Just how Easy will Easy be?

[Freddo]

Wow, lots of rudeness here. What a pleasant community Project Eternity have already

except you can't control the conversations in most books or movies. so no, this is quite different. He also said he enjoys creating and advancing the characters. There is a lot to enjoy in a game like this aside from the combat.

Indeed, you don't get an interactive experience from books or movies at all.

[Tuco Benedicto]

I have a feeling you are not in the majority on this site then.

The "majority" more often then not doesn't even know what they are looking for.

I know plenty of people that can't even tell exactly what they enjoy and what not out of a game they are playing, let alone suggest good features for an imaginary one.

 

either way, I would classify interacting with the story as part of the story.

But it isn't. It's definitely part of the game mechanics. That's why even books with branching narrative are usually called "gamebooks". Because making choices and facing the consequent outcome is the "gamey" part of them.

[Thulean]

This is an RPG, the story should always come first.

 

 

Totally disagree. Combat should come first. Fluff is just fluff.

[DRevan]

And how are MMOs supposed to be a good replacement for a single player RPG?

 

Of course, in RPGs, like in graphic adventures, story is far more relevant than in other genres and can add a lot to the experience, but it still is "additional value", it shouldn't ever be the core purpose of the experience.

 

MMOs are better suited for that style of play.

Let me ask you that: what's the difference between level grinding in an MMO and level grinding in a single player game?

[ogrezilla]

alright, that's fine. It really doesn't matter since we're arguing about the terms being used more than the actual point.

[Tuco Benedicto]

MMOs are better suited for that style of play.

No, they aren't. Once again sounds like you don't even understand what we are actually talking about.

 

Let me ask you that: what's the difference between level grinding in an MMO and level grinding in a single player game?

No one ever mentioned "grinding levels", not even incidentally. Stop trying so hard.

[ogrezilla]

This is an RPG, the story should always come first.

 

 

Totally disagree. Combat should come first. Fluff is just fluff.

I love the combat in RPGs. It can make or break the game for me. But calling the story "fluff" in a game designed largely around interacting with the story is ridiculous to me. I expect to spend pretty similar time in conversations as in combat in this game.

[Thulean]

This is an RPG, the story should always come first.

 

 

Totally disagree. Combat should come first. Fluff is just fluff.

I love the combat in RPGs. It can make or break the game for me. But calling the story "fluff" in a game designed largely around interacting with the story is ridiculous to me. I expect to spend pretty similar time in conversations as in combat in this game.

 

I hear you. I generally don't care what the story is really though. I wouldn't even mind some generic save the princess from the evil wizard storyline. I do appreciate atmosphere though which the story plays a role in.

[DRevan]

No, they aren't. Once again sounds like you don't even understand what we are actually talking about.

 

Let me ask you that: what's the difference between level grinding in an MMO and level grinding in a single player game?

No one ever mentioned "grinding levels", not even incidentally. Stop trying so hard.

 

An RPG with a story dumbed down to just "flavor"(your own word), is usually a dungeon crawler/MMO style of game. No point denying that.

I hope that's not what Obsidian is aiming for.

[Delterius]

I'm talking about that pack of bandits that should be a walkover

 

I don't see why that should be true.

 

This is an RPG, the story should always come first. If you want challenge then you should choose the challenge. If you don't then you should choose easy. But choose for yourself without mocking other players.

No, this is first and foremost a game, and story never comes first in a game, not compared to game mechanics, balance, user interface, overall fun and so on.

Of course, in RPGs, like in graphic adventures, story is far more relevant than in other genres and can add a lot to the experience, but it still is "additional value", it shouldn't ever be the core purpose of the experience.

interacting with the story is a major part of most IE games. as is character creation and progression. those are all part of the game mechanics you speak of.

 

And they are all designed for and around combat. If combat becomes pointless (and by pointless I mean whatever satisfies the 'only for the dialogues' player base), then those mechanics are pointless as well.

[Ieo]

This is an RPG, the story should always come first.

 

 

Totally disagree. Combat should come first. Fluff is just fluff.

I love the combat in RPGs. It can make or break the game for me. But calling the story "fluff" in a game designed largely around interacting with the story is ridiculous to me. I expect to spend pretty similar time in conversations as in combat in this game.

 

I'm guessing the people who believe combat mechanics > story "fluff" have never played or didn't like PS:T, one of the "greatest."

 

PS:T, now that's the fluffiest game ever. With pink sparkles even.

 

 

On-topic: I expect 'easy' mode will be IE easy. I also expect there will always be a minority who cannot handle game combat mechanics, though, who like a couple friends of mine had to use cheats even for DA:O's easy mode (srsly). To be honest, I expect players to at least try to understand and use the game mechanics to best effect, maybe asking for tips or something; because not doing so, playing "only" for story/characters like my friends do, and then complaining about difficulty later is actually offensive to the efforts of developing balanced game mechanics for a CRPG.

 

A holistic CRPG of this genre should include all elements of game mechanics, story, character depth, and world building in a balanced way. For me, that means the holy trifecta of PS:T + BG + IWD. With extra fluffy pink sparkles.

[ogrezilla]

I'm talking about that pack of bandits that should be a walkover

 

I don't see why that should be true.

 

This is an RPG, the story should always come first. If you want challenge then you should choose the challenge. If you don't then you should choose easy. But choose for yourself without mocking other players.

No, this is first and foremost a game, and story never comes first in a game, not compared to game mechanics, balance, user interface, overall fun and so on.

Of course, in RPGs, like in graphic adventures, story is far more relevant than in other genres and can add a lot to the experience, but it still is "additional value", it shouldn't ever be the core purpose of the experience.

interacting with the story is a major part of most IE games. as is character creation and progression. those are all part of the game mechanics you speak of.

 

And they are all designed for and around combat. If combat becomes pointless (and by pointless I mean whatever satisfies the 'only for the dialogues' player base), then those mechanics are pointless as well.

1. I completely disagree that these games are designed completely around combat. There are stats, skills and spells with little to no combat implications.

2. make it an optional easy mode. everybody wins.

Edited September 26, 2012 by ogrezilla

[rjshae]

Nothing personal, and of course you are completely entitled to your opinion, but I must admit that every time I read someone ready to dismiss game mechanics and balance using the "I play for the story" argument, I cringe a little bit.

 

If it introduces a larger audience into the genre, that seems like a good thing.

 

Hmm, rather than "easy mode", they could call it something like "Story mode" or "Casual gamer mode".

[TwinkieGorilla]

cool

 

You don't? I mean hopefully we get situations like "You encountered a goblindirewolf!" and you get these choices:

 

1) Attack!

2) Parry.

3) Flee.

4) Romance.

 

That way you don't have to combat.

[ogrezilla]

cool

 

You don't? I mean hopefully we get situations like "You encountered a goblindirewolf!" and you get these choices:

 

1) Attack!

2) Parry.

3) Flee.

4) Romance.

 

That way you don't have to combat.

I wouldn't mind an option to throw a piece of meat or something to distract the goblindirewolf, allowing me to carry on my way. Or maybe I could even tame it with a hunter or something and have it as a pet. I wouldn't call that romance, but I think love between a man and his pet is very real.

Edited September 26, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Tuco Benedicto]

If it introduces a larger audience into the genre, that seems like a good thing.

 

Hmm, rather than "easy mode", they could call it something like "Story mode" or "Casual gamer mode".

Oh, let's be clear, As far as it's just an option *and* it doesn't affect the design in a relevant way, I don't have any issue with people playing on Easy mode.

It's just that I genuinely have a hard time understanding how people could be so easily dismissive about game mechanics in a videogame.

 

"Oh, you know, I just like to click autoattack and have a easy win".

Whatever floats your boat, I guess. Still, I can't help but wonder where's the fun in *literally* ditching a big chunk of the game.

It's not like I am advocating for the most hardcore challenge (while I can appreciate it, I can also see why many don't); it's that I find games that play themselves and where my input is hardly needed one of the most annoying, mind-numbing trends in the game industry.

[rjshae]

cool

 

You don't? I mean hopefully we get situations like "You encountered a goblindirewolf!" and you get these choices:

 

4) Romance.

 

That way you don't have to combat.

 

No doggie treat found; romance option failed. The goblindirewolf is gnawing at your ankle. What would you like to do?

[ogrezilla]

If it introduces a larger audience into the genre, that seems like a good thing.

 

Hmm, rather than "easy mode", they could call it something like "Story mode" or "Casual gamer mode".

Oh, let's be clear, As far as it's just an option *and* it doesn't affect the design in a relevant way, I don't have any issue with people playing on Easy mode.

It's just that I genuinely have a hard time understanding how people could be so easily dismissive about game mechanics in a videogame.

 

"Oh, you know, I just like to click autoattack and have a easy win".

Whatever floats your boat, I guess. Still, I can't help but wonder where's the fun in *literally* ditching a big chunk of the game.

It's not like I am advocating for the most hardcore challenge (while I can appreciate it, I can also see why many don't); it's that I find games that play themselves and where my input is hardly needed one of the most annoying, mind-numbing trends in the game industry.

some people legitimately aren't very good at this kind of combat. That doesn't even mean they don't enjoy it; they just want it to be easier.

Edited September 26, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Delterius]

1. I completely disagree that these games are designed completely around combat. There are stats, skills and spells with little to no combat implications.

2. make it an optional easy mode. everybody wins.

 

1. CRPGs are combat centric. Even the greatest exceptions are combat centric in their mechanics. And Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale (two out of three) are a lot of things, but exceptions to that.

2. Optional easy modes exist. Even very easy modes exist. Below that is skip for no game-reason mode.

 

some people legitimately aren't very good at this kind of combat. That doesn't even mean they don't enjoy it; they just want it to be easier.

 

With the exception of tragic handicaps, I'm willing to bet most people are capable of getting better at things.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Delterius

[Grimlorn]

Pretty sure Jtav is Jennifer Hepler.

[ogrezilla]

1. I completely disagree that these games are designed completely around combat. There are stats, skills and spells with little to no combat implications.

2. make it an optional easy mode. everybody wins.

 

1. CRPGs are combat centric. Even the greatest exceptions are combat centric in their mechanics. And Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale (two out of three) are a lot of things, but exceptions to that.

2. Optional easy modes exist. Even very easy modes exist. Below that is skip for no game-reason mode.

1. I'd say they are generally a mix of combat and conversation centric. Icewind Dale definitely leaned towards combat, but PS:T is on the other side.

2. I don't really know what we're arguing about then.

[Delterius]

1. I completely disagree that these games are designed completely around combat. There are stats, skills and spells with little to no combat implications.

2. make it an optional easy mode. everybody wins.

 

1. CRPGs are combat centric. Even the greatest exceptions are combat centric in their mechanics. And Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale (two out of three) are a lot of things, but exceptions to that.

2. Optional easy modes exist. Even very easy modes exist. Below that is skip for no game-reason mode.

1. I'd say they are generally a mix of combat and conversation centric. Icewind Dale definitely leaned towards combat, but PS:T is on the other side.

2. I don't really know what we're arguing about then.

 

1. You said 'IE Games', but forgot that PS:T is one out of 5 + expansions. Even PS:T has its combat centrisms.

2. Easy mode is a trope, you don't have to suggest it. If you must, if you only 'play for the dialogue', then you don't want easy mode. You want something else.

[Flying Magician]

cool

 

You don't? I mean hopefully we get situations like "You encountered a goblindirewolf!" and you get these choices:

 

1) Attack!

2) Parry.

3) Flee.

4) Romance.

 

That way you don't have to combat.

 

Actually Age of Decadence was as close as possible to this idea:

 

You encountered a weak, pathetic thug!

 

1) die in unfair combat!

2) talk your way out

[SirPetrakus]

I have a friend who just loves a good RPG. He just ... sucks at video games. He plays all his games on easy and uses cheats, when he's able to. He loves a good interactive story. I'm hoping to get this for him once it comes out, if he doesn't get it himself. I'm certain this won't be any more difficult than Witcher 2 on easy. To him, however, Witcher 2 on easy was challenging. Hopefully, he will have fun.

[Living One]

I'm talking about that pack of bandits that should be a walkover

 

I don't see why that should be true.

 

This is an RPG, the story should always come first. If you want challenge then you should choose the challenge. If you don't then you should choose easy. But choose for yourself without mocking other players.

No, this is first and foremost a game, and story never comes first in a game, not compared to game mechanics, balance, user interface, overall fun and so on.

Of course, in RPGs, like in graphic adventures, story is far more relevant than in other genres and can add a lot to the experience, but it still is "additional value", it shouldn't ever be the core purpose of the experience.

interacting with the story is a major part of most IE games. as is character creation and progression. those are all part of the game mechanics you speak of.

 

And they are all designed for and around combat. If combat becomes pointless (and by pointless I mean whatever satisfies the 'only for the dialogues' player base), then those mechanics are pointless as well.

1. I completely disagree that these games are designed completely around combat. There are stats, skills and spells with little to no combat implications.

2. make it an optional easy mode. everybody wins.

Videogames are about interaction(it's their language basically).Therefore a designer should be concerned to make the player care about it:to do this the dungeon crawling parts of RPGs(combat and exploration)provide the player with fun mechanics and stuff that will be of concrete value to the player during the game(the possibility to advance the game primarily and stuff useful for that like level ups,consumables,...)if he/she likes it.In other words these part of an RPG are most likely going to offer incentives the player(that likes them) will value.

 

Story,instead,works differently usually:even when it's interactive the actual mechanics offer no concrete value to the player(again,usually but not always) and it is the writing rather than gameplay to try to engage the player wich is in opposition to what videogames are(if you try to have a certain quest outcome due to how you like character for example it's the writing driving you not mechanics).Of course that's not to say all 'story interactions' are meaningless from a gameplay perspective(example:do I give this npc coins i might instead use to buy a sword in hope for a reward later?or see the punishment you got by picking certain dialogue options while talking to the pillar of skulls in PST or stuff that makes you progress through the gameplay and thus get the concrete advantages i mentioned above).And even in these cases these interactions are meaningful to the dungeon crawling experience(that's why why even games like Torment,Fallout,Arcanum had those bits even if in minor parts:it wasn't a feature they had to inherit due to RPG traditions.They needed them to work.)

To conclude even PST is a combat-centric game like Delterius says and it is so because otherwise it would make a weaker use of gameplay ,including the story one(it's its language as i said) and would be less of a videogame.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Living One