How forgiving is your cup of tea? (plot difficulty thread)

[exodiark]

There are gameplay difficulties, but I think it would be better if the plot is challenging as well :D

So, what do you think?

 

For example, Morrowind belongs to "Hard."

If you kill plot-important NPCs, you will get a "you should feel bad" message and you can't continue the main plot, therefore "game over."

 

For JRPG players, Persona 3 and 4 also belongs to "Hard"

Edited September 20, 2012 by exodiark

[Infinitron]

This isn't an adventure game. There isn't really a "plot difficulty".

[cyberarmy]

Voted hard.

 

Also lol at Sierra

[Jiraboas]

This isn't an adventure game. There isn't really a "plot difficulty".

 

Why not?

[exodiark]

This isn't an adventure game. There isn't really a "plot difficulty".

 

Why not :D?

It doesn't have to be as much as adventure games, but one or two plot pitfalls can really make the game more exciting

[BruceVC]

This isn't an adventure game. There isn't really a "plot difficulty".

 

Why not?

This isn't an adventure game. There isn't really a "plot difficulty".

 

Why not :D?

It doesn't have to be as much as adventure games, but one or two plot pitfalls can really make the game more exciting

 

I agree, the plot choices should influence other choices but not where you can't finish the main story. There should be consequences

[Athokas]

I voted 'hard' though I was inclined to vote ' old school' :D. Though it might scare others away, I feel some of the appeal of these old school games is, that they are so difficult and unforgiving. Remember in NWN when you would spend a lot of time clearing a dungeon just to get instant-killed by the first trapped chest you try to open and having to do it all again? Or in BG1 when, if playing as a mage, the first wolf you met in the forest could kill you in one hit? I think this unforgivness - frustrating as it is - brings an intensity and reality you just dont find in the modern cake-walk games.

 

BTW. remember when you chose to attack Gorion, just to check out what would happen? He'd say "What are you doing, my child?" before blowing you to smithereens with magic missiles! :D

[SanguineAngel]

I'd rather not see game over partway through the game. Maybe a different [still satisfying] ending or a change to main plot. But it would be swell if these large decisions are not telegraphed to the player Bioware style.

 

Although when it comes to being killed, hard please. Punishing traps! Tricky NPCs. Having to actually think about what you are doing. No to decisions made 10 hours ago killing you now but yes to doing something stupid/unlucky and going splat

Edited September 20, 2012 by SanguineAngel

[exodiark]

I voted 'hard' though I was inclined to vote ' old school' :D. Though it might scare others away, I feel some of the appeal of these old school games is, that they are so difficult and unforgiving. Remember in NWN when you would spend a lot of time clearing a dungeon just to get instant-killed by the first trapped chest you try to open and having to do it all again? Or in BG1 when, if playing as a mage, the first wolf you met in the forest could kill you in one hit? I think this unforgivness - frustrating as it is - brings an intensity and reality you just dont find in the modern cake-walk games.

 

BTW. remember when you chose to attack Gorion, just to check out what would happen? He'd say "What are you doing, my child?" before blowing you to smithereens with magic missiles! :D

 

 

It's true!

Nothing gives me more pleasure than reloading my saved games from 2-3 hours ago XD

[Monkcrab]

Voted hard.

 

'Pay attention to the plot' should mean REALLY paying attention to the plot, though, so actually my 'hard' might as well be 'Very hard'....

 

Why are we assuming game over plot choices will be there, anyway?

[exodiark]

Voted hard.

 

'Pay attention to the plot' should mean REALLY paying attention to the plot, though, so actually my 'hard' might as well be 'Very hard'....

 

Why are we assuming game over plot choices will be there, anyway?

 

Well, some old RPGs have game over choices/ bad ending/ etc. Since they're making a classic-style RPG, maybe there will be one or two?

[kenup]

LoL at the Sierra choice! I guess I would go for something between Hard-V. Hard and old school. But I wouldn't mind if they put in the Sierra one as a joke! I always hated that bethesda is hand holding the players. "Oops you can't kill *important* NPCs", or "Oh you shouldn't do that, now go take that other just as easy route".

[generic.hybridity]

I like multiple endings some of which are harder to achieve. But all of which involve the plot unfolding and being revealed in a similar way. But perhaps more people die or the PC has to sacrifice themself. Things of that nature.

[exodiark]

LoL at the Sierra choice! I guess I would go for something between Hard-V. Hard and old school. But I wouldn't mind if they put in the Sierra one as a joke! I always hated that bethesda is hand holding the players. "Oops you can't kill *important* NPCs", or "Oh you shouldn't do that, now go take that other just as easy route".

 

Yeah :D, I was hoping there will be an equivalent of FONV "Wild Wasteland" in PE. That way Obsi can put as much as joke they want.

[Orchomene]

I think a game over based on a preceeding choice is not a good design choice.

I'd better see some endings that are allowed only if the correct choices are made. Not 'better' endings, different endings. There is no reason to have an objective classification of how great the endings are.

[Krisko1974]

generic.hybridity makes a good point. I already liked this part in ME2 - haven't fully upgraded your ship or sent the wrong NPC to do a job? Bad luck, half of your crew dies. Being able to save them all gives you a real nice warm feeling. I'd love to see this in another game.

 

But please: No plot-stopper, no matter how stupid you may act.

 

So, my choice is: "hard".

[The Sharmat]

I'm all fine for choices leading to suboptimal conclusions, negative consequences for the player, deaths of favored companion characters, changes to sub plots and game endings, etc...

 

But in terms of making a choice that actually locks you out of any end game scenario entirely and ends without a conclusive story arc? No thanks.

 

That said, in specific areas I have liked the few games that have had one or more alternate "game over" scenarios, wherein "MISSION FAILURE" or the like doesn't simply appear on screen and force you to reload. Something like the alternate end to Mass Effect 2, or the famous "But the future refused to change." ending of Chrono Trigger. But presumably that would only occur in the end game.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I'm all fine for choices leading to suboptimal conclusions, negative consequences for the player, deaths of favored companion characters, changes to sub plots and game endings, etc...

 

But in terms of making a choice that actually locks you out of any end game scenario entirely and ends without a conclusive story arc? No thanks.

 

 

PS:T did that, too. Just sayin'...

[Theobeau]

Hard and yes to the idea of multiple endings and pathways that require certain choices to unlock.

 

Natch also increases replayability.

[The Sharmat]

PS:T did that, too. Just sayin'...

The ones I'm thinking of there were so obviously terrible ideas that I find it hard to believe no one saved before doing them, so I wasn't really counting them.

[septembervirgin]

I prefer Infocom to Sierra but Sierra is pretty cool. I noticed their influence on the mansion belonging to Hawke in DA2. "The eyes seem to follow you..." was from at least one Sierra game.

 

I think "plot forgiveness" is not so much the issue as plot flexibility. In old school games, they really didn't have enough memory room to accommodate many choices and solutions. Now all the designers need is patience and wit.

 

xyzzy!!!

[General_Disarray]

I'm a save-scum by nature so I'd be very happy with hard to v.hard.

 

Not doing something minor early game completely destroying you late game has always struck me as utter bollocks though. An interesting and serious consequence? Totally up for that, but not a total end game.

[general_azure]

If you want to harshly punish players for foolish actions, either do it immediately or make the game still beatable with a modified ending imho. I don't mind being vaporized for taunting the robed stranger, but finding out hours later that you can no longer finish the game because the guy was important is just annoying and leads to more people using walkthroughs.

 

So no for delayed game over (realms of arkania, wing commander), yes for poorer endings (fallout, mass effect) or instant obliteration (the necromancer in torment). Wonder where that places me in the poll =P

[Poolp]

I voted hard but I still think if you get a game over or if you're stuck because of some choices and no way to fix the situation: the game has a serious design flaw.

At most "wrong" choices should have consequences and make things getting very complicated or next to impossible, but still we should have a narrow chance to get back on track.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Poolp

[exodiark]

If you want to harshly punish players for foolish actions, either do it immediately or make the game still beatable with a modified ending imho. I don't mind being vaporized for taunting the robed stranger, but finding out hours later that you can no longer finish the game because the guy was important is just annoying and leads to more people using walkthroughs.

 

So no for delayed game over (realms of arkania, wing commander), yes for poorer endings (fallout, mass effect) or instant obliteration (the necromancer in torment). Wonder where that places me in the poll =P

 

I guess hard or very hard :D

Old school and Sierra are pretty much significantly-delayed game overs.