Ninjamestari

That's a false equivalency and you know it. Let's make every single character a unicorn that shoots rainbow-lazors out of their ass since we're already at "it's high fantasy, reality is out of the window and we can do anything we want". Hell, if that is the approach we take, why not make a game with ZERO gay people hm? I mean, it could be a fantasy world where homosexuality doesn't even exist. Or if anything goes with the fantasy, why not make a proper juvenile male fantasy where every single female character becomes a sex-slave to the player? The vast majority of the target audience consists of men after all, and you'd be surprised how many women are into that S&M domination stuff.

I'm sorry, but I just had to pick this one up. Which planet do you live on exactly? I mean, here on Earth, among our species who are called humans, enough marketing and manipulation of audience can make you a ****ing dictator A right marketing, of a right product, at a right time yeah. Better to make noise than not. It is a factor and an important one but not the only or main factor. I am opposing to the idea that people like “bad” things just because they are widely marketed or popular but that they provide something they want. Not all people, but a large enough majority that simply cannot tell the difference. Judging a movie isn't a simple process, remember how even a bad film could impress you as a kid simply through bombastic musics and powerful visual stimuli, and you didn't really understand what was going on? Most people never learn to see into the inner beauty of a story, and when asked on their preference, they simply like what they perceive to be the safe option that doesn't lead into being ridiculed. I understand that it's a difficult concept to accept, it took me a while myself to understand that most of the things I take for granted and feel as easy as breathing are far from obvious to the ordinary folk, but once I began to have more dealings with other people and opened up to the world, I found that people in general are incredibly lost with EVERYTHING. Just be approachable when dealing with the so called ordinary man, don't be judgemental towards them when they confess that they don't know or understand something, genuinely try to explain in common terms what you're talking about, and once they begin to trust you they'll open up and you can learn just how little they actually know and understand. It's an eye opening experience that helps you to appreciate not only the gift of mind that you have received as a birth-right, but also the enormous struggle the simple minded ordinary people face in this ever more complex world we live in.

I'm sorry, but I just had to pick this one up. Which planet do you live on exactly? I mean, here on Earth, among our species who are called humans, enough marketing and manipulation of audience can make you a ****ing dictator

Hah! You definitely could use Bethesda titles as an argument for not making games in the first place xD

Most people decide whether they like something or not based on what others seem to like or not. We are social animals and most people aren't really intelligent enough to be capable of any complicated independent thought. The average university student isn't always well versed enough to form accurate abstract understandings of what they want in a game, and they are smarter than about 90% of the population. When you go down to IQ 110 and below you can just forget about any complex original thought, that's about 73% of the population. Medically speaking, an IQ below 85 is considered borderline retardation, and that consists of about 16% of the population. The point is, if you're capable of forming your own opinions and rationally understanding them and have actual reasoning to back your thoughts, you belong to the minority, and you should appreciate the hell out of it and not take it for granted and water it down by believing that anyone can do it. The customer is, drawing from the general population, most of the time, absolutely clueless, and the ones that aren't clueless and actually have a good functional picture of what they want are the exception, not the rule. And I'm not talking about opinions about the smell of whale-puke here, I'm talking about role-playing computer games that are quite complicated and appreciating their intricacies requires a modicum of intellect, where as whale-puke just probably smells really bad because our nervous system is hard-wired to be repulsed by potentially contagious things such as vomit, and the smells that are commonly associated with them. In fact, in order to like the smell of vomit, you'd require quite a bit of mental conditioning to override your natural impulses.

is a few comic examples o' fans not knowing what they want... […] listen to fans, but don't trust they know what they want, 'cause chances are they do not. "Fans" is not a homogeneous blog with one opinion. There might be many vocal fans clamouring for something but whether they are a majority, or just a loud (and obnoxious?) minority is hard for the developers to judge. In addition, what fans say they want might not be what they need nor do the develop understand it right: Look at the date, not a new problem.☹ My first laugh of the day, thank you for that ^^ This is precisely the reason you don't want game devs to listen to the fans, they're all gamers themselves and if they know what they want, chances are we'll want the same thing. I want them to trust their own vision instead of worrying about what the fanbase.

But it does include Strength, and the more muscular Aumaua have more Might as their racial while the smaller creatures have a penalty to it. High Might means the character has both high physical strength and spiritual power, at least according to the in-game description. It really doesn't matter how many times you claim the opposite, it doesn't change what reads in the in-game description. I don't claim the opposite . I just say Might wasn't only Strength. You could perfectly think your POE1 character of 20 Might a not so muscular man but with great spiritual power. The concept of Might really useful for the mechanisms of the game but was clearly ill perceived by a lot of people. Let's resume my thoughts : until Obsidian find a way to adjust the hybrid classes, i still prefer Might as the one attribute source of damage. Even it means less characterization for the player. And give Resolve something else (there is a lot of threads about this). Two points: 1) The concept of Might indeed is BOTH, so you can't have one WITHOUT the other, leading to the muscle wizard. It's kinda like if you played a sorcerer in D&D and every time you raise either STR or CHA, the other one increases as well. Hence, you can't have a wizard that has great magical might without him being a pile of muscles as well. 2) This is the important distinction in my eyes, whic CONCEPT do you prefer, Might or Strength, and let's just ignore their actual implementation for now. The mechanics of PoE were always a bit wonky as far as build go, but I'm not in the beta so I won't comment on whether or not the current STR/RES setup makes things worse or not. I'm arguing purely from the basis of the concepts of the stats, and to me PoE 1 lost something fundamentally important when it went with the concept of Might instead of Strength.

You never had anything to say, you began a verbal conflict you couldn't win and now you retreat like a whipped dog, pretending to be the victor. Have fun with your chesthair, hope its real and not just disney-edition ^^

I think that after all that disgust, mankini-comments and bravado about drinking beer and propagating, it's kinda too late for you to pretend you're not riled up.

Smugness and Insults. I'm sure you've already began rationalizing reasons on why you should be considered manlier than me. I find it amusing how simple facts of life get some people so riled up.

Awww... you're so cute. Our biological role is to die in battle, if it wasn't only about 1 man would be born for every 10 women.

Reality often is to those weak of mind. Only those who have seen, and accepted, the ugly side of life can truly appreciate its beauty, and often it comes with the realization that the 'ugly' side is the very reason life is so beautiful. Truly accepting the possibility of death as an outcome is the best cure for nihilism in the whole wide world, and the ugliness of the world tells us why our actions matter, there are no second chances and this life we have here is everything. Wow ! Is this your Bleak Walker / Barbarian character speaking or you ? Really terrible thoughts... Count me in the weak and naive by the way. Perhaps a Cipher/Bleak Walker ^^ But it does include Strength, and the more muscular Aumaua have more Might as their racial while the smaller creatures have a penalty to it. High Might means the character has both high physical strength and spiritual power, at least according to the in-game description. It really doesn't matter how many times you claim the opposite, it doesn't change what reads in the in-game description.

It's not the killing part that causes PTSD, it's the constant fear of death and the utter inability to relax even for a moment. And plenty of those PTSD soldiers actually miss being in a battle. Men are warriors by nature, violence and killing is part of what we are, and denying that leads to these pathetic whiny excuses we call men these days. True manhood is forged in the fires of life, and violence and death and war are an essential part of that fire. Even our current pax americana that seems to be coming to an end slowly is built upon the capability to inflict unimaginable violence, yet war adapts and people find new ways to bring their enemies down. Only the foolish, naive and the weak actually believe that progress means moving away from our violent natures, when reality is quite the opposite, our capacity for violence and overall death and destruction has never been greater than it is now. I really don't get this attitude you have against archetypes, the wizard is a universal archetype that exists in reality as well. Not as far as magic and spellcasting go in the mythical sense, but in the sense that the learned and intelligent men create stuff that might as well be magic from the perspective of the common man. Magic is not a feat of the body, it has never been, it has always been a feat of the mind, and I have no idea why anyone would want it to be otherwise, other than to be an even more pretentious hipster stuttering around proclaiming how 'different' one is. Different =/= good.

I have been wondering about if for a while. Lvling system seems like a thing devs put in RPGs, but i am not always sure what role it’s supposed to fill. Getting stronger than enemies as you lvl up isn’t the only thing levelling does. It allows for gradual introduction of complexity (instead of dumping 10 spell levels you gradually feed them to the player giving him time to explore them couple at a time) and it allows for gradual definition of your character. I do wonder how game like pillars would play if numeric grow would be minimised - your accuracy, health, damage is determined via attributes and that’s it. You raise stats by equipment only, and with levels you get access to passives and skills but not much else. That way you could keep your enemies static. With more skills and passives, sure you would get much better, but mostly by use of said skills, which should be way more satisfying that doing way too good rolls in combat log. Use lvling to add tactical depth, rather than plain power. On top of that you can deal with flat numbers, rather than % making whole system more transparent. I think, i might like that. It's an interesting concept I'd like to see explored as well, the only problem is that game companies want to have leveling because it's a feature they've listed under the 'engaging' column in their budget meetings. For example, an mmorpg might work loads better if there was only a minimal stat progression or no stat progression at all, and you simply learn new skills and abilities when you 'level up'. In fact, I wouldn't even call it a level-up, I'd have some sort of free xp system where you use xp directly to buy your new abilities. That would solve the level-gap problem where people can't play with their friends if the're not on comparable levels. Obviously the game would need some sort of new driving force instead of continuously upgraded gear, but the idea itself is something I like. In a system where power increases via leveling however, a low level monster becoming ridiculously easy to beat is not a 'problem' it is a feature of the whole idea of leveling, and if that is not desirable, I'd much rather see no statistical power progression at all. EDIT: I'm not sure if I'd want Pillars to take this approach. On one hand, I think it would be a powerful immersion enhancer, but on the other hand I kinda like getting more powerful as well. One thing is for sure, *if* they chose that approach, I would definitely be willing to adapt, if for nothing else than to see how it plays out.

@Lephys I'm still talking about algorithmic scaling of monster stats/encounters to fit the level of the player/party. This very specific thing is the thing I'm talking about, not having encounters of different levels at different point in game. Having level 10 mobs in an encounter that happens when the player is going to be around level 10 is *not* level scaling in this context, having level 1 bandits that are scaled up to whatever level the player is when he reaches that encounter *is* what I'm referring to when I speak of level-scaling. I've already explained the problems of level scaling, and so has Tigranes, who arguably may have explained things better than I did. Other than those points, level scaling monsters is pointless. The power curve that matters is not the player's power curve, it is the player's power curve in relation to the enemy power curve. Scaling enemies does the exact same thing as flattening the player's curve does. Like I said, there's absolutely no point in having a mechanic just to negate the effects of another mechanic, IE having scaling to negate level growth. If that's the idea, then it's just better to have no levels at all. So relax, you obviously went on a full rant mode there. And as far as call of duty goes, an fps game shouldn't have any ****ing levels in the first place, problem solved. Remember when fps games were just the fun "pick up a gun and start shooting" without any of that "you need to play this amount of time before you're high enough level to play the actual game with the guns you want" - bull****? I don't play fps games anymore because I have zero interest in committing to a leveling process in a ****ing first person shooter. Damn, now I'm going to rant mode, I ****ing hate these new fps games that all try to incorporate all sorts of mmorpg-skinnerbox crap in order to have people play their ****ty games. If you need incentives to play a shooter game, then the game probably isn't that fun to begin with. The power curve that matters is not the player's power curve, it is the player's power curve in relation to the enemy power curve. Scaling enemies does the exact same thing as flattening the player's curve does. Like I said, there's absolutely no point in having a mechanic just to negate the effects of another mechanic, IE having scaling to negate level growth. If that's the idea, then it's just better to have no levels at all.

Except that if you want static challenge, then there's no point in level scaling when you can just remove player power progression altogether. There's really no point in having one mechanic in the game just so you can negate its effects with another. But the real question is, did you use a 'shrink monster' - scroll or did you run behind the troll to spank it repeatedly in its hairy ass? ^^

Actually I did, I also gained the wisdom to realize that not everything that comes out of an IMAGINATION is gold, most things it produces are actually quite stupid. Muscle mages being one of those things.

This simply isn't true, every single great visionary brand builder can attest to this. The customer by and large doesn't know what he wants until he gets it. EDIT: sometimes not even then.

Finally, so this is the root point we fundamentally disagree on. I don't think a more challenging encounter is always the more interesting one. An encounter can drive narrative without being challenging, and an encounter not being very challenging can drastically affect the mood of the whole quest, providing for a multitude of different possible experiences from a single quest, rather than a single one. This is an especially strong point if you run through a game multiple times, as if you make different decisions on your path of progression, the contrast just might keep things incredibly interesting. Take the four planets of KotOR for example, the ones after Dantooine; I found a lot of value to the fact that I could experience each place differently depending on when I chose to venture there. Blasting through Korriban as the final planet after the big reveal felt satisfying and right, while going there first provided for a more oppressive atmosphere that I also liked.

.... How about you just answer the original question, how is a filthy beggar-bandit being a challenging encounter to a hero that has killed dragons and demigods? What you want has absolutely zero to do with level scaling. Do you mean that you want all the side narratives to be completely separate from the main experience, in a way that a side quest is the same in terms of what happens irregardless of what you've done elsewhere in the game? I mean, based on what you're saying I get the picture that you don't really know what you want, you just have decided to argue on behalf of what you perceive to be the 'centrist' position in the argument.

I don’t know what games you have played but there are some Games, especially Obsidian’s, with some really neat characters, storytelling, pacing and tension building. Way more engaging that “TROLL SMASH” followed after 20h of grind with “ME SMASH”. I don't know what you're talking about, I was talking about level-scaling vs static levels.

Meh, I agree with him, the lady really doth protest too much ^^

What does 'seamless' storytelling even mean here? That troll that pounds you at level one reinforces the story just as much as that hapless little bandit that effectively commits a suicide by challenging you at level 20. It reinforces the narrative by actually demonstrating the growth of the character, just like Luke begins as a farmboy and ends up a Jedi Knight. Having some bandits be a challenge for your fully prepared and equipped slayer of dragons and demigods definitely breaks the flow of storytelling and immersion, and I wouldn't call it seamless, and I definitely wouldn't call it 'gameplay supporting the story'. Also there the logical mess caused by level scaling where a power-gamer might find out that gaining levels actually makes you less powerful at certain points, which is an incredibly powerful way to kill any enjoyment the game might offer in terms of stat progression. Level scaling doesn't solve any problems that can't simply be avoided with better design, which is what we want in the first place. We don't want to have level scaling because we don't want the devs to have the lazy-option. Other than that Tigranes really didn't leave much to add, that longer post of his pretty much sums everything up.

Intelligent people like blowing stuff up, as it is usually the most efficient method of dealing with a problem. I mean, intelligent people have been coming up with more powerful ways to blow **** up for all of human history, and we've come up with some pretty powerful stuff. The simple solution is usually the intelligent solution. Only an idiot would begin to waste time doing an elaborate plan if they have the capacity to just blow **** up; cunning is the last resort of an intelligent mind, and the first resort of a dishonest one. Not really true. Intelligent people build their bomb, or tool, or weapon, and then someone with far less intelligence but a significant more amount of might misuses their invention to further their aspirations. The Wright Brothers probably didn't envision the B-52 bomber, Albert Noel thought Dynamite would be a peaceful deterrent, Einstein was under the false impression that the American people were better equipped to morally handle Atomic weapons for the safety of the world. Often times the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and there are many examples throughout recent history of great strides in scientific engineering that are then used by lesser men with a greater capacity for violence. It's a very interesting subject, but definitely not in line with the point I was trying to make. I could try to be more more clear with my argument: A strong character can rely on using strong explosive magic, but lacking the Intelligent for using crowd control spells effectively he likely wouldn't consider their implementation since he lacks the long term strategy of a more Intelligent mind. An Intelligent mage without the physical power to unleash a torrent of fireballs would likely prefer to divide and conquer his adversary by using his magic so that fireball mage can more effectively do his thing; After all there's always that annoying dextrous rogue that just nimbly dodges all of your super powered fireballs. You could certainly have a powerful wizard who is also very intelligent and thus has more options available as well, although the way the game is set up this means you'd need to have to give up something else to make that kind of character. My point is that these characters are available to us with the way Might is in PoE, but muscle mage loses his identity and purpose if wizards have no want of strength. Might as it is now gives us greater role playing options. Intelligence doesn't exclude the capacity for violence, our cowardly culture simply is so afraid of it that everyone has to pretend like they don't enjoy using force. Some people pretend so hard that they begin to believe that lie themselves, but it's all bull****. Winning a conflict always brings in a rush of happiness for everyone, and if that conflict is physical, the rush is even more powerful. It's simply our basic biology at work, and it is a universal phenomenon in pretty much all animals, including us humans. Also, if you think that intelligent people don't like to blow **** up, then you really haven't met many intelligent people. Also, an intelligent character definitely wouldn't consider using crowd control against enemies he can simply kill with a thought, you're confusing a very specific interpretation of moral virtue with intelligence here. That being said, Might doesn't give greater role-playing options, as it excludes the character that is weak physically but wields considerable magical might. It restricts us to playing the muscle-wizard. I've got nothing against the idea of using physical strength in better channeling magical powers in other contexts, but the whole idea behind a spell is that it's arcane, it is secret knowledge, that gives it power, not muscle mass. I've got nothing against special talents that let you utilize Strength for spells in some way, or specific spells that for example conjure a powerful force-field that you need physical strength to manage properly, but that can be just as easily done with spell/talent design without sacrificing the traditional mage.

No, I fully believe in 1) and don't consider it extreme, and wish it were simply common sense. Ok, good to know. But wouldn’t that require a pretty much linear game? In case of Deadfire, yeah we opened up the world but if you go in any other direction than we plan for you to, you die because only this location is at your level? On the other hand, if you open a lot of content for lvl 1-5, than once you ge past that point those areas won’t be fun. In addition if the world is very open you risk spending a lot of time going to different places, getting killed and looking for a place you actually can complete. For a story driven RPG seems like a big misstep. I get that some creatures need to be powerful, and some need to be weak. But how about human robbers, bounty hunter etc. Does their relative “lvl” to each other really matter, if their only role is to create an obstacle for you alone? No, it wouldn't require for the game to be pretty much linear. Why would it need to be? There's nothing wrong with asymmetrical experiences with difficulty between different chosen orders of progression. This is a false boogeyman, the game is meant to be played by the player, not the other way around, and that means that the player will adapt to the game. That's the whole point of a game, to learn how it works and adapt, not "I do what I want and the game has to adapt to it", that's just bull****.