MountainWest

I think a only a very low percentage of the people asking for more difficult combat cares about having the best possible character. I know I want more difficult combat because it would force me to consider what tools I have at my disposal - spells, items and so on. I want a tactical approach to combat. If just plain mindless clicking lets you win a battle, that's what you'll do. Especially with the rest and auto-ressurection-feature present in NWN2 - features that makes battles win or lose and nothing in between. There's two problems with this quote (which I happen to agree with): 1) There's *a lot* of combat in RPGs. Personally I'm finding it harder and harder justifying to myself doing something that's just not fun, just to get rewarded a cutscene every hour. That said, a truly great story will have me fighting through waves upon waves of goblins. PsT, for example, is my favorite RPG to date and it has abysmal combat. But as it is, great stories aren't the norm. Well written? Yes. But a hundred games later, no matter how well written, it's no longer fun to start out as an unknown who ends up traveling the world and ultimately saves the world from the ultimate evil. It's been done. Time to move on. 2) Great story doesn't rule out great combat. Both in one package shouldn't be a far-fetched dream in a world with 6 billion potential developers. Crippling oneself would be an option in a game with fun combat - I do it in FPSes. Crippling oneself so that you can click on the same waves of goblins is hard to justify.

EDIT: Saw your post now, Hurlshot. I don't know who Roshan is. I guess I've been reading the Codex for too long, thus becoming used to everything being more or less an attack. I'll let my post beneath stand, as I dislike erasing stuff once it's posted - you never know if someone's already started reading it. But take it with a grain of salt. /EDIT This is my last post defending myself against one-liners. Yes, I'm sure he just meant nice things by first disagreeing with me - not adressing any of my suggestions - and then putting an equality symbol between me and someone I'm sure isn't well liked. My fail safe internet psychology evaluation tells me: 1) He didn't read my post beyond that I didn't like unlimited saving. 2) He saw that I didn't enjoy NWN2, a game he likes. 3) He decided not only to disagree with me, but also making an unnecessary MW = Roshan connection. Why I don't know. I am taking this with a grain of salt, but I'm still unsure how or where I disagreed with you. My one liner was "For those of us with small children and difficult schedules, a flexible save system isn't just a preference, it's a necessity." That's hardly argumentative, it's simply a statement about life, and it was made to support the folks who mentioned needing to leave quickly for work. The one-liners I was refering to was the one I quoted and the one where someone wondered how one could possibly be physically challenged while playing a video-game. I guess I might have included your "MW = Roshan" since, at the time, I thought that Roshan was a less liked member on the boards. And for disagreeing: I wrote: You wrote: I didn't want unlimited saving. You wanted unlimited saving for whatever reason. If that's not a disagrement, then I'm not sure what is. Had you not included "MW = Roshan", then you could've said that your post had nothing to do with my post and furthermore that your line wasn't a disagreement with what I wrote. But you did add the second line. So: You write MW = Roshan, you write what you want - which is the opposite of what I want - and then you want me to think that you don't disagree with me? So, what was the meaning of of the "MW = Roshan"-line? An out of the blue honest question like "Dear fellow board members, thost thee believe MountainWest to be the same gentleman as Roshan? I be mighty interested to know." And at whom was the question directed? You must have known I would read it. What did you expect? That I would say "Yes, I am Roshan"/"No, I am not Roshan", and then be done with it, even though your previous line was seemingly in contradiction with what I wanted? ?

EDIT: Saw your post now, Hurlshot. I don't know who Roshan is. I guess I've been reading the Codex for too long, thus becoming used to everything being more or less an attack. I'll let my post beneath stand, as I dislike erasing stuff once it's posted - you never know if someone's already started reading it. But take it with a grain of salt. /EDIT This is my last post defending myself against one-liners. Yes, I'm sure he just meant nice things by first disagreeing with me - not adressing any of my suggestions - and then putting an equality symbol between me and someone I'm sure isn't well liked. My fail safe internet psychology evaluation tells me: 1) He didn't read my post beyond that I didn't like unlimited saving. 2) He saw that I didn't enjoy NWN2, a game he likes. 3) He decided not only to disagree with me, but also making an unnecessary MW = Roshan connection. Why I don't know. No, I shouldn't have answered his post. Just to make it clear for people who feels offended by me not liking NWN2. No, I'm not a fan of Obsidian. Not yet. But I am a 'fan' of some of the people working for Obsidian, like Sawyer and MCA. People who always express their opinions in a way I respect, even in the cases when if I don't agree with them (Bethesda-Todd being their antithesis). I wouldn't be here if I didn't know there's talant to make an RPG I'd really like. As a matter of fact MCA already has: PsT. I'm also eagerly anticipating Sawyers 'The Black Hound'.

Roshan = MountainWest = J.E. Sawyer? Hardly. I don't like unlimited saving, but I can understand why some people do. And really, I don't see what your problem with my post is. My first suggestion was to count the number of saves and rewarding the players who don't save at every turn with a simple acknowledgement at the end of the game - it won't affect you. My second suggestion was to implement a one-time "emergency save" at every session, thus giving players who play before they go to work, or have children like yourself, a chance to save at any time. A third suggestion would be to make it a choice at the beginning of the game, just like easy/normal/hard is. Actually, your criticism is egotistical and unwarranted. "I have children so the game must let me save at any time. MountainWest = idiot?" - instead of writing that piece of useless text you could have given a suggestion on how to solve the problem so that we both could enjoy the same game to the fullest. Something I at least tried to do. But it's easier to just say no, eh? Not having to think.

I usually use my hands, eyes and reflexes when I play an FPS. How do you do it?

Not really. I'd call it more ranting than rambling. Maybe a rambling rant. It just seems to me that we've got out priorities out of whack. What is the deal breaker for a game? Is it the save scheme? Is it insta-death? What combination of factors discourages you from buying or even playing a title? The over-all non-challenge, combined with the (well written) run-of-the-mill story in NWN2, has made me question wheter I should get Mask of the betrayer or not. I'm not being challenged, neither physically nor mentally, thus I'm not having fun. I now know that the combat will be even easier in Mask of the betrayer, thus the story is all-important. Sure, if the story is anything like PsT's I'll get the game at release day. It's not about bragging rights. Bragging about your accomplishments in video games, at least among my friends, would result in you getting laughed at/given a stare like "Aren't you a bit too old to be playing video games?". No, my cRPG-hobby is a well kept secret. It's about that feeling of "I did it". Kinda like when you're warming up for a soccer-game, shooting at an empty goal - you go for the cross, not just putting the ball in the middle of the goal. Both have the same result - the ball is in the net - but succeding with the first gives you a good feeling, the latter does not.

I certainly don't hate to admit it. I think it's pretty weak. Allowing the player to only save so often or at certain locations emphasizes the importance of resource management over time. I think it adds an interesting gameplay element. That said, designers have to be very careful about how they space those save points throughout gameplay to avoid frustrating players. Heh, I thought I was alone on this one. I've always disliked the "save everywhere"-philosophy. Sure, it's my choice to save - but it's a choice without a consequence, thus making it hard, if not impossible, to resist. At least it's borderline impossible to me. But! There are games where I have no problem letting the F5-button rest (if there had been one): Survival Horror-games on the consoles. Yes, the consoles does something right. Upon completion of those game you get graded based upon how many times you've died, saved and on what difficulty level you've played. I'm sure a lot of hardcore players (I do count myself as one, if not by D&D-knowledge, so at least by the 20+ years I've been gaming) will say that this is a childish feature that doesn't add anything to the game in itself. Perhaps, but nevertheless, I like it. It gives me a reason - a very small one, but still enough - to play carefully. I like that sign at the end telling me that I've done something good. It makes the frustration (I'm looking at you damn insta-kill-knife-fight in Resident Evil 4) all worth it. It's also an easy thing to implement; just a couple of counters, a simple script and some static graphics. As for not letting people save anywhere and at any time: Sure people will whine that they can't quit whenever they want "or must quit because their long lost aunt Hilda just knocked on the door" and jada jada. Alright, allow one "emergency-save" at every session, problem solved. The real problem I see is the number of bugs in the games today. I have no problem dying 10 times in a row in the "Resident Evil 4 knife fight ", then having to fight my way back from the last 'chapter-save'. It's my fault. It's a punishment for my lack of skills. But having to play through a difficult area twice because of a bug, that will make me frustrated. Then again, ever since playing Ultima Lazarus I've wanted to go back to the time when there was no auto journal, so I guess my beliefs are somewhat dated. On topic: Here you basicly say that the battles were tuned for nubz, unless you see yourself as something beyond a hardcore player. I never got to Tholapsyx, so I can't comment on that particular fight, but I did play the game set on hardcore, and I did play up until the 'ruins of season'... or whatever they were called (it was during the castle building-part). Besides one or two fights, I found no challenge in NWN2. I never had to use buffs or any fancy tactics -things that would and should have made the combat even easier - it was just your typical realtime click&kill and some fireballs for good measure. And the rest-feeature made sure there was no Phyrrus-victories either. Now, appearantly, the expansion will be even easier, though with the twist that there'll be a couple of optional 'hard' fights thrown in. But if those fights are optional, won't winning them make the main quest even easier? Won't the final boss - becuse we all know there will be one - be a walk in the park then? Or does the game scale? Or are the optional fights not giving out a reward? (The reward could of course be uncovering additional information about the story, something I would be more than fine with... if the story is interesting to begin with. Though, I doubt story could be seen as a reward nowadays). Or is it more like in Final Fantasy where there's an optional superboss (Ultima) which is more or less the real 'end-boss' for hardcore gamers? Though, in FF there's probably more additional hardcore content (at least counted in hours) leading up to an even fight with the Ultima-weapon, than the 15 hours making out the entire Mask of the betrayer. Bah, I'm rambling. I don't know. Sometimes it feels like developers, in their quest of not 'frustrating' the players, forgets that overcoming obstacles is a big part of what makes gaming fun. Or at least made it fun back in the days when gamers where the target of games. Or perhaps I'm just an idiot who doesn't understand that killing stuff with powerful stuff is what gaming is all about.