whiskiz

You sound bad, only enjoy (and can handle) being OP and being able to faceroll everything. And you think this is the majority? You're deluded. The like ratio between your original post and the very second comment against it, says it better than any of us individually could. Stick to easy game difficulty, while the rest of us keep working on getting this game made properly and getting it to live up to its full potential. You get your faceroll OP, where it belongs (easy difficulty) we get actual depth and challenge. Everyone wins. Instead of trying to keep the game dumbed down and broken to suit your basic level only.

Saw this coming. That's why im waiting a good 6 months after release before even thinking about buying this, when it's actually balanced and finished properly. One patch changes nothing, you need to wait months. Think of the patch as a "start" on the difficulty/balancing, not as a magical "entire game perfectly balanced a couple weeks after release" as that is just wishful thinking sadly, in this day and age. Not only is it wishful thinking to get a properly balanced, properly finished game on release in this day and age, but for months afterward. Give it another couple months at least.

Already saw this coming, still. You need to wait until they "officially" "release" something, then you need to wait another couple months for them to actually finish it properly. Releasing things means less and less, in context of how finished it is. Just as release, so as a balancing patch. Unless you want your first playthrough to be free QA/beta testing for them. As a general rule of thumb, for a game you're either really excited about or that has alot of potential - you should hold off on getting it for around 6 months. The gaming industry is getting worse and is now releasing things well before they are finished, need to start getting that $$$ asap to keep publishers and investors etc happy, while they get to severely increase their QA/beta testing pool for free. Never change capitalism.

"A late game will eventually be good, a rushed game will be bad forever" If only gaming companies and capitalism in general actually cared about the quality and the reputation, over squeezing out every last dollar of profit they can from the majority casual market who don't know any better, or just don't care.

Even when it is fully released, i'd wait another month or 2 of balancing. The initial release will be just as half assed as the games launch - to get the purchases of anyone that is still holding out for the game to be balanced (finished properly) like me and a few others. It'll be a couple months after it, that they will have spent the time and resources to do it properly/fully and will have had the time and feedback to test and fix properly as well. As well as the balance of multiclassing etc being alot more fine tuned. Need to think like them, which means figuring out how to get the most purchases while quality and actually finishing the product you are selling, takes secondary priority.

It's not really accurate judging the difficulty in the first half of a game let alone the start (lol) Games on higher difficulties have always traditionally been decently balanced at the start and even the first half/early game, but it's the majority of the game especially mid-end that it starts to lose its balance and goes back to becoming an OP faceroll. It's like most devs balance the early game then get lazy, or want to save the time and resources on doing it fully/properly. Come mid game you generally have better gear, more combat choices, are alot stronger and so again it goes back to becoming a faceroll later in the game. Hopefully level scaling helps that, this time around, as well as actually balancing the game mid-end too. So reporting in on difficulty at the start of the game isn't helpful usually, fyi.

"I'll start by saying I haven't played beyond Deadlight, because from the start it was obvious the game will benefit a lot from the first patches and I didn't want to spoil it for myslef by playing unpatched" That's the nicest and most diplomatic way of saying you're waiting until they actually finish the game properly, that i've ever seen haha. Same with me, not even getting it until they finish it properly. Having to balance multiple difficulties post release, major bugfix both before and after release, level scaling flat not working on release etc. Bit scummy to release it half done, working on finishing it post release while we already pay full price and they increase there QA/beta test for free, but it seems to be the standard practice in the gaming industry these days unfortunately.

People complained about fluff combat in PoE 1. Much easier to just make less combat, or a basic infinite repetitive loop via naval combat, than to actually spend the time and resources on instead making the combat more unique and/or impactful. Developing 101.

I 100% your 100% good sir. I myself am waiting until they actually finish the game, before supporting them with a finished price tag. Things didn't work on launch (literally - level scaling flat didn't work for example), there was alot of bugs and performance issues, the higher difficulties weren't actually balanced - having to be done as we speak post release. Etc. It was/is a mess that they pushed out the door because business and completely relied on hype and the gaming communities general impatience, to sell it either way while they still worked on finishing it and getting a much bigger and free QA/beta test pool. Not something i personally want to support/encourage.

if you're worried about overnerfing and it being too hard for you afterward - play a lower difficulty. Boom, instant old power levels.

It's called balancing. A spell shouldn't only be considered "cool" because it's OP. You want to be OP, play on normal/easy

I think what they meant was gamers want a cinematic or literary tale which also affords the conceits of gameplay, which, unless you make something like Uncharted or the Last of Us, is not possible in all formats, because player agency and experimentation and nonlinearity is involved. Something has to give. If , for example, the Witcher was really on a dire quest to save the one person in his life he truly unconditionally loved, he wouldn't stop every two seconds for every peasant who needed help. It's not possible because of a number of factors: Player agency/non linearity/lore as you said. Funding - this is not a Triple-A company and if you ask some, they are barely holding on financially. It seems to be one of those smaller devs that are being supported by the crowd and able to keep going because of it, not some faceless money beast that is just cutting corners for the sake of it. Time - they already had to sacrifice balancing the gameplay of the game and higher difficulties for bugfixing as they stated, having to do those post release instead. Level scaling straight up didn't work on release, there were plenty of bugs and performance issues on release still and a whole host of other problems. Where are they going to get the extra time and again funding, to increase the quality of the story in a game more than it already is - when there's so many other factors to consider? (that are arguably more important to the medium.) The fact that it is a game after all, as touched on - You may want to have the best of everything, but it's just not realistic. Some things are more important and more central than others in every medium and arguably the systems, mechanics, performance, bugs, balance, depth, length are all more important and then there's things like variety, audio, visual and other things that all need to be considered and worked on to end up at an above average level. Wanting to push the one aspect you happen to value higher than others, personally, is again just not a realistic expectation to have. I personally prefer combat depth and challenge and would rather that be expanded upon, but i get there are other needs. Etc. With the above in mind, it's a careful balancing act - where you can't just pump one thing, one aspect to suit individual needs. But rather shoot for a product that is great in all areas, rather than multiple areas suffering to make one amazing. So we get a "good" story, with good combat, good graphics, good audio, good exploration, good sized world that is also open etc etc. P.S I get it - the casual crowd just wants, again, an interactive novel. Well i'm sorry but there's more to a game than that, thank god. There are again other mediums that do specialize in that though. You can't have everything and if you ask me, the gaming industry and anything for-profit caters to you enough already. This is some nonsense and then some. Firstly, they did not 'sacrifice' balancing the gameplay, as they are fully committed to doing it and are currently doing as much - they merely gave relevance to things that they considered either more priorital or more essential for the game's end ambition first, that would either provide a worse player experience or would require far deeper and more fundamental changes to the game instead - things like, for example, game-breaking bugs, overall aesthetic, narrative design and so on. The choice to leave balancing for after release was done understanding exactly what kind of game they're making and what the game needs. Secondly, you assume "other factors are arguably more important for the medium". No. There are aspects that ought to be present, but whether one is more important to a game than another depends on each individual example. The Wolf Among Us isn't relying on the same qualities as League of Legends is, nor is it a worse game for it. With Deadfire and several other Obsidian games, the primary focus *is* a narrative one - they're making a spiritual successor to the Black Isle games, who all placed their narrative at the forefront and excelled at it. Story is of *utmost* importance, whether you look at the game as a product you're targetting to an audience or as an artistic endeavour. If Deadfire's story fails, then to the majority of its *core audience* the game will fail, and this is not something that can easily be corrected post-launch. As for the "casual crowds just want an interactive novel", **** that ****. Do you also argue that people who listen to songs just want sung poetry? Do you assume people who are into films with dialogue just want recorded theatre? Bollocks. And this utterly asinine stance wouldn't bother me so much if I hadn't heard it so many times before in this medium - as if this game didn't employ its every other aspect around the dialogue to tell a story as well. When you entered Fort Deadlight did you have to pick the option of "sneak", "fight", "bluff", or did you not simply do it? You assume your choices of action in the world itself outside dialogue do not tell a story? Audiovisual narrative is also a thing, or do you assume a film's narrative is only told through dialogue? Just so you know, videogames are an audiovisual medium too and thus employ many of the same devices. Who would have thought? If you feel a game with a narrative focus is too "casual" for you, maybe I can recommend trying another game? One like CS:GO or DotA perhaps, which actually focus around competitive play (and which I, filthy casual that I am, have also played at different stages in my life, but that's an aside)? You would do best there than to stick around a forum for a casual game full of filthy casuals. "This is some nonsense and then some. Firstly, they did not 'sacrifice' balancing the gameplay, as they are fully committed to doing it and are currently doing as much" I'm sorry but i had to stop reading your reply after the first sentence. You don't actually know what you're talking about. They actually said - their words not mine - that they had to choose between either bugfixing or balancing the game, a bit before release and went with bugfixing. So yes, yes they did sacrifice balancing actually (i did say it for a reason...) and i know they are fully committed to working on it but that's *post release* as i already said in that post. The irony is someone calling facts "some nonsense and then some"

I think what they meant was gamers want a cinematic or literary tale which also affords the conceits of gameplay, which, unless you make something like Uncharted or the Last of Us, is not possible in all formats, because player agency and experimentation and nonlinearity is involved. Something has to give. If , for example, the Witcher was really on a dire quest to save the one person in his life he truly unconditionally loved, he wouldn't stop every two seconds for every peasant who needed help. It's not possible because of a number of factors: Player agency/non linearity/lore as you said. Funding - this is not a Triple-A company and if you ask some, they are barely holding on financially. It seems to be one of those smaller devs that are being supported by the crowd and able to keep going because of it, not some faceless money beast that is just cutting corners for the sake of it. Time - they already had to sacrifice balancing the gameplay of the game and higher difficulties for bugfixing as they stated, having to do those post release instead. Level scaling straight up didn't work on release, there were plenty of bugs and performance issues on release still and a whole host of other problems. Where are they going to get the extra time and again funding, to increase the quality of the story in a game more than it already is - when there's so many other problems, too? (that are arguably more important to the medium.) The fact that it is a game after all, as touched on - You may want to have the best of everything, but it's just not realistic. Some things are more important and more central than others in every medium and arguably the systems, mechanics, performance, bugs, balance, depth, length are all more important and then there's things like variety, audio, visual and other things that all need to be considered and worked on to end up at an above average level. Wanting to push the one aspect you happen to value higher than others, personally, is again just not a realistic expectation to have. I personally prefer combat depth and challenge and would rather that be expanded upon, but i get there are other needs. Etc. With the above in mind, it's a careful balancing act - where you can't just pump one thing, one aspect to suit individual needs. But rather shoot for a product that is great in all areas, rather than multiple areas suffering to make one amazing. So we get a "good" story, with good combat, good graphics, good audio, good exploration, good sized world that is also open etc etc. P.S I get it - the casual crowd just wants, again, an interactive novel. Well i'm sorry but there's more to a game than that, thank god. There are again other mediums that do specialize in that though. You can't have everything and if you ask me, the gaming industry and anything for-profit caters to you enough already.

The problem is the mainstream majority market of casual players that are wanting an interactive novel. That are wanting the depth and quality of story of a novel or movie series - through the medium of a game. Instead of just going and reading a novel or watching a movie.. But they are the majority market so we need to cater to that more correctly, so it's Obsidians fault. (/s) Edit: I mean, they are already priority number 1, with even balancing of the game and especially higher difficulties - for people that actually play the game for the gameplay - having been all but completely abandoned until post release and so nothing more than an afterthought. But it's still not good enough apparently. That's what they get i spose.

Apparently balancing difficulty isn't important (they actually said it was a low priority) because apparently only 10% of the population play PotD (Even though they acknowledged that Vet isn't balanced either, so...) and even though a poll was done and 29% (almost a third) said they do/would/will play PotD and the youtubers that got early access also starting on PotD. So balance, especially PotD and Vet is being worked on post-release. Sad days when devs prioritize only the interactive novel side of their games, instead of you know - the gameplay. Guess that speaks more to supply and demand and the mainstream casual crowd, though it's devs' fault for chasing it so narrowly for the most $$$ possible. They only want to prioritize the biggest crowd and that doesn't include me? That's fine, i won't prioritize purchasing their product for a couple months, until it's done properly and is on sale, if i pay for it at all.