Just how Easy will Easy be?

[jtav]

Your friend sounds like me SirPetrakus, though I haven't played the Witcher games. I'm not asking for combat to be entirely skippable. Just something close to BG or PST than say Arcanum.

[SirPetrakus]

Your friend sounds like me SirPetrakus, though I haven't played the Witcher games. I'm not asking for combat to be entirely skippable. Just something close to BG or PST than say Arcanum.

I'm sure we'll all have our fun with it once PE comes out. Hope there's cheats. Cheats always help make a game more fun. If they're whacky enough.

 

Yeah, Arcanum was pretty unforgiving. For more reasons than just the combat, I'd say. Icewind Dale manages to hit the sweet spot for me, as does ToEE. PST was basically constant easy mode. Just go mage on it and you've won the game.

[halobender]

I have played and enjoyed CRPGs for almost 20 years now, and nine times out of ten I play on easy or normal difficulty. I'm certainly capable of playing on higher difficulties if I choose to, but from a personal standpoint, I find higher difficulties to be more tedious than fun, so why wouldn't I play on the mode I find most enjoyable?

More than that, why should anyone here (or anywhere else) care if I enjoy an easier challenge compared to a more difficult one?

 

Also, enough with the Jennifer Hepler BS.

I can honestly say I've never felt more embarassed about being an RPG fan than when people reacted the way they did to Hepler's statements, which frankly, weren't all that inflamatory. People like different things in their games, imagine that.

[Delterius]

Also, enough with the Jennifer Hepler BS.

I can honestly say I've never felt more embarassed about being an RPG fan than when people reacted the way they did to Hepler's statements, which frankly, weren't all that inflamatory. People like different things in their games, imagine that.

 

Hepler's statement can rage from 'OK' to 'Shameful'.

 

OK because there are games where combat isn't central to gameplay, and it certainly doesn't have to be in CRPGs (but it is for good reasons).

 

Shameful is also possible because she's a writer. If she actually meant 'tell a different story that doesn't require combat', then no problems there. It would be even commendable. But that's very, very unlikely to be the case - just look at BioWare's 'story' (but really 'dialogue' or, one might say, 'cinematic') mode, which is the cheaper way to appeal to those who don't care about combat that much (or, as she puts it, women - I wonder where were the girlfriend mode haters back in 2006). Skipping gameplay isn't good storytelling. Its not even videogame storytelling, much less any good for roleplaying.

 

I'm pretty sure that the original poster can rest assured that there will be a suitable easy mode, even if that easy mode tends to slightly challenge him. But anything below that should be relegated to cheat commands or not included at all.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Delterius

[Thulean]

Maybe Obsidian can release a LP video the same day that the game comes out so people who don't want to play a game can just watch it?

[Wintersong]

It's "nice" to see that the white tunics keep themselves busy in their manhunts.

 

@jtav: If Obsidian adds an Easy difficulty (or the Normal difficulty is what in the old days was considered Easy), I'd guess that you'd have a similar experience to BG/PS:T. But at this point is speculation.

[limaxophobiacq]

WTF is wrong with some people. Have you honestly built so much of your self-worth on being 'hardcore' that you feel that making a game fun for someone who doesn't care for that nonsense and isn't good at IE combat will somehow taint it (even if it does absolutely nothing to affect the difficulty you'll play at, which for this game we can be pretty sure it wont), and thus feel the need to insult them for it? This is almost as bad as those sad ****ers on rpgcodex, who are silly enough that being too embarrassed to have a 'wussy' "Like" button on their forum but still wanting to circle-jerk about awesome they are have a button to 'brofist' each others posts (not realising that brofist was originally an ironic joke by more self-aware nerds making fun of such ridiculous posturing).

[Guts]

I have to laugh when the so called "hardcore gamers" get all up in arms when someone dares to ask an easy mode in their precious game (like in the case of Dark Souls where the "fans" had an uproar when they said they would include an easier difficulty mode).

 

The "easy mode" won't affect your enjoyment of the game, they already said they'll include the super-hard options and perma-death option.

 

Jesus, let people enjoy the game how they want and don't be morons.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Guts

[halobender]

Maybe Obsidian can release a LP video the same day that the game comes out so people who don't want to play a game can just watch it?

 

Statements like this are just full of a bravado I don't get. Seriously, who is impressed by these types of statements meant to belittle people who enjoy playing at a lower difficulty?

 

If people choose to play a game instead of reading a book or watching a movie, I'm certain they have a reason for doing so. Who is anyone here to judge the validity of other people's game playing experiences?

Edited September 26, 2012 by halobender

[Malcador]

Whiney bunch in here. OP starts off with it I suppose - early days to be wondering "Will this game be too hard for me?" Put it on easy, if such a setting will exist, and give it your best shot. Or as they say in EVE, HTFU.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Malcador

[jtav]

Not that early. I've seen multiple requests for the game to be extremely difficult, and I just picked up Arcanum and think it may have added a few grey hairs. I loved BG and recently completed PS: T, which I found a sublime experience. So I'm trying to get a sense of whether this game is for me and whether I should up my pledge.

[Tigranes]

Arcanum was tricky to get into for various reasons that don't all have to do with combat difficulty. I really doubt it will be like that with PE; if I had to guess, the curve will probably resemble BG or IWD much more.

 

That said, arcanum is a fantastic game and deserves a few hours of your time, once you get used to it it shows you how special it is.

[Shardbearer]

No, this is first and foremost a game, and story never comes first in a game

 

This is a matter of opinion, like almost everything else being discussed on the forums...

[Tigranes]

It is an opinion shared by Chris Avellone and Josh Sawyer, as well as many other designers, by the way.

 

That is, story is important, but you write the story in order to provide excellent gameplay, not the other way round.

[Delterius]

No, this is first and foremost a game, and story never comes first in a game

 

This is a matter of opinion, like almost everything else being discussed on the forums...

 

Good gameplay is part of what makes good story in videogames.

[Guts]

The story is a major part of the "gameplay" of RPGs like Fallout, BG or Torment.

 

Combat was easily the weakest part of Planescape: Torment and the aspect I least enjoyed about the game personally. It was all about the world, the characters and the story and your choices, combat was something to tolerate.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Guts

[Malcador]

Not that early. I've seen multiple requests for the game to be extremely difficult, and I just picked up Arcanum and think it may have added a few grey hairs. I loved BG and recently completed PS: T, which I found a sublime experience. So I'm trying to get a sense of whether this game is for me and whether I should up my pledge.

 

Yeah there's lots of requests for all kinds of assorted junk, only things that matters is what the developers say. If you liked BG and PS:T, that should be enough for you to jump in, I'd say.

[Tuco Benedicto]

No, this is first and foremost a game, and story never comes first in a game

 

This is a matter of opinion, like almost everything else being discussed on the forums...

Yeah, well, everything is a matter of opinion, to some extent, and yet not all the opinions are equally informed and competent.

 

But let's just say that's not an opinion I'm open to negotiate, unlike many others.

As a gamer I have absolutely no doubt that the gaming experience itself is for me a priority to the narrative that matches it.

[Shardbearer]

By no means is story the most important feature, but I'd probably rank it fairly high with gameplay being fun being above it. I think the challenge with difficulty levels is besides players approaching with varied levels of skill, players also have individualized tastes as to what fun gameplay is for them. I have friends that without fail will purely equate difficulty level to fun level, the more punishing the game the better for them. However, I also have friends like the OP who don't want to not be challenged, but don't enjoy replaying the same battle for a week straight either. I probably fall somewhere in the middle, but I don't think it's really fair to criticize someone for enjoying different aspects of anything than another person.

[Scryer]

Regarding the story vs. gameplay thing going on around here I really liked how it was done in Diablo (the first one). It was clear that the story was in the backseat as gameplay and mechanics and what not took precedence, but even if it was pedestrian at it's core (basically kill the big evil), it was made atmospheric by simply having little bits of lore strewn around that added to the experience.

 

Of course Diablo doesn't compare in style to what Eternity is supposed to be, but I think it helps illustrate that you don't need to spend massive amounts of time and resources on making an excelent story as "less is more" could work just fine and by doing less other aspects of the game don't need to be affected.

[JWestfall]

Ahem:

 

To be clear: we're making a game in which story, setting (i.e. exploration of the setting), and tactical combat are emphasized in more-or-less equal measure. The options we're talking about are present so you can tune your particular flavor of gameplay elements, but we're not making a game for people who inherently dislike these gameplay elements.

 

E.g. I enjoy some RTS games (especially historical ones). I am not particularly good at them. I really like the gameplay, but I have never been able to reach the level of being even moderately skilled at any of them. I like it when devs give me more forgiving gameplay options so my low-APM brain can complete the scenarios in a way that is still enjoyable and challenging for my skill level. I wouldn't understand the point in giving me options to skip or avoid the scenarios; I'm playing an RTS because I actually enjoy the mechanics.

[jtav]

Ah, that's very reassuring. Thanks.

[Tuco Benedicto]

Regarding the story vs. gameplay thing going on around here I really liked how it was done in Diablo (the first one). It was clear that the story was in the backseat as gameplay and mechanics and what not took precedence, but even if it was pedestrian at it's core (basically kill the big evil), it was made atmospheric by simply having little bits of lore strewn around that added to the experience.

Yeah, well, but that's honestly not the point of this argument.

We aren't arguing about how to tell a great story (and quite frankly I don't even think we should, let's put some faith in Obsidian, they know how to handle this stuff), we are arguing if the story should be the core point of a game or not. And I'm all for "not".

 

Even in Planescape: Torment what made the game enjoyable wasn't strictly the story (while very good) but all these mechanics about choices and consequences, the world and the characters reacting to your actions and so on.

I realize that it's easy to make the mistake that many are doing in this thread and claim "Well, but in Torment you played just for the story!". But NO, actually I didn't.

I enjoyed the story very much? Yes. I loved the setting, the mood, the atmosphere? Sure! I played the game because of the story? No, not at all.

I played it because I was engrossed by the active role I played in it, I felt the fascination of making choices and experiencing the outcome over my companions and other NPCs, which is an entirely different thing. I enjoyed the "investigative" part about who I really was once, and so on.

 

EDIT: Yeah, just read JWestfall quote. This man, Sawyer... He gets it. Not everyone wants a challenge, sure, but to claim "I don't care about the mechanics, I would like an autosolve option to skip content, I play for the story" is missing the point of games in the first place.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Tuco Benedicto

[Scryer]

@ Tuco Benedicto - Yeah, my bad. I clearly can't write worth ****. What I was trying to say basically amounted to I enjoyed Diablo because of it's gameplay, the story coming in it's case sort of like a bonus. Yes, it didn't have the complexity of Planescape but it was excellent regarding it's focus - combat and loot. So it isn't necessary to complain about it as it is possible to have a game for which gameplay received primary attention and also has a well done story that serves that game's purposes.

 

Yeah, I don't think I managed to make it any clearer what my point was, so I think I'll stop writing now.

[Liora]

Regarding the story vs. gameplay thing going on around here I really liked how it was done in Diablo (the first one). It was clear that the story was in the backseat as gameplay and mechanics and what not took precedence, but even if it was pedestrian at it's core (basically kill the big evil), it was made atmospheric by simply having little bits of lore strewn around that added to the experience.

Yeah, well, but that's honestly not the point of this argument.

We aren't arguing about how to tell a great story (and quite frankly I don't even think we should, let's put some faith in Obsidian, they know how to handle this stuff), we are arguing if the story should be the core point of a game or not. And I'm all for "not".

 

Even in Planescape: Torment what made the game enjoyable wasn't strictly the story (while very good) but all these mechanics about choices and consequences, the world and the characters reacting to your actions and so on.

I realize that it's easy to make the mistake that many are doing in this thread and claim "Well, but in Torment you played just for the story!". But NO, actually I didn't.

I enjoyed the story very much? Yes. I loved the setting, the mood, the atmosphere? Sure! I played the game because of the story? No, not at all.

I played it because I was engrossed by the active role I played in it, I felt the fascination of making choices and experiencing the outcome over my companions and other NPCs, which is an entirely different thing. I enjoyed the "investigative" part about who I really was once, and so on.

 

 

But isn't your interaction with the game and your "role" in it actually part of the story, in a way? Although you say that you didn't play for the story "at all"... the choices that you made and the outcomes that you and your companions experienced were all part of the story... the story that you shaped for yourself in the game. They were your choices, but they were set before you to shape your part of the story.

 

If there was no story, or not much of one ... well it would all be about about combat and mindless running into dungeons to fight and collect loot, and you wouldn't care about your character or the companions. That can be fun, but it's not a true CRPG, in my opion. I think an RPG needs to be be more than just combat. I want an RPG to be immersive, so that I feel like I'm stepping into another world, and playing a part in it, and the story is a very important part of that.

 

As far as difficulty goes, I think if you asked me on the spot, I would say that I play for the "story", more than the combat, for the reasons I've already mentioned. The "story" is more than the main plot though... it's the choices you need to make, and the character/party that you build. I play because I want to see the story unfold, I want to explore dungeons, find hidden areas, or even see scenery that ties back into lore somehow (like finding old ruins, "off the beaten track" that aren't necessarily part of the main plot), I want to solve "puzzles" and do side-quests... That's why I play RPG's, and a lot of those things tie back into the story that the developers are trying to tell. Is the combat important? Absolutely! Do I want it to be a "cake walk"? No, and I would like it to be difficult enough that you can't use the same strategy in every situation, or for every type of mob. HOWEVER... I don't want it to be "uber-difficult" either. I don't want to be constantly saving/dying/reloading in areas that are reasonable for my character to be fighting in.

 

So, I understand the OP's concern, and I think I know what he means by "I play for the story". Just because you think the story is important doesn't mean you don't want ANY combat. You just don't want to be in a situation where your party leaves town, and 10 minutes later you're thinking "Great... I still haven't beaten this pack of rabid fire dogs, two of my party members are dead, and I'm already out of potions... " In that case, if that's not your cup of tea, you might want to turn it down to an "easy" mode to make the game more enjoyable. Why not? Those who like battling rabid fire dogs are not affected, and everyone wins.