with them for distribution!

I genuinely chuckled at 'Sierra'. I love old adventures games...but that doesn't change the fact that there are sometimes some bizarre and nonsensical game overs. That said, I'm not quite sure how to answer this. I'm a tremendous fan of different endings, with the endings being anywhere from slightly changed to dramatically different. They make me happy. And I don't mind the presence of stupid/foolish actions that can make the game unwinnable. I just like to have at least a hint. Comments from an NPC, item description, previous quest information I should have paid attention to. On the other end, I have issues with http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LostForever when it leads to an unwinnable situation. Make my character's life a little harder, give me some of my beloved consequences...but don't throw me to a game over screen four hours after I dropped the Dryer Lint of Inconsquence when my bag was full.

This is exactly what came to my mind when I saw the thread title. It's an appropriately urgent situation, and if you don't get it in gear, there will be consequences. Not 'game over, sucker' consequences, it's just that there are logical implications to your inaction. I'd prefer it not be overused, though. For example, let's say there's a temple that's infested with undead, and adventures who sally forth do not return. Well, that's bad and all, but unless the undead are venturing out of the temple, it's not actually that urgent. These other wussy adventurers could just, you know...stop going in there. (Buncha idiots, don't they know I'm the hero around here?) It's the kind of quest that makes sense to either handle in your own sweet time or address right away, depending on what sort of character you play. To use another poster's example- the farmer's wife was kidnapped by trolls and they plan on eating her? They're not going to sit around and wait for you, the woman's going to be a goner as soon as they're hungry enough. So your options are to a) blow the frantic farmer off and continue on, b) accept the quest and save her promptly, or c) accept the quest, go wander off for five days and fail the quest because she's being digested in a troll's belly. It's certainly more complicated, but I think it's the sort of mechanic that improves immersion and replayability. Edit to add: I really, strongly dislike an overal game countdown, even if it's 'more realistic'. And I absolutely loathe important events that happen only on a certain day that I may or may not be able to divine ahead of time, that require I go to a certain place that I might not normally visit at that specific time or talk to a specific person that I don't have a reason to talk to everyday. And if you don't do it on day X of your adventure, too bad. No one will ever mention it again. Quest for Glory IV and Persona 3 (from what I remember), I'm looking at you.

In a far, far first place: Planescape Torment. Fallout and Arcanum certainly didn't hurt, but they're distant seconds. PST remains my favorite game of all time, largely for its deeply engrossing story and fantastic writing. (Though on my approximately annual playthrough, I talk to Candrian Illbourne as little as possible. Sorry, dude, even I have limits and 50 page explanations of the planes are one of those.)

Disclaimer: I don't play multiplayer mode on computer games. Don't care for it, probably never will. (The 'that's because you don't have friends' rebuttal is always annoying- I'd rather play board games with my friends in person and reserve my computer time as 'me' time.) That said, I genuinely have a hard time understanding how one could implement a multiplayer mode without affecting the narrative of the singleplayer mode. Out of all the games for which PE is a 'spiritual successor', PST is the only one I've played more than once. It's like coming back to reread a fantastic, immersive, interactive novel. Which sort of leads into: I'm not going to claim I understand the time or effort behind adding multiplayer mode, but my main concern is that it not affect the depth and complexity of the story that Obsidian wants to tell. I don't want slimmed down SP content put in to allow for a properly executed MP experience. If the team is truly confident they can add MP without compromising SP and stay on budget and on time, I'm hardly going to throw a fit. I just want the SP experience and story to come before all else.