Data4

Years ago, there were discrete genres in gaming. You had your RPGs, your shooters, your adventures, simulations, sports, strategy, etc., etc. Each genre catered to a specific type of gamer, and gamers had many options to choose from. Then development budgets increased. Such increases meant that more sales had to be made to recoup the capital. To increase sales, a wider audience needed to be attracted. What if we incorporated shooter mechanics in our RPG? Then shooter fans would buy it! What if we put in multiplayer features with competitive modes in it? Then the fighting game fans would buy it! What if we gave the players trophies in the form of achievements that they could share online for bragging rights? Then the dudebros who, lacking any real sense of self worth, would be able to wave their e-peens around! It would be glorious! Except... it lead to mediocrity. RPGs in particular, once a domain of the... perhaps nerdier, geekier set who enjoyed a more cerebral gameplay experience... turned into yet another mishmash of wide market appeal catering to the lowest common denominator (usually some vague descriptor like "fun" with fuzzy metrics). So with the promise that veteran developers were going to go back to the old school and deliver a more pure RPG the likes of which haven't been seen in a long time, we flocked. And we're protective. We don't want compromise. We don't want to see the game adopt modern bad habits. So when things like Romance or Multiplayer or Achievements or modern socio-political issues rear their ugly heads, some of us attack with fierce determination. We feel like this game shouldn't be all things to all people. It should be a game for RPG nerds who fondly remember those old cheeto-stained character sheets and 20 sided die coated in pizza grease. It should be exclusive. It should treat idiots like idiots. It should boldly declare that "You must be THIS intelligent to ride!". Overreaction? No. It's necessary vigilance.

I've got it! Dusk Elves! They will be the mortal enemy of the Afternoon Elves. No, No, No. Dusk Elves are the mortal enemies of the Dawn Elves. Afternoon Elves despise Morning Elves, Noon Elves, Midnight, Etc. Why must I go through this every signal time this discussion pops up?! Gosh! And let's not even mention Twilight Elves. Oh ****, I just did, didn't I?

Achievements: A meta-game feature that sprung up in the early to mid 2000's designed to coddle snowflakes and tell them how special they are.

I like being presented with choices and consequences in all aspects of a RPG. It allows for more strategic and intellectual play. So in the case of party formation, I like the idea of having to pick and choose and then live with the decision. Having a troupe of characters to choose from for any given scenerio is too easy-mode. I also like the idea of characters having a life of their own, so one or two may decide to go their own way. But for such a thing to be balanced, there should be the opportunity at some point to replace what is lost. So if Bob the Wizard decides he's happier frolicking and picking spell reagents in the Fields of Bababooey or whatever, another spellcaster should come along at some point.

KILL IT WITH LAVA!!!

so, if i understand You correctly, You think that people wish for co-op because of a grand marketing hoax, and not because it's actually fun to play? No, I think people think "Hey, I like shooting crap up with my friends in COD and duelling in WoW. Wouldn't it be awesome to do it in _______!?!!?" "Fun to play" is as subjective as my opinion that it's useless in a RPG. And to the person up there calling those of us who don't want multiplayer selfish-- Yep. About damn time, too. All-inclusiveness breeds mediocrity.

6 pages of discussion means my points have already been made, but screw it. Multiplayer: No. Hell no. Single player game. Mass market games a la COD, Battlefield series, and MMOs have turned a generation of gamers into expecting multiplayer as some kind of norm. Not for a RPG in the style PE is supposed to be. Yes, other IE games had it, but to be honest, I never read about how people yearn for the days of co-op like they had in Baldur's Gate. To add multiplayer just for the sake of adding multiplayer would, imho, embrace some of what a good chunk of us who are turning to games like this and Wasteland 2 are trying to get away from. Homogenized **** for everyone. Blah. Moddability: I voted don't care, as it's not something I feel is necessary for making the game complete. I wouldn't be opposed to it, however. Localization: I voted no, but only because it's already planned and likely budgeted (or at least projected in a post-release budget for follow-up development if revenue is generated).

I don't think it's Obsidian doing it. I think it's people wanting the game to pander to their pet socio-political issues.

RPG =/= Storytelling. Dear Esther is thattaway ---> Okay, yes, a good story helps add to the total package of what makes RPGs good, but if one requires 3D whizbangery to get their story... well, see above.

Old school character sheet. Simulated dice rolls and all that jazz. And sweet Jesus on a jetski, no facegen or anything deeper than hair and skin color in the visual department.

Factions (if present) that co-exist with one another. What I mean is I would like to see choices matter. If you pick A, then some things available from picking B no longer become available. I want to see groups opposing one another rather than living in a vaccum. Yes, this would mean cutting off, say, 30% of the game during any given playthrough, but that's the wrong way to look at it. If the game is designed to take appx X amount of hours to finish, but there is Y amount of content to account for the various pathways through the game, it still means that a single game will still only take X amount of hours. Want to see all the Y content? Start a new game and make different choices. Want it all at the same time? Try www.bethsoft.com

Any concession to a sense of entitlement that detracts from the core vision of the game, whether it's romances intimate encounters with NPC's, representation of 21st century Earth socio-political issues, or the ability to see and do it all in one playthrough.

I cast my vote for the "Socially well adjusted and with an active and healthy sex life" option, or #6.

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.

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.