Please! Less classes, races, factions, companions, regions, and other features!

[dlux]

Lets make the game only 1 hour long, but make it the best hour ever!

[Cantousent]

I think multi-player can adversely impact single-player when the devs committ a substantial amount of time balancing things from a multi-player perspective. If they do it with the single player in focus and add the ability for more than one player to join in the game, I'm fine. PvP tends to really throw a wrench in things. Balancing for PvP takes a lot of time and effort and I firmly believe it comes at the cost of PvE/single-player.

[Monte Carlo]

I'm going to be generous, it's in my nature, and give the OP a chunky C minus.

[Uomoz]

PVP? What???

 

Anyway, OP, 5\5.

[draft1983]

Lets make the game only 1 hour long, but make it the best hour ever!

 

Let's make it a 30 min game of unparalleled epicness and we also are all sent a tea bag so we can feel and taste the experience with a nice cup of tea too!

[TrashMan]

Why isn't there a Dislike bottun for posts?

 

Is there a point to this thread at all?

[alphyna]

You know, my problem is not with the opinion of "I personally never use feature X, so I really wouldn't get much out of it being in the game." This is a 100% valid opinion. Where it gets annoying is more where people who don't care for feature X go to great lengths to try to justify how that particular tiny piece of the game will completely ruin the game for everyone by sapping resources, while at the same time championing other features that equally take resources. The same argument could literally be made for any feature that exists. If it's a feature you wouldn't like, just be honest and say you wouldn't like it.

At the risk of being annoying I want to point out that some features are mutually exlusive. Sometimes I actively object to something being included for that exact reason.

[SirthOsiris]

Why isn't there a Dislike bottun for posts?

 

Is there a point to this thread at all?

Try the first post about burning from satire. It's pretty much what most of the arguments have been; hundreds of opinions wanting the resources devoted to what they believe will make a better game, at the cost of what others believe will make a better game.

[anek]

At the risk of being annoying I want to point out that some features are mutually exlusive. Sometimes I actively object to something being included for that exact reason.

 

I agree.

 

It is telling that the OP had to go so over-the-top with the satirical exaggerations in order to make the satirized viewpoint look silly...

The reason is that a moderate version of it is not silly at all.

 

If you answer each and every design decision during the creation of a game with "All of the above!" and "Lets make it optional!", the end result will simply not be very good.

 

One example is the idea of bringing the game to consoles in addition to PCs. The problem is, that you can either have gameplay that is optimized for mouse+keyboard and gets the maximum benefit out of them, or gameplay that is optimized for console controllers and gets the maximum benefit out of them. If you dumb the gameplay down to the point where it does not make much difference whether it is being controlled with a console controller or a mouse/keyboard, you loose something.

 

Other examples are features that can affect the game balance - like item durability, having to keep characters fed, or multiplayer. You can either include the feature in question and then balance all the NPC hitpoints and dropped items and whatever for that scenario, or you can exclude it and then balance the game for that. If you're just blindly going to say "I don't care, lets make it optional so players can decide" then some (or, in the worst case, all) of the players will have an unbalanced game.

 

And of course, there's always the issue of limited developer resources.

 

So to sum it up, I think it is perfectly valid to express concerns about how features requested by some fans will adversely affect other features or the overall gameplay experience.

 

And it fact, fans expressing such concerns can function as a much-needed corrective against the selection bias in forum threads/polls discussing such optional/additional features: If those who don't want the feature in question for themselves simply don't participate in the discussion (like the OP seems to demand) and those that do want it participate aggressively, then it will give the impression of 100% community support/demand for the feature, even if the group that demands it is actually a small minority.

Edited September 25, 2012 by anek

[NerdBoner]

I'll probably only play a Human fighter and get bored of the game 15 minutes in because it makes me read too much.

[Spess Merhenn]

I was shaking with mad when I saw the title.

2/10, you got me for a second.

[qloher]

10/10 goes to OP, pretty good satire on those I-don't-want-a-cirtain-feature-so-no-one-should-have-it-so-put-all-the-money-somewhere-else-period people.

[mayfaire]

I'm cancelling my pledge and giving it to Alweth. Make that game.

[Ieo]

10/10 goes to OP, pretty good satire on those I-don't-want-a-cirtain-feature-so-no-one-should-have-it-so-put-all-the-money-somewhere-else-period people.

 

Context: OP and other hardcore MP supporters want MP at the expense of SP design. There really are design issues that are mutually exclusive (but going by Bobby Null's post, that's only if you want quality MP, implying crappy MP shouldn't affect SP as much).

[qloher]

Thanks, Ieo, context helps indeed. I have nothing against sub-par multiplayer (better than nothing for those who are into it, huh), yet good multiplayer at the major expense of SP design is not acceptable. Seriously.

Still I find it amusing to apply the first post in this topic to anti translation/anti Linux & Mac versions/anti romance/etc. crowds.

[alphyna]

If you answer each and every design decision during the creation of a game with "All of the above!" and "Lets make it optional!", the end result will simply not be very good.

Yup.

 

I never strongly object against cosmetical things like, I don't know, finishing blows (it's just an example). But there's an obvious distinction between the features that can be turned on and off without any real difference (aesthetics aside) and those which influence the core — of gameplay, of the story, of whatever. I'll never use multiplayer. I don't need it. If it can be implemented without touching the core, then sure — I understand that I'm not the only one who's going to play this game. But can it? And if it can't, I feel like I can express my opinion — hell, I think I should — so that the developers know what the audience (me being a part of it) wants.

[timobkg]

I'm one of the ones that wants co-op multiplayer. I'm not willing to sacrifice the singleplayer experience for the coop.

 

From what the Dev's have said, you can have great singleplayer with no coop, great singleplayer with mediocre coop (the old IE games), or great coop with mediocre singleplayer. You can't have great singleplayer and great multiplayer in a text-heavy, dialog driven game.

 

If we're not willing to sacrifice the singleplayer experience, that leaves the choice of no multiplayer or mediocre multiplayer, and at that point, it's kind of hard to argue for multiplayer.

[TrashMan]

Try the first post about burning from satire. It's pretty much what most of the arguments have been; hundreds of opinions wanting the resources devoted to what they believe will make a better game, at the cost of what others believe will make a better game.

 

And this surprises you?

Edited September 25, 2012 by TrashMan

[SirthOsiris]

Try the first post about burning from satire. It's pretty much what most of the arguments have been; hundreds of opinions wanting the resources devoted to what they believe will make a better game, at the cost of what others believe will make a better game.

 

And this surprises you?

It always seems to, but after thinking about it, not really...

[SqueakyCat]

Please! Please! Let this thread die a fiery death!

 

There's already a thread to discuss MP if that's, in fact, the core issue for this 2/10 thread (sarcasm fail). It's hard to tell since there doesn't seem to be any one focus to it.

Edited September 26, 2012 by SqueakyCat

[Azrayel]

LOL @ the Op. That was great!

 

 

EDIT: I plan to have my character look like the babe in my avatar picture. I don't know what she's from, but if it's not a copyright issue, please use that image for the PC. Otherwise, something as close as possible.

That's Viconia!

 

Which brings up a semi-serious point. Dark elves. I'd be interested to see what, if anything, Obsidian's gonna do with regards to Elves, and their lore.

 

The "Lake of Drow Tombs" on the map really made me think Dark Elves would be included; also, there's the Elf concept art but yes I hope this doesn't become another rehash of the same old Tolkien plagiarism-- but considering this is Obsidian? AND they get to do whatever the hell they want? I mean...

 

These are the people who rolled out the chaste succubus. I don't think they're going to disappoint on this front.

[Calabain]

No multiplayer, no god, please no.

 

Obsidian is already going to be dealing with a tight budget and schedule. The creation of multiplayer, especially good multiplayer, would remove many resources and much time from the development of the single player experience.

 

We're not talking about some inconsequential or minor feature here, like the OP seems to be implying.

[Knott]

Ach!

Here's a solution to lay the entire multiplayer debate to rest:

Let's add some SOCIAL FEATURES!

[Aedelric]

At the original post;

 

How true of so many roleplaying games these days, kinda makes me sad.

[Bos_hybrid]

Still no to multiplayer.