ogrezilla

Except that the resources spent on making optional easy modes are resources that could be better spent on more overall content. I don't get how people can't seem to grasp that this game is going to be made with a limited budget versus a AAA, publisher-backed title. It's quite literally a zero-sum game. Money spent on X will be money taken away from Y. And yet much harder modes are part of the 2.3 stretch goal--this can mean one of two things: (1) Obsidian only cares about catering to the hardcore gamers and carebears be damned. (2) Easy and normal modes (and probably a "regular harder mode," just not "hardcore") are already guaranteed. (1) makes no sense because Obsidian wants actual sales of the game post-production, and the only way to do that is to allow more casual play, however subjective that is. (2) makes far more sense because the I.E. games always had different options including easy. Probably all of Obsidian's other games too. The problem with your viewpoint is that you're stating it as an absolute binary when market forces dictate otherwise; in other words, this isn't like romances where you're going to get stuck in the game somewhere by a companion conversation. Combat mechanics are so pervasive and fundamental to the CRPG that allowing player adjustment is a very basic and absolutely necessary form of accessibility. Locking out a goodly number of potential players for a game that Obsidian wants to franchise on post-production sales is very dangerous--this sort of thing won't happen with/without stuff like romances or cosmetics or lack/presence of a given race. There must be, at minimum, easy/normal/hard modes. In terms of finer distinctions, this should be very easy for Obsidian to compartmentalize by discrete combat mechanics, as they explain the piecemeal nature of the 2.3 stretch modes. Aaannd, I totally missed Bobby Null's post earlier, so that's that. If it's a design goal from the outset, I can't really complain. I guess my argument is against anything bolted on to cater to a niche crowd. I'm like Jasede as per his post a page or two back. RPGs are based on characters with statted skills used to achieve an objective. Maybe it's balls-out combat. Maybe it's theivery. Maybe, still, it's diplomacy based on relevant stats. What I find mindboggling are those who want a "tra-la-la let me skip through the lands of PE, making friends with NPCs, larping toilet use, and decorate my house for when I marry my companions" sort of thing in a game that's presumed to hearken back to the late 90's era of CRPGs. A huge reason why that era is worth hearkening back to, I think, was that it was BEFORE all that stupid let's play pretend stuff came about. didn't this game just hit a big stretch goal to unlock the player house? Inspired by BG2? I honestly have no interest in it aside from having more quests, but others seem pretty happy to see it back.

I've played them relatively recently. I didn't really play single player computer games when I was in middle and high school when these came out.

this really seems counterproductive to the point of these modes. Its too small to change the way the game is played, but its enough to give you a slight edge that you clearly aren't looking for when picking these modes.

I enjoy the old IE games and thought DA1 was a decent game. Not as good as the games this is being modeled after, but enjoyable enough to play through. I have never played DA2. That said, I wouldn't contribute to a game like DA either.

Okay. If catering to casuals do not affect the game you and i will play, then why are you here? I mean, how come you found yourself in a situation where you have to resort to Kickstarter to get the game you want? How did this happen? catering exclusively to them does. that's not what anyone in this thread has asked for. Not a single person. This entire thread is about an optional easy mode. Its always "not what anyone in this thread has asked for" and "optional". Same story year after year,oh how many times have i heard that... did you hear it when they had easy mode in all of the old IE games? did it bother you then too? this isn't something new. It bothered me very much when i got Dragon Age 2 instead of old IE games. And decline from BG2 to DA2 happened because of apologists like you. no, because I am not defending simplifying games at the base level. Having a game like this include and easy mode and succeed would be better for the chances of this type of game coming back than having this game only sell to hardcore fans.

i can't believe he said chilax is elvish. my immersion is ruined.

Okay. If catering to casuals do not affect the game you and i will play, then why are you here? I mean, how come you found yourself in a situation where you have to resort to Kickstarter to get the game you want? How did this happen? catering exclusively to them does. that's not what anyone in this thread has asked for. Not a single person. This entire thread is about an optional easy mode. Its always "not what anyone in this thread has asked for" and "optional". Same story year after year,oh how many times have i heard that... did you hear it when they had easy mode in all of the old IE games? did it bother you then too? this isn't something new.

nobody is doing that. people are calling them obnoxious for wanting something they don't care about and some of us are defending people's freedom to have their own opinion. the ones accusing others of ruining the game industry by liking an easy mode are the ones being obnoxious.

Okay. If catering to casuals do not affect the game you and i will play, then why are you here? I mean, how come you found yourself in a situation where you have to resort to Kickstarter to get the game you want? How did this happen? catering exclusively to them does. that's not what anyone in this thread has asked for. Not a single person. This entire thread is about an optional easy mode.

but they aren't doing anything different with difficulty than the old games. The old IE games had difficulty adjustment that allowed for an easier experience too. Just like this will do. No change for the game you or I will play at all.

Not unless she shrunk several sizes. Seems to me that people has a problem more with he size than the plate shape. right, that modification just made them fit into a smaller space. The realistic fix would be to use the shape of that modified image, but expand the whole front of the plate out more instead of just making boobplate.

read the thread. or just the dev response in my post towards the top of this page.

Only problem is, she would not fit in that. Most probably, she would. without measurements we just plain have no idea

Meh, just trying to adjust myself to you. And speaking of adjusting, I condemn your views on challenge in games, not the adjustable difficulty. I actually prefer difficult games.

No, the first one is from Wes Burt, an artist of Massive Black, a company that outsources art and 3D assets for game developers. This concept, specifically, is for the Rohan-themed expansion of Lords of the Rings Online. that's the best one of those for sure. I like that a lot.

I could. There are many things I could criticize about The Witcher 2, but I think that in terms of general art direction and costume/armor design they are simply unmatched at the moment. Same . So, why is Witcher's art direction so great. And please don't tell me it's *realistic*. if those three are all from the witcher, I like both guys but the girl looks silly with her two crooked belts and the weird whatever that is over her shoulders. She looks sillier than Cadegund and her boobplate.

why is that woman's clothes all crooked? And why does she have straps for no reason?

You realize some people have other things to do in their life than reloading and trying to get better at a game ? If some people feel like doing so, good for them if it is their enjoyment. Other don't. Yet they will accept funding the game, or buying it, thus contributing to its success, provided they are offered an option that allows them to play it the way they want. Actually, I don't. It seems pointless to me to play a game if you don't want to get any better at it. It's like playing soccer but not trying to win. Where's the enjoyment in that? Maybe you get some out of it. I don't. I don't want your way of playing a game to infringe on my way. Hopefully there will be options to make sure that is prevented. you haven't read the thread I take it? It was confirmed that there would be separate options to make the game easier. Bobby Null is a Developer of the game So will there actually end up being some form of easy mode then, that's separate from regular mode? To reiterate my earlier post, I think a lot of gamers shy away from bumping up the difficulty, not necessarily because they want a casual experience, but because they view default as the optimal or intended form of the game. With that in mind I think it's important not to make the default difficulty experience too accessible or "dumbed down". It should really be a happy medium without the hand-holding of an "easy mode", or the hardcore brutality of the difficult modes. I totally agree. The default mode should, and will be, a challenge for the average RPG player. I've not spoken to Josh about specifics for an "easy mode". This will either be a mode in and of itself, or we'll have a few options to lower specific gameplay features to more casual levels. Again, the goal will never be to trivialize the default difficulty settings.

a game engine doesn't dictate how far a camera can zoom.

last I heard characters will be 3d modeled and the game may allow zooming. as for being a discussion about nothing, absolutely.

unless you are looking down instead of up...

The main purpose of a video game is to provide enjoyment and some people enjoy games with less difficulty. The idea of making games accessible and appealing for the widest group possible is quite recent invention. If it's main anything, then at best it's one of main reasons why modern games sucks. Besides, it's a game for a specific group. Not a dumb facebook minigame. Maybe you didn't noticed, so I'm pointing it out. Fat, lazy casuals, people not interested in games, kiddies with short attention span- trying to make the game attractive for those people brings nothing good. this is one of the worst posts i've ever read. you know the old games had adjustable difficulty right?

voted the dwarf for portraits but the others for concept art. The dwarf looks better and more artistic, but the general purpose of concept art of a character is to actually show what it looks like right? The other style does a better job of that in my opinion.

you don't need robotic eyes to see the difference with armor in something like ToEE.

The main purpose of a video game is to provide enjoyment and some people enjoy games with less difficulty. This game should not cater to them. why not? does it hurt your experience with the game?