Jump to content

Just how Easy will Easy be?


Recommended Posts

No change for the game you or I will play at all.

 

Okay. If catering to casuals do not affect the game you and i will play, then why are you here? I mean, how come you found yourself in a situation where you have to resort to Kickstarter to get the game you want? How did this happen?

 

catering exclusively to them does. that's not what anyone in this thread has asked for. Not a single person. This entire thread is about an optional easy mode.

 

Its always "not what anyone in this thread has asked for" and "optional". Same story year after year,oh how many times have i heard that...

did you hear it when they had easy mode in all of the old IE games? did it bother you then too? this isn't something new.

 

It bothered me very much when i got Dragon Age 2 instead of old IE games. And decline from BG2 to DA2 happened because of apologists like you.

no, because I am not defending simplifying games at the base level. Having a game like this include and easy mode and succeed would be better for the chances of this type of game coming back than having this game only sell to hardcore fans.

Edited by ogrezilla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeez. What happened to this thread? Just a minor quibble. The fall of Bioware happened between NWN and DA1 or possibly even between BG2 and NWN. Not DA2. That is a proven fact. If you like and play DA1 then I have no idea why you would want to back this project. I think you will hate it utterly, but it's your money. Do what you want with it. And I certainly appreciate your help in funding a game for 'old school' gamers when you are clearly not one yourself. I always admire generosity. I would certainly not contribute one penny to a crowdfunded Dragon Age 1 sequel-in-spirit.

  • Like 1

JoshSawyer: Listening to feedback from the fans has helped us realize that people can be pretty polarized on what they want, even among a group of people ostensibly united by a love of the same games. For us, that means prioritizing options is important. If people don’t like a certain aspect of how skill checks are presented or how combat works, we should give them the ability to turn that off, resources permitting.

.
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fall of Bioware happened between NWN and DA1 or possibly even between BG2 and NWN.

 

 

The decline is a continuous process, not a single point in time. I once though it cannot get worse than NWN. I was wrong.

 

If you like and play DA1 then I have no idea why you would want to back this project.

 

You got me wrong there, the reason i use DA2 as an example is not me liking DA1, i am just picking the absolute worst one to better illustrate my point.

 

I would certainly not contribute one penny to a crowdfunded Dragon Age 1 sequel-in-spirit

 

I fully support you here.

Edited by GammaHamster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeez. What happened to this thread? Just a minor quibble. The fall of Bioware happened between NWN and DA1 or possibly even between BG2 and NWN. Not DA2. That is a proven fact. If you like and play DA1 then I have no idea why you would want to back this project. I think you will hate it utterly, but it's your money. Do what you want with it. And I certainly appreciate your help in funding a game for 'old school' gamers when you are clearly not one yourself. I always admire generosity. I would certainly not contribute one penny to a crowdfunded Dragon Age 1 sequel-in-spirit.

I enjoy the old IE games and thought DA1 was a decent game. Not as good as the games this is being modeled after, but enjoyable enough to play through. I have never played DA2. That said, I wouldn't contribute to a game like DA either.

Edited by ogrezilla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

What is the "Jennifer Hepler BS" ? Is this people ragging on about the Bioware writer that the said Shock / Horror "Not everyone cares about combat in video games" ?

 

I still can't believe that people go ape**** over such blindly obvious statements.

 

I've played Fallout 1+2, Baldur's Gate 1+2, PS:T and million other RPGs - do I remember the "combat" from any of them? Nope. I remember the stories and the characters.

If I want Tactical Combat - I can just play XCom, (and I have - for hundreds of hours).

 

But my girlfriend hates XCom, and when she plays PS:T, or Mass Effect 1,2,3 - the combat is just a barrier between her and the next character interaction. If the combat gets to frustrating, she goes and plays The Sims. (This happened on Dragon Age:Origins because she picked a fighter).

Edited by Director
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still find it depressing people are worrying about the game being too hard for them at this stage of the project - hopefully there are difficulty sliders so that people can adjust the challenge to what they're comfortable with. Now if you want some story mode where you can faceroll through content...well..maybe a LP video of just cutscenes might be your thing, I dunno.

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but they aren't doing anything different with difficulty than the old games. The old IE games had difficulty adjustment that allowed for an easier experience too. Just like this will do. No change for the game you or I will play at all.

 

Except that the resources spent on making optional easy modes are resources that could be better spent on more overall content. I don't get how people can't seem to grasp that this game is going to be made with a limited budget versus a AAA, publisher-backed title. It's quite literally a zero-sum game. Money spent on X will be money taken away from Y.

 

And yet much harder modes are part of the 2.3 stretch goal--this can mean one of two things:

 

(1) Obsidian only cares about catering to the hardcore gamers and carebears be damned.

(2) Easy and normal modes (and probably a "regular harder mode," just not "hardcore") are already guaranteed.

 

 

(1) makes no sense because Obsidian wants actual sales of the game post-production, and the only way to do that is to allow more casual play, however subjective that is.

 

(2) makes far more sense because the I.E. games always had different options including easy. Probably all of Obsidian's other games too.

 

The problem with your viewpoint is that you're stating it as an absolute binary when market forces dictate otherwise; in other words, this isn't like romances where you're going to get stuck in the game somewhere by a companion conversation. Combat mechanics are so pervasive and fundamental to the CRPG that allowing player adjustment is a very basic and absolutely necessary form of accessibility. Locking out a goodly number of potential players for a game that Obsidian wants to franchise on post-production sales is very dangerous--this sort of thing won't happen with/without stuff like romances or cosmetics or lack/presence of a given race.

 

There must be, at minimum, easy/normal/hard modes. In terms of finer distinctions, this should be very easy for Obsidian to compartmentalize by discrete combat mechanics, as they explain the piecemeal nature of the 2.3 stretch modes.

 

Aaannd, I totally missed Bobby Null's post earlier, so that's that.

 

If it's a design goal from the outset, I can't really complain. I guess my argument is against anything bolted on to cater to a niche crowd. I'm like Jasede as per his post a page or two back. RPGs are based on characters with statted skills used to achieve an objective. Maybe it's balls-out combat. Maybe it's theivery. Maybe, still, it's diplomacy based on relevant stats. What I find mindboggling are those who want a "tra-la-la let me skip through the lands of PE, making friends with NPCs, larping toilet use, and decorate my house for when I marry my companions" sort of thing in a game that's presumed to hearken back to the late 90's era of CRPGs. A huge reason why that era is worth hearkening back to, I think, was that it was BEFORE all that stupid let's play pretend stuff came about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my god, this thread is ending up just like Borett's about kill animations. What ogrezilla said, there will be the option for different Difficulty settings just like with the Infinity Engine games, it's even mentioned in the stretch goals that we could potentially (pending the final pledge figure) get an Ironman and Heart of Fury (a la Icewind Dale) difficulty mode, I played BG1 when I was 13 and on Normal diff (D&D rules) and found that the game was completely accessable. I now find I have to play with the Sword Coast Strategems Mod in order to get something out of the difficulty now.

 

The game will be fine for the noobs who just wanna play for the story, and hopefully I get my Heart of Fury mode! :)

 

It would be interesting to understand just exactly what OP meant by Easy? As in Fallout 3 Easy? (laughable), or something else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeez. What happened to this thread? Just a minor quibble. The fall of Bioware happened between NWN and DA1 or possibly even between BG2 and NWN. Not DA2. That is a proven fact. If you like and play DA1 then I have no idea why you would want to back this project.

Wha? I played all the "old school" games and really enjoyed DA1 as well. I even enjoyed DA2 a bit, but I'm not gonna say DA2 was a great game.

I would certainly not contribute one penny to a crowdfunded Dragon Age 1 sequel-in-spirit.

[/Quote]

Yeah - that's never gonna happen, the budget for a DA style game would be in the 10s of Millions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but they aren't doing anything different with difficulty than the old games. The old IE games had difficulty adjustment that allowed for an easier experience too. Just like this will do. No change for the game you or I will play at all.

 

Except that the resources spent on making optional easy modes are resources that could be better spent on more overall content. I don't get how people can't seem to grasp that this game is going to be made with a limited budget versus a AAA, publisher-backed title. It's quite literally a zero-sum game. Money spent on X will be money taken away from Y.

 

And yet much harder modes are part of the 2.3 stretch goal--this can mean one of two things:

 

(1) Obsidian only cares about catering to the hardcore gamers and carebears be damned.

(2) Easy and normal modes (and probably a "regular harder mode," just not "hardcore") are already guaranteed.

 

 

(1) makes no sense because Obsidian wants actual sales of the game post-production, and the only way to do that is to allow more casual play, however subjective that is.

 

(2) makes far more sense because the I.E. games always had different options including easy. Probably all of Obsidian's other games too.

 

The problem with your viewpoint is that you're stating it as an absolute binary when market forces dictate otherwise; in other words, this isn't like romances where you're going to get stuck in the game somewhere by a companion conversation. Combat mechanics are so pervasive and fundamental to the CRPG that allowing player adjustment is a very basic and absolutely necessary form of accessibility. Locking out a goodly number of potential players for a game that Obsidian wants to franchise on post-production sales is very dangerous--this sort of thing won't happen with/without stuff like romances or cosmetics or lack/presence of a given race.

 

There must be, at minimum, easy/normal/hard modes. In terms of finer distinctions, this should be very easy for Obsidian to compartmentalize by discrete combat mechanics, as they explain the piecemeal nature of the 2.3 stretch modes.

 

Aaannd, I totally missed Bobby Null's post earlier, so that's that.

 

If it's a design goal from the outset, I can't really complain. I guess my argument is against anything bolted on to cater to a niche crowd. I'm like Jasede as per his post a page or two back. RPGs are based on characters with statted skills used to achieve an objective. Maybe it's balls-out combat. Maybe it's theivery. Maybe, still, it's diplomacy based on relevant stats. What I find mindboggling are those who want a "tra-la-la let me skip through the lands of PE, making friends with NPCs, larping toilet use, and decorate my house for when I marry my companions" sort of thing in a game that's presumed to hearken back to the late 90's era of CRPGs. A huge reason why that era is worth hearkening back to, I think, was that it was BEFORE all that stupid let's play pretend stuff came about.

didn't this game just hit a big stretch goal to unlock the player house? Inspired by BG2? I honestly have no interest in it aside from having more quests, but others seem pretty happy to see it back.

Edited by ogrezilla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But my girlfriend hates XCom, and when she plays PS:T, or Mass Effect 1,2,3 - the combat is just a barrier between her and the next character interaction. If the combat gets to frustrating, she goes and plays The Sims.

You see, your girlfriend found a solution that satisfies everybody.

 

Everyone except the company that wants to sell the game to my GF, or a sequel to that game. If putting in a "easy" mode is all it takes to make those extra sales - who cares.

 

I could care less for all these Iron Man / Hardcore modes, it's a complete waste of a stretch goal as far as I'm concerned. I'm not gonna scream about it - because it's not going to affect the way I play the game, and other people want it.

 

I have zero idea why adding an "easy" mode on the other end of the spectrum would upset you - if it's not going to affect you, and other people want it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone except the company that wants to sell the game to my GF, or a sequel to that game.

 

Thats exactly why we are pledging money for this Kickstarter, so that the company will have no need to sell the game to your GF.

but it is in your best interest if they do, so long as there is a mode you each like. That way games like this don't need kickstarter to get made in the future. The key is to get a base game we enjoy with an easy mode that they like. The problem is that too many modern games have been defaulted to easy mode.

Edited by ogrezilla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

didn't this game just hit a big stretch goal to unlock the player house? Inspired by BG2? I honestly have no interest in it aside from having more quests, but others seem pretty happy to see it back.

 

Yeah - I was pretty keen to see that happen, and could care less about the Iron Man / Hardcore Modes stretch goal - but not everything has to go my way.

 

People have to realise that the game isn't being made specifically for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wha? I played all the "old school" games and really enjoyed DA1 as well. I even enjoyed DA2 a bit, but I'm not gonna say DA2 was a great game.

 

 

Why not continue enjoying Bioware games and leave this game to people who actually need an old-school game?

Edited by GammaHamster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see this thread has gone off the rails, but I do support easy levels of difficulty as long as it's easy to implement. Having a wide range of difficulty is a very important game mechanic. I'd rather they erred on the side of too difficult for balancing purposes, but having more difficulty options is always a good thing. So long as it doesn't require a whole new difficulty system to implement. Personally I'd prefer a default difficulty level similar to BG2 with SCSII and sane options (i.e. no teleporting demons or enemies that can disappear every round just before you can hit them or thieves with an infinite number of invisibility potions) or ToEE, which had a great default difficulty level IIRC. Challenging but not impossible. I'm very glad indeed that we have Tim Cain on this project. I hope he can insert a bit of ToEE into Project Eternity's combat mechanics.

JoshSawyer: Listening to feedback from the fans has helped us realize that people can be pretty polarized on what they want, even among a group of people ostensibly united by a love of the same games. For us, that means prioritizing options is important. If people don’t like a certain aspect of how skill checks are presented or how combat works, we should give them the ability to turn that off, resources permitting.

.
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But my girlfriend hates XCom, and when she plays PS:T, or Mass Effect 1,2,3 - the combat is just a barrier between her and the next character interaction. If the combat gets to frustrating, she goes and plays The Sims.

You see, your girlfriend found a solution that satisfies everybody.

 

Everyone except the company that wants to sell the game to my GF, or a sequel to that game. If putting in a "easy" mode is all it takes to make those extra sales - who cares.

 

I could care less for all these Iron Man / Hardcore modes, it's a complete waste of a stretch goal as far as I'm concerned. I'm not gonna scream about it - because it's not going to affect the way I play the game, and other people want it.

 

I have zero idea why adding an "easy" mode on the other end of the spectrum would upset you - if it's not going to affect you, and other people want it.

Iron man/Hardcore waste of money? You take that back. Easy mode wastes resources too. Who cares what your GF and others like her want? She doesn't sound that smart anyways.

 

The game is being funded by players who want to see an old school RPG. They don't need to sell it to a mainstream audience. But I think it will still sell well because all people can talk about when it comes to RPGs is the older RPGs. You're not going to ever hear people talk about DA2 like that. Bioware and Bethesda will never create a truly good or classic RPG ever again. They're too focused on corporate profits and appealing to everyone. That's why their RPGs tend to be pretty bad these days. I don't care if Skyrim did 10 million copies. It was mainstream crap.

Edited by Grimlorn
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats exactly why we are pledging money for this Kickstarter, so that the company will have no need to sell the game to your GF.

 

You do realise that Obsidian intend to actually sell this game - correct?

And make a sequel, (hopefully)?

 

They are hoping to reach an audience much larger than just the people who kickstart it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then what did we even pledge for? If they want to reach that "big large audience" they could just have gone for Fallout 4: The Elder Scrollsening.

 

We pledged because we thought they are reaching out to us- the oldschool RPG fans. The more concessions are made to this "new generation" of gamers the worse the game will be. Period.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then what did we even pledge for? If they want to reach that "big large audience" they could just have gone for Fallout 4: The Elder Scrollsening.

 

We pledged because we thought they are reaching out to us- the oldschool RPG fans. The more concessions are made to this "new generation" of gamers the worse the game will be. Period.

what concessions are being made? Easy mode was in the oldschool RPGs this is a tribute to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...