Hormalakh

Nah, I don't want a Hormalakh difficulty level nor do I want to make a poll about this. There's been plenty of vitriol both in this and previous thread when discussing save-scumming. Ironman mode was one mode determined to let those of us interested in playing a more "risky" form of the game to do so. But honestly, there are legitimate reasons as to why you wouldn't want such a mode. Bugs destroying a game being one of them. My OP was meant to encourage a discussion on how to implement innovative methods to dissuade save-scumming on harder difficulty levels without only having one save-slot. As in previous threads, I was told to "leave us kids alone!" I have come up with another solution to this problem however. Literal save-scumming. I'll just keep a copy of my iron-man mode save game in a different folder and when I reach a bug, I'll find my old iron-man mode save game and replay it from a last save. It's not exactly optimal, but the point was for saving to not be optimal. Having to keep moving savefolders is a pain and I'd only really do it in exceptional cases. *troll* Otherwise I'd play noob-version quicksave. */troll* Edit: This isn't to say that not allowing saves in certain situations/locations or allowing c&c to ripple down further in the story aren't good ideas. I hope that those are implemented in the game in either case.

Prosper, are you Mr. Phipps back from the dead? Those designs are so SoA, it's uncanny.

Which is why I'm scared of playing Ironman mode on my first try. I don't want to ruin the story, but I want a difficult experience with some semblance from Ironman mode.

Even just some sort of party formations ala Baldur's Gate would be refreshing. I have been playing Civ 5 quite a bit recently and it is really hard on the scroll wheel -- so much so that my finger is starting to get sore. Be careful what you wish for when adding more functionality to the scroll wheel. good point.

This board has been dead for quite a while. It was crazy when the kickstarter was going. Right now, it's relatively quiet.

A little bait and switch, some baseless assumptions and subtle implication that the way you like to play games is "normal". Nice one. Will probably fool many people into thinking that you actually have a point here. Nice one. Will probably fool many people into thinking that you actually have a point here.

Bingo. That's the point. Your choices don't matter. You find the most optimal and go with it. I'd do the same thing. But if I knew that if I picked a certain dialogue option, that would be the only time I could choose unless I started the game over, I would actually sit and think about my choices before making them. If you want to do that, fine. But I want the game to make me consider my choices as a one-time thing.

Well...yeah. The Devs design the game the way it is supposed to be played. If it is designed to be incredibly easy then I will judge it to be so. I suppose I could play the game not wearing armor or not casting spells or whatever as an attempt to artificially make it more challenging but then I am not playing the game as designed. Nobody flipped out during the IE games that we couldn't save during battle that I noticed. Or was that a really huge outrage? I don't remember. He wants it to be significantly worse than just not saving during combat though. It's funny. I've never owned a console and most of my gaming has been on PCs. My original post wasn't a "this is the way you should do it" post. It was an observation. I don't need others speaking for me, thank you. I can speak for myself. Now I will admit that I was being a little snarky with my earlier post, because namely I really hate the "don't dictate how I play my game" line. It's worthless and smacks of antagonism and negativity. My point was something else completely and it's irksome to have to wade through the bile spilling from the texts of some of you to find something worthwhile. Now that that's over, having a modicum of self-control and putting down arbitrary game rules on myself is fine and all if I want to play a challenge run. But if I want to play on a harder difficulty, I would expect the developers to take into account easy ways of "cheating the system" and working out mechanics that take these into account. Not saving/reloading your game is all fine and dandy when you theorize about it, but when it comes to actually playing a game where you've actually spent a good deal of time developing your party members and all of a sudden you lose one to a dumb move, it's really easy to convince yourself that the AI screwed up, etc. Cognitive dissonance is a *****. Sometimes everyone needs a rule forced on them to seriously gauge their actions. Everything about a game should convey an atmosphere. Even the metagaming aspect. This isn't to say that everyone has to play this way. Easier modes can have innummerable save states, etc. But I would like a game mode where my loading and saving is a more difficult choice to make, but not as dangerous as an Ironman mode where serious screw-ups (bugs, or some other horrific thing) which are not my fault are actually hindering my experience and will to continue playing the game.

I don't care about your experience. I care about mine and I don't want to put an arbitrary limitation on myself that the developers either didn't consider or that it wasn't implemented because they were scared that "casual players" would hate it. If they allow me to save at any point, then I'll do so. Then I'll say the game sucked because it was easy.

^ Yeah, I know that feel bro. See my thread on save-scumming. I did want to tell you though that I expect to be disappointed in this game and I think a lot of people will. Everyone wants something different and there will be aspects that players will want that won't be implemented. It's just the nature of an idea. Everyone has in their mind a different idea of what P:E will be. And they hype up the game in their minds with interesting ideas that don't fit the developers vision. At the point when the game comes out, many people will whine and complain as to why their game idea wasn't implemented. Then they'll be disappointed. For no reason other than the fact that they had imagined the game differently than the developers. So ... just a way of saying (I guess to myself) keep your expectations low, and you'll be happy with the P:E results.

It's about evocation. Barbarians and monks evoke a certain idea and thought in many people's minds. Even the paladin does. Look at the threads, people are calling the paladins "warlords really." Once we knew that paladins were not the old D&D cliche, we accepted it. We understood them to be different and some people jut found it easier to think of them as warlords. The fear -illogical, I admit - that I and many others like me have is that these classes have been named thus because they will reuse those ideas from past games. A lot of us hated those ideas of monks and barbarians as tired old cliches. Then we see class names like "chanters" instead of bards and refreshing new ideas on "paladins" and wonder why haven't the monks and barbarians had either new names or explanations? Why call them monks and make a companion fit the old stereotype? At this point, people start to freak out. Yeah, it's illogical, but we don't have much else to go on. We worry that these names of classes are not only meant to evoke the idea of older D&D classes, but are actually the same as those old thoughtless classes. The only thing we have is a class name and a companion that evokes that old cliche. Why should we think that they will do anything different with monks or barbarians? At which point I started thinking to myself, why do we use the word class? What does this word actually mean? Why am I tired of seeing monks/barbarians described as classes but not fighters. Fighters also have tropes, but I'm more likely to accept them than monks or barbarians. Hence why I started this thread. I didn't know why. I've got some answers from some of the posters (mokona to name one) and even some insight to why I hated these "trope classes."

Would you be ok with a lockpick game where if you pass the skill check or are borderline passing, you'd have to play a mini-game just to get the chest open? If you fail the skill check, then you aren't allowed to play the mini-game at all. That way your characters skill check (and role-playing) is intact. That would be one way to incorporate such a skill-check into an RPG. The other main issue I see with mini-games is that it breaks up the flow of a game. If you're dungeon crawling and you have to play a mini-game that takes from 1-5 minutes to do everytime you reach a chest, that's taking you away from the flow of fighting enemies and adventuring deeper into the dungeon. You keep having to change your focus on what you were doing and shift focus to a new way of thinking. This doesn't play well in a game. It feels like you're being forced to play a game you didn't want to play in the first place. And you're penalized (lack of loot) for not playing the game (lockpicking). When I go into a dungeon, I expect monsters dying and me looting their corpses and adventuring down. Lockpicking chests and doors and setting off traps. Throwing me into a different game that I'm not expecting can be frustrating. This is why lockpicking mini-games that are forced everywhere are annoying. If I'm in the city and the thieve's guild requires me to beat all their locks and this is a separate mini-game, then I'm fine. I realize that I'm going into a separate gaming style and either I want to do it or I don't. Same with poker games and gambling or even crafting. As long as I have the expectation of a different game and this doesn't take away from the "flow" it wouldn't be a problem. Lockpicking and hacking mini-games everywhere take away from the flow of dungeon-crawling or combating. Hope this makes sense.

I've made a thread about how hotkeys are the best things everand how P:E would just suck without a good hotkey functionality (and well-organized UI to match it). Check out the signature! But now, it's time to hit the mouse. Most mice have two buttons and a scroll button in the middle. Unless you're a macbook. Then you've got some crazy....off topic. So, let's see how we can use the mouse scroll button to best effect! 1- Scrolling up and down quickly switches between party members. 2- Scrolling up and down allows you to move through the inventory screens. 3- Scrolling up and down allows you to switch through dialogue options. Any other effective ways we can use the mouse scroll button? Some scroll buttons also have a third button (inside the scroll button! I can hear the *oooohs* now.) How can we use that one?

I really want to ruin everyone else's gaming experience. Really I do. That's the only reason I made this thread in the first place. I don't care about my own gaming experience - it's everyone else's that takes prime importance. If I can ruin it in any way possible, then I will. I will get into the developers minds with my magical mind-controlling powers and tell them what to do. It has nothing to do with the fact that when a game doesn't take game mechanics, including saving, into account, that the experience can get ruined for me. I don't care at all about the fact that when a game is trying to make a certain point in the gameplay by putting in permadeath and then allowing me to load/save at will that this game mechanic and experience goes out of the window. I should just "control" myself and put in arbitrary rules that the game or its developers haven't considered. ----------------------- For the story perspective I can always play easy. But if I want to play hard, then make it hard. Don't go soft on me now. Instead of saying "don't ruin my game," I'd like to hear from those of you who have experienced games where the saving/loading mechanic worked really well with the game mechanics. These forums are a place for ideas and vetting them. I have concerns about Ironman mode because I have heard the horror stories of bug-ridden games ruining a whole game and some of the concerns about saving are legitimate (families, priorities, dumb AI, to name a few). While I have high hopes, I want there to be different ideas being experimented on how to reduce loading/saving misuse (happy now geek squad? I didn't say save-scumming. Rejoice). This was one idea. If I wanted pure negativity, I would have gone to the codex.

Being promised 92 virgins as a reward would hardly qualify an action as selfless. It's 72 virgins. And not all suicide bombers kill for that reason. Many have material considerations (money being given to families) and some even do it because they see no other way to bring about a resolution to their conflicts. Like the topic, we're discussing here, suicide bombers have gray areas when it comes to morality. One of the best "evil" characters I've fought against was the final boss in Arcanum. He was evil and I'll always argue that he was evil, but his speech was written so well that people actually had to make a RL decision as to what he was saying was evil or not. It was very well done. The fact that I know some forum members will disagree with me on whether he was or was not evil makes him a great evil character. If only most of our evil characters were that way.

Wow man good job. This is so much easier to read.

^Why don't players feel the same way about some of the other classes? Has obsidian already shown how they handle barbarians , monks, etc in other games? I believe this is their first tiem doing this without having to resort to D&D classes (NWN2). They could do whatever they want with any of the classes. Making them all very interesting to play would be to the benefit of everyone.

Kung-fu is not the only unarmed combat style in the world. For those interested look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_arts. There are unarmed combat styles found all throughout the world with different styles and foci. A brawler with soul-endowed powers being able to inflict significant damage (at high-levels) against plate mail wearing enemies can make sense. Just like most lower level weapons cannot damage plate mail too effectively, lower level "brawlers" wouldn't be able to either. But you can bet that an experienced unarmed combatant can make a plate-mail wearing enemy have a difficult time in combat. Now endow them with "soul-magic" or whatever, and they can punch through plate. If magic is acceptable so should soul-based unarmed combat. Shaolin monks do spend an inordinate amount of time breaking brick walls and all that too...

Is there even a consensus regarding what exactly is an RPG? HAH! No, there isn't. Read RPG codex's taxonomy project for that bit. Like 47624323 subgenres in RPGs.

I hate monotonous combat too. It's one of the things so many people gripe about when talking about grinding in RPGs. The fact that we won't get XP in this game for killing enemies will finally be a reason where I will try not to kill everything in sight just to level up. I hated that mechanic then. I hate it now. I've also tried coming up with different ways of making the combat more interesting in other thread (AI thread, variation in combat, hotkeys, defeating enemies using different skills, etc). The only times combat is nice is if you beat something truly difficult (like a dragon in BG2) and get some bit of pride of being able to "figure out the mechanic" that works best behind that combat. Otherwise, it's grinding. Dialogue is always fresh and new (for the most part) and once again that's why I don't mind dialogue. Imagine having to convince each NPC to talk to you through a series of convincing dialogue options before they would talk to you EVERY SINGLE TIME. I would find that annoying. It's monotonous and becomes a chore after the third time. But because each NPC gives you a little bi of the story and you get different choices in dialogue, it never loses its appeal. I've also had plenty of posts on thread regarding dialogue and how to keep it fresh on these forums. So all of this isn't to say that mini-games are worthless. I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying that mini-games can be worthwhile if 1) implemented correctly 2) are varied enough so that they do not become monotonous 3) fit the gaming genre. RPGs are known for combat, dialogue, loot, and C&C. These, in a way, can be seen as mini-games occurring within an overall theme. All these (combat, dialogue, loot, etc) become monotonous if not varied enough and many gamers gripe about them all the time. Adding other mini-games is not really a problem if done well and varied enough THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE GAME to not become boring or hackneyed. But they should follow a few rules that the RPG genre itself follows (unless aRPG). 1) It shouldn't be based on a players dexterity (how fast you can click something) 2) It should have multiple solutions or consequences 3) It should take into consideration the skills and attributes of the character being role-played. 4) It should be varied enough to not become a grind. So following these above rules and considering what I've said already, with the main elements of an RPG being considered mini-games, I don't think anyone really has an issue with more variance on what you can do in an RPG. The issue then becomes a problem of developer time and resources. Every dollar or minute spent coming up with another mini-game is one that isn't utilized to implement core features that the developers have promised for an IE game. If they finish everything that they've promised (the main aspects of any RPG) and have time left over, sure I think they should onsider making robust, varied, and fun mini-games in certain aspects of the game. One place is the crafting mechanic. Making that aspect more fun to play would be a welcome sight. But they should keep in mind the above rules of an RPG: 1) it shouldn't be based on how fast you click 2) C&C 3) take into account character skill and attributes 4) not become boring after third time playing. Creating a mini-game that fits the above rules is not as easy as you may think. If you have good ideas, then by all means suggest them to the devs and the forum.

OK. Just cuz you said so. It was only an observation.

^I don't know whether to answer you in this thread or the minigames one. I've decided to answer you in the minigames one instead. No point in repeating what I said.

Bejeweled was an example. Take your pick on the mini-games. I showed you jacksmith, the flash game. You can bet I wouldn't want to be forced to play that game everytime I wanted to craft something. Once you get the hang of the mini-game, it loses its flavor and excitement. At that point, I don't want to do it anymore. I bought an RPG, not a set of mini-games. The puzzles I was talking about were riddles and such. Puzzles don't always mean the weirdly shapen cardboard cutouts that you have to fit together. Sudoku is a puzzle. Crosswords are puzzles. We have a whole lot of different puzzles. All of these puzzles, if implemented creatively, would be fine "mini-game" to have in the game. But I don't want endless iterations of any of these puzzles. It also isn't being suggested that mini-games are the only repetitive aspect of RPGs. All grinding aspets of RPGs are hated by gamers, specifically because they are evil ways poor developers try to artifically extend the "hours of gameplay." It feels like a gimmick because it is. All of this is not to say that short mini-games that change the pacing (as someone else eloquently put it above) of the game isn't a welcomed and refreshing addition to the RPG. Btu don't make the game some sort of Super Mario Party.

^ For ships and giggles. Seriously though, it's meant to be a reminder that some of these classes really need a fresh rethinking. Also ciphers are doing quite well in the polls. I don't remember any IE game having that. I find that interesting. It seems that players are more likely to play interesting classes than boring, old, thoughtless rehashes.

I don't want to sing the praises of save-scumming or force anyone to play the game in a different way or anything like that. I just want to make an observation. Take it how you will and respond with your own observations. In older games, we had less save-scumming. Know why? Because saving a game took a really really really long time. Players had to balance their impatience with their laziness. If they wanted to save the game or reload they would have to consider waiting quite a bit of time before they could play again. This was removed with quicksaves and quickloads. You got your saving "fix" every 2 seconds and going back to redo a decision could happen in a relative "flash." Saving a game has has its negative reinforcement removed and the best way older games reduced save-scumming was due to a technoogical limitation. Imagine having to wait 2 minutes every time you loaded or saved a game. Or 5 minutes. Enough time to get a sandwich and a drink. You can bet loads and saves would decrease. And ironman mode would just become a more hardcore form of this. Of course, bugs always become the bane of this. Just an observation. Developers and players can do what they will with this observation. As always, a relevant XKCD comic can be found. Text: After years of trying various methods, I broke this habit by pitting my impatience against my laziness. I decoupled the action and the neurological reward by setting up a simple 30-second delay I had to wait through, in which I couldn't do anything else, before any new page or chat client would load (and only allowed one to run at once). The urge to check all those sites magically vanished--and my 'productive' computer use was unaffected. http://xkcd.com/862/