Just how Easy will Easy be?

[ogrezilla]

I just feel like there are a lot of people out there who have probably never played a classic RPG like this and if they did I bet a lot of them would really like it.

 

I'm sure there are...but compromising the integrity of the genre in order to lure them in is not the right approach. Teaching them the virtues which patience for this type of gaming requires is the answer.

I never said they should compromise anything at all. I'm pretty sure we have agreed for a while now and are just having a miscommunication issue.

Edited September 28, 2012 by ogrezilla

[TwinkieGorilla]

I never said they should compromise anything at all.

 

You insinuited it by claming Obsidian would very much like the business of people who do not understand, enjoy or are unfamilar with this type of game.

[ogrezilla]

I never said they should compromise anything at all.

 

You insinuited it by claming Obsidian would very much like the business of people who do not understand, enjoy or are unfamilar with this type of game.

no I didn't. that's the miscommunication. Are you reading the parts of my posts where I flat out say they shouldn't change the game for those people? I said they very much want those people to get the game. That doesn't mean I think the game should be changed in any way shape or form. And I've said just that quite a few times now.

 

Wanting average gamers to like the game is not the same thing as making the game for average gamers.

Edited September 28, 2012 by ogrezilla

[TwinkieGorilla]

I said they very much want those people to get the game.

 

Ok, then. Piece by piece here.

 

* What has been suggested on the last few pages in order to appeal to the "Sims-playing girlfriend" or the "Game-hating brother"?

 

and

 

* Why is Obsidian, in your mind, concerned with these people?

[ogrezilla]

I said they very much want those people to get the game.

 

Ok, then. Piece by piece here.

 

* What has been suggested on the last few pages in order to appeal to the "Sims-playing girlfriend" or the "Game-hating brother"?

 

and

 

* Why is Obsidian, in your mind, concerned with these people?

1. Nothing. That doesn't mean Obsidian wouldn't be happy to have as many of them as possible change their mind on the type of games they enjoy. I'm not suggesting making the game more accessible to them. I'm just arguing that they should NOT make the game less accessible than the classics already are. Keep things like easy mode.

2. Money and the ability to continue making this type of game.

Edited September 28, 2012 by ogrezilla

[TwinkieGorilla]

1. Nothing.

 

 

2. Money and the ability to continue making this type of game.

 

Have you seen their Kickstarter page recently? Which reminds me of that "niche" comment you made earlier. If Obsidian were that invested in gaining the attention and adulation of the aforementioned stereotypes...going out on a limb here...they wouldn't be a niche company in the first place.

[HungryHungryOuroboros]

There comes a point where, if you're redesigning your project to hit a wider "set" of people, the thing gets so redesigned that what they end up getting isn't the core thing you were trying to make in the first place. At that point, you're just doing this for them so you can get their money. There's a difference between making something "accessible" and catering something to someone who does not know how to play and frankly has no DESIRE to know how to play.

 

Yeah, there is, and given Bobby Null's response in this thread and the fact that Obsidian is very aware this is a Kickstarter venture means extremists should stop being hyperbolic whiny drama queens and trust Obsidian to balance the difficulty appropriately given their own goals in relation to the IE games. This thread is over--it's solely up to Obsidian to temper the difficulty range to the target audience they actually want when they're fully aware of the dilemmas surrounding this.

 

The only thing extremists should be worried about in this KS is dumping more of your pocket money to make 2.3 happen.

Full respect to Bobby Null, but I have to in some ways disagree on the expressed ideas, if not with the core principle.

 

Unlike in a tabletop setting, single-player RPGs are...consumed media products, basically. When people form a tabletop group they decide what kind of campaign they're running and what their individual rules are, and when that's all set you can't have another type of player walk in and try to play a different way(see: Munchkin, Chaotic Stupid). While Bobby Null talks about different groups doing different things....an *individual* GM has to shape his campaign to his group, or find a group that fits into his campaign.

 

We're basically looking at the concept different. Bobby Null looks at the GM's role to cater to the group, recognizes that the video game can't know what the "group"("player") wants or is, and takes this to meant that the campaign has to be designed in such a way that "everybody" has something they can enjoy. The way I see it, because the "group" is such an unknown quantity, you have to look at the other "groups" are offering and see who doesn't have a game they can play.

 

Ultimately, I don't think one game can be designed in such a way as to equally please hardcore RPG min-maxers AND Dave Grossman's mother-in-law equally.

[Flying Magician]

ITT: @ogrezilla and his mutually exclusive phatnasmagories about an RPG for The Widest Audience Possible without severe casualization. Featuring some other sparks of pure genius, like knowing better than Obsidian devs, what is the best for the new project.

 

The easy mode doesn't solve the all problems, you poor savant.

[ogrezilla]

ITT: @ogrezilla and his mutually exclusive phatnasmagories about an RPG for The Widest Audience Possible ™ without severe casualization. Featuring some other sparks of pure genius, like knowing better than Obsidian devs, what is the best for the new project.

 

The easy mode doesn't solve the all problems, you poor savant.

I really don't get how I could say what I'm saying more clearly so I'm going to stop trying. What you just described has nothing to do with what I'm saying though so you are clearly misunderstanding me. I don't care enough to try to keep explaining it. But hopefully you can rest easy knowing that I have never said the things you just attributed to me.

Edited September 28, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Living One]

Thank God it's over,then.

[LadyCrimson]

Ultimately, I don't think one game can be designed in such a way as to equally please hardcore RPG min-maxers AND Dave Grossman's mother-in-law equally.

You can't please everyone all the time, no. Definitely not.

 

But I think you can create a base difficulty, with some added options (note I said options - you can turn them on or off...) that allow people to tailor a games difficulty closer to what they want. Whether it's the simple (and yes, I know, sometimes disparaged) health/dmg route, or optional things like "Hardcore" modes, or whatever....simply having those options available is not inherently a bad thing.

 

I'm actually much more concerned with the concept that most games (even old ones like BG1) have this tendency to start off rather difficult (because you only have 6 hit points, say) and rapidly become easier as your character progresses. You want the chr. to grow stronger/progress in some way, but too often this can mean over-powered. That's what I want to see not happen. I'd rather it be easy in the beginning and become slowly more difficult - but not all of a sudden become "impossible."

 

I don't care about Easy mode vs. Hard mode for various types of players - but even in Easy mode, I'd like to see a progression where the game slowly becomes more challenging, vs. rapidly becomes less challenging because now you have all party members, great loot, and high lvl spells/potions, etc. While I can do it (and I often have) I shouldn't have to 'gimp' myself by using only one party member to make combats feel hard for me, and someone else shouldn't have to feel forced to use a full party in order to feel like they can even progress. That's an extremely difficult thing to balance in games like this ... in my opinion.

 

And in my mind, that's where difficulty options start to come in. So....I actually want them there. Even better would be that toolkit....

[GammaHamster]

Ultimately, I don't think one game can be designed in such a way as to equally please hardcore RPG min-maxers AND Dave Grossman's mother-in-law equally.

 

Whoa, dude, attach a warning when linking to something so stupid, i almost lost a couple SAN points while reading it.

Edited September 28, 2012 by GammaHamster