Just how Easy will Easy be?

[jarpie]

I think you misunderstood me. They would love if girlfriends and the like became fans of the type of game this is meant to be. They want classic style RPGs to become popular. They are in the business of making money and they are good at and seem to enjoy making classic style RPGs. Nobody who is in the business of making money wants to only serve a niche market. That doesn't mean they will change the type of game they make to pander to a wider market, but there is no way Obsidian doesn't want as many people as possible to enjoy the game they do make. The ideal outcome of this game isn't for it to sell to only hardcore RPG fans. The ideal outcome is for this game to appeal to RPG fans while also being a commercial success. Thus, creating new RPG fans and proving that this type of game is financially viable. But if this game is not a at least a moderate success commercially, then this will likely be a one time thing.

 

Finally someone who has some understanding of the way business and companies work.

 

 

Actually this only describes one model for how business works. Many creative firms do quite well servicing a niche market. In fact, many of these companies can be incredibly profitable. I have no idea how wide a market Obsidian wants to appeal to with this game. It could be very likely that if they can fund this game with Kickstarter and sell another 100,000 copies upon release, a reasonable profit could be made; enough to pay for the next installment and really nice fruitcakes come bonus time.

 

In fact, the case Ogrezilla makes may not be realistically possible. It could lead Obsidian down the notorious path of designing a game with, "something of everyone." This is usually the worst mistake that any creative company can make; not only because that game doesn't exist, but also because the pursuit of such a mythical creature will only disenfranchise their core audience. that is why you see so much opposition to certain ideas that make the plea for wider appeal.

 

Exactly this, and when you try to cater for both niche and mainstream audiences the end product is missmash of mutually exclusive ideas and leaves everyone disappointed. From what I've gathered what Obsidian devs have said, they are not looking to make game what would get Sim-loving "I want to skip hard parts/gameplay/etc" audiences but those who yearns for the proper crpgs.

[evdk]

Oh, but the Sim-loving audience wants to feel hardcore. This way they can say they played one of the old school hard core RPGs and nobody will mention that they have gutted most of the things that made the game good with their stupid demands. Decline always finds ways to seep back in.

[Lulla-Isra]

I don't understand why the "sim-loving crowd" are even interested in old-school RPGs in the first place, or why they just can't use cheats if they honestly wish to play for just the story.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Lulla-Isra

[Karranthain]

"This has been bugging me a lot lately," he says. "In the past few years there's been a trend toward designing games with mechanics for people who don't like those mechanics, and it blows my mind... I look at a lot of mechanics, like 'hey, let's write dialog for people who don't like to read!' You were writing with the assumption that they do want to read some of it, right? If people don't want to read, why are we writing? And if people don't like combat, why do you have combat in it?"

 

source : http://gamasutra.com...hp#.UGV_qa6GXQ0

[ravenshrike]

I don't understand why the "sim-loving crowd" are even interested in old-school RPGs in the first place, or why they just can't use cheats if they honestly wish to play for just the story.

In fairness, the recent trend is for games to not have cheats. This doesn't apply to the Sims as a quick google search shows, but many games do not have cheats from the start.

[Flying Magician]

I don't understand why the "sim-loving crowd" are even interested in old-school RPGs in the first place,

Maybe because recent Bioware and Bethesda products gave them a false image of what this genre is about. I'd blame certain jRPGs too.

 

or why they just can't use cheats if they honestly wish to play for just the story.

 

There are people who consider themselves a representative target group for RPGs, because they managed to beat ME3 at story mode difficulty. Others think cheats (or even a possibility of "game over") mean the game is faulty. And in the end, there's for sure some depressing group who wouldn't even know how to enable cheat mode or use a trainer.

 

Another thing is, recently the built- in cheats got somewhat deprecated. You cannot type anything on a console, without keyboard. You cannot cheat in always- online game with archivement system. At least PC allows to perform modifications outside of the game, with trainers and save- editors.

 

Also this.

Oh, but the Sim-loving audience wants to feel hardcore. This way they can say they played one of the old school hard core RPGs and nobody will mention that they have gutted most of the things that made the game good with their stupid demands. Decline always finds ways to seep back in.

[jarpie]

I don't understand why the "sim-loving crowd" are even interested in old-school RPGs in the first place, or why they just can't use cheats if they honestly wish to play for just the story.

 

They are like The Borg...they want to assimilate everything so that there's nothing more than the games they love to "play"..."Resistance is futile, we will add your complexity and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your games will adapt to service us."

Edited September 28, 2012 by jarpie

[Karranthain]

And one more quote :

 

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.

 

source : http://forums.obsidi...60#entry1210644

 

(Emphasis mine).

Edited September 28, 2012 by Karranthain

[Meshugger]

*sigh*

 

You know like real life, achieving something requires a certain level of work. Now, since we are talking about a game, the more difficult it is, the more rewarding it will be to be able to finish it. If you suck at gaming, then (mentally) train, reload and do it again until it is done correctly. The best things in life do not stem from hand-holding, effortless pat on the back or getting awarded only by participating or showing interest, it comes from overcoming difficulties that you previously thought being impossible/unsolvable.

 

Mediocrity should never be virtue in video game design. It should be a sin, an abomination.

The main purpose of a video game is to provide enjoyment and some people enjoy games with less difficulty.

 

This game should not cater to them.

why not? does it hurt your experience with the game?

 

To put it bluntly: in every project, games or not, when you try to do two conflicting designs at the same time you end up reaching bad quality in both aspects.

[metiman]

I'm not very good at tactical combat, but I can get through [...] PS:T on Easy with a bit of patience.

 

Killed me.

 

...but, to answer your question - in one of the updates I believe it have been said, that you will be able to get through the game even without some, or any, party members. So your easy would't probably be less easy than regular Infinity Easy.

Unless they completely FUBAR things up, it will probably be significantly easier, as a large part of the difficulty was poor control schemes and the fact that 2nd ed did not translate to computer well at all. Also, I continue to maintain THAC0 should die in a fire.

 

I've heard this before but I still don't get it. What makes 3rd edition more computer friendly? Most of my favorite cRPGs were 2nd ed. based. Also what alternative is there to some kind of thac0? Just hitting every time?

[utgardloki]

i actually support a very easy mode. you could make it like the heart of fury one you tick at the beginning of the game, let's call it fullretard mode, were every enemy in the game is replaced by a crippled kobold that drops every artefact in the game and millions of experience points when you beat him. he will also be a recurring character and the closer you are to completing the game, the more crippled he will be. so at the start he may be just missing a finger, but by the end he will just have his head and torso left. and instead of a final, hard bossfight you talk to the crippled kobold who then tells you about the pains of being a crippled kobold and how he only wanted to be loved, and then you have like three choices, either your maincharacter romances the kobold(good), ask him for money(neutral), or your party gangrapes him(evil)

 

that'd be pretty sweet.

[Jasede]

I'm not very good at tactical combat, but I can get through [...] PS:T on Easy with a bit of patience.

 

Killed me.

 

...but, to answer your question - in one of the updates I believe it have been said, that you will be able to get through the game even without some, or any, party members. So your easy would't probably be less easy than regular Infinity Easy.

Unless they completely FUBAR things up, it will probably be significantly easier, as a large part of the difficulty was poor control schemes and the fact that 2nd ed did not translate to computer well at all. Also, I continue to maintain THAC0 should die in a fire.

 

I've heard this before but I still don't get it. What makes 3rd edition more computer friendly? Most of my favorite cRPGs were 2nd ed. based. Also what alternative is there to some kind of thac0? Just hitting every time?

They don't realize that 3.5/3rd Ed AB/AC system is just Thac0 in disguise, maybe? Not sure.

[TwinkieGorilla]

Nobody who is in the business of making money wants to only serve a niche market.

 

You do realize Obsidian already serve a niche market, yes? And yes, that is exactly what they're going after with this game.

 

I don't understand why the "sim-loving crowd" are even interested in old-school RPGs in the first place

 

There are some people who hear about a new or popular thing happening and want to be a part of it. They jump on board blindly without actually researching what it is or they actually think their pledge will give them the ability to shape the product around their personal desires. It happened on the WL2 forums during the entire process as well. People got so incredibly upset that this "party based" game which was advertised as a "party based" game was going to be a "party based" game. Go figure. Same thing happening here.

 

"Oh no don't make it difficult like those classic cRPGs which you've advertised this as being!

[Gene3]

I remember people who pledged for Wasteland 2 and were then trying to get changes made to make a it a totally different game, it doesn't make any sense but it happens.

[jtav]

Never played the Sims in my life. I've completed the BG saga, PS:T, both KOTORs, NWN and expansions as well as more modern RPGs like DA and AP. I wouldn't be here if I hadn't had tremendous fun with the old IE games. I was attempting to ascertain that they'd be of comparable difficulty and not Dark Souls: the RPG. Comments and requests on this forum had me worried. Sawyer's comment did a great deal to assuage those worries.

[TwinkieGorilla]

Never played the Sims in my life. I've completed the BG saga, PS:T, both KOTORs, NWN and expansions as well as more modern RPGs like DA and AP. I wouldn't be here if I hadn't had tremendous fun with the old IE games. I was attempting to ascertain that they'd be of comparable difficulty and not Dark Souls: the RPG. Comments and requests on this forum had me worried. Sawyer's comment did a great deal to assuage those worries.

 

Sounds legit. It wasn't your OP which ever had me concerned, fwiw.

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I think people are being a little hard on this guy, I think easy will be easy because if the devs don't make it so then they have done something wrong. It takes nothing away from my experience if someone wants to play the game on an easier setting so why be an ass about it.

 

I hope the devs consider people like the OP too. Who want to experience the world of eternity but who aren't exactly top notch at crpgs.

 

(Before you reply just remember, I was the one who asked for the super hard ridiculous modes )

[Living One]

Never played the Sims in my life. I've completed the BG saga, PS:T, both KOTORs, NWN and expansions as well as more modern RPGs like DA and AP. I wouldn't be here if I hadn't had tremendous fun with the old IE games. I was attempting to ascertain that they'd be of comparable difficulty and not Dark Souls: the RPG. Comments and requests on this forum had me worried. Sawyer's comment did a great deal to assuage those worries.

 

Sounds legit. It wasn't your OP which ever had me concerned, fwiw.

Indeed.It's that other people don't realize the conflict there can be between game modes and game design.They think it's just a matter of adjusting HPs because it's what modern RPGs do and that games like DAO or Witcher get hardcore on hard mode.But the corridor level design,the crappy 'some HPs + basic attack' enemies,quest design based on quest arrows and other stuff for the 'i like games just not playing them' crowd are still there.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Living One

[Nakia]

The easy mode will be easy. Which is good for people who are new to this type of game playing. When I first started I played on easy. There is no shame to that. If some one wants to stroll through the game primarily for the story that too is fine. I see no reason why they should be shamed or feel ashamed. This is a single player game and how I play the game is my business.

 

As for niches in a sense all games are made for a niche. TES games have become so watered down because they want to appeal for the niche, a very lare niche, of people who want to be everything and do everything except they don't want to be challenged, don't want to use stratergy, don't want to have to think about what they are doing and don't want a main quest. I know this because I have had discussions with some of them and that is exactly what they say. They want a completely open, sandbox world with no game ending.

 

Why they would want to play a game based on the old style Infinity Engine games is beyoond me. Maybe they think because the developers have a place where the game can be discussed as it is actually being made they will be able to tell the developers what to do. :shrugs: The fact that the developers are making the game they, the developers, want to make probably does not even enter their minds.

 

As soon as I heard about the Project I jumped over to donate because it is an isometric, party based game which is based on the old style games which to me means story depth, challenge, thinking, fun. That is what I want and what I expect to get.

[ogrezilla]

*sigh*

 

You know like real life, achieving something requires a certain level of work. Now, since we are talking about a game, the more difficult it is, the more rewarding it will be to be able to finish it. If you suck at gaming, then (mentally) train, reload and do it again until it is done correctly. The best things in life do not stem from hand-holding, effortless pat on the back or getting awarded only by participating or showing interest, it comes from overcoming difficulties that you previously thought being impossible/unsolvable.

 

Mediocrity should never be virtue in video game design. It should be a sin, an abomination.

The main purpose of a video game is to provide enjoyment and some people enjoy games with less difficulty.

 

This game should not cater to them.

why not? does it hurt your experience with the game?

 

To put it bluntly: in every project, games or not, when you try to do two conflicting designs at the same time you end up reaching bad quality in both aspects.

That's why I am supporting this system which doesn't try to do two conflicting designs at the same time. They are doing an easy mode instead.

 

And to the people saying they already serve a niche market so that is their target, I understand that the niche market is their main target. I hope it stays that way and all indications are pointing to them doing just that. But there is just no way you are going to convince me they don't WANT other people to see a game designed for that niche market and decide to try it. I want average joe frathouse to pick this game up -- a game designed for the niche market -- and love it. I want him to spread it to his madden and call of duty friends. I want my wife to pick it up and give it to her Sim loving friends. I want the type of game that we currently enjoy as a niche market to become popular in the form that we enjoy them. There is just no way Obsidian doesn't want that too. Is it realistic? No, not at all. But its still the ideal scenario. They aren't making games for a niche market because they prefer serving a niche market. They are making games for a niche market because that is the only market the type of game they want to make currently appeals to.

[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.

[ogrezilla]

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.

ya I don't want that to happen at all. We've seen that happen and we know what games it leads to. 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.

[Ieo]

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.

[Malcador]

No one trusts Obsidian based on this forum and its polls and suggestions, heh. As for 'extremists', though, dramatic much ?

[TwinkieGorilla]

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.