Hey kid, we have different stories about it.

What do you think about building storyline mechanics with respect to different difficulty options?

I mean that gameplay would vary not only in difficulty, but in storyline or amount of quests that player receive.

It may look like developer have to build handful unique stories and will demand double of money and HR. My idea is to build one complete main plot and set of side stories/quests, and until certain difficulty modes (suppose those 3 special most difficult goals) player wont get all side quests (developers may even randomize offered set) and may be restricted to go through some predefined shortcuts of main story. Another possibility (along with hiding some secondary quests) will just end main plot and propose to continue (or even restart) on full difficulty to see extension of story.

 

P.S.: I know that this may require additional funds, however perhaps not as many compared to the interest shown by players. Many games struggle to attend audience more than once. Such feature may add motivation, and different gaming experience. Instead of single pass, players will become interested to go through the game again. And of course, adding more arbitrariness of gameplay will reduce significance of pass-through "manuals" which will inevitably rise over the internet with time.

Edited October 15, 201213 yr by turboprop

Uhh, different story based on difficulty? No thanks.

 

If you want replayability, that's what the branching stories are for. Pick a different path the second time around. Play different character types, see how they interact, etc... There is no need to limit it artificially based on the difficulty someone decides to play at.

What? No. That's... that's terrible. The only good thing I can say about that is that it gives me warm memories of playing Twisted Metal 2, where you couldn't go past a certain area - I think you could only play up to the Minion fight in Amazonia, the lava level - unless you were on a certain difficulty. I loved the game in spite of that, not because of it.

 

I... no. No.

(1) It's unfair. (there really are people who aren't so good at the combat aspect, no need to punish them if they're after the story content)

 

(2) MAY require additional funds? Realize that there will be a minimum of five difficulty levels.

 

(3) "Many games" struggle to maintain interest for multiple play-throughs--what games are you talking about? People are still replaying IWD and BG and PST. Which, by the way, are the games that PE is paying homage to.

 

(4) Replay value is being built into PE with different cultures/races and faction reputation. And lots of side quests.

 

Sorry, but I have to go with a 'No' to this idea. It's a lot of unnecessary work for no real gain.

kill it with fire

my bro plays a strategy-rpg game that has 4 difficulty settings and you have to finish it on one to play the next. and at each difficulty there are 2 extra mission not available in the previous and all the story elements that go with them. so to see the whole story of the game you have to finish it 4 times, each time on a harder setting. so he finished it 3 times already and keeps playing to finish the extremelly hard setting, to play the real final mission and see the real ending. and for that reason he had to put on hold playing other games he wanted

it's a forceful waste of the player's time to change the game itself based on difficulty. if you want replayability, give variety so that the player will have to play again to see stuff his last play style didnt let him see

This is a horrible idea. If someone is inexperienced, disabled, bad at games, has terrible luck, or for some other reason just wants to play the game on the easiest setting to see the story, he or she should not be penalized by not seeing the entire story.

Well if the requirement for skill checks in dialog changed with difficulty level, as is often the case in combat, an attempt to just recreate a play through at lower difficulty levels could have different outcomes.

 

As for the actual potential story being different... definitely not.

I don't like the idea in general, and most certainly not regarding the main story line. I don't play games like this on the hardest combat setting anyhow - to me the whole point of the game is to enjoy the story, not the combat challenges....they are typically just a necessary evil to move the story along.

 

So, if there were some aspects - even just optional side quests - that were only available on the "harder" settings, I might even be slightly annoyed. I am perfectly fine with rewards and loot being better at the harder settings, but the story experience MUST be the same.

In science, sometimes, subject of statement or thesis worth research & study, just to show that it was wrong. I think poll and written opinions answered all questions proposed by subject of topic.

I can't support this idea, but I welcome little gimmicks.

For example in the old Sierra game "Loom" the was a little but significant scene which appeared only on the hardest difficulty level.

It didn't change anything in gameplay though.

I can't support this idea, but I welcome little gimmicks.

For example in the old Sierra game "Loom" the was a little but significant scene which appeared only on the hardest difficulty level.

It didn't change anything in gameplay though.

 

Yes, that is something I also thought of - not a completely new, otherway unexplorabable area, but some kind of nice, little scene / encounter you wouldnt experience on lower difficulties. That could be an ingame scene with migthy characters of the world (they meet you or they meet each other), or maybe a bit longer video sequence. Nothing more I would expect.

No, I don't want to miss out on game content because I choose not to play at the highest difficulty levels. It'd effectively be forcing people to play at a difficulty they may not be comfortable playing at.

 

Replay value should stem from different ways to do quests, with different consequences depending on your choices. It should also stem from various party companions, and mixing and matching them in subsequent play throughs. It should *NOT* stem from having to play at each of the different difficulty levels in order to see all possible story/quest/encounters.

That's right. All the differences may be reduced to finite collection of Easter eggs, if not to glorify, then just to decorate a real hardcore effort.

I'm hardcore! I deserve more!

Not more, but a bit different. Imagine hardened in battles NPC ranger who offers a companionship to "tough" adventurer like you and compare to same NPC who wont bother to look in your direction (no matter how high your skills are). Same story, same environment, different gaming experience. But since that idea left without support of audience, i wont try to justify whatsoever. Last time i merely supported someone's opinion regarding possible optional meaningless decorative scenes (i rephrased it with Easter eggs term that's it).

Edited October 15, 201213 yr by turboprop

Those are pretty broad categories so I chose "Other"

 

Depends on what you mean by plot and side quest changes - if you mean that you may get different types/numbers of enemies or more traps or other environmental stuff (smaller pathways that force the group to single file) etc then yeah - that would be kind of kewl.

 

If you mean totally different plot lines or other major changes etc - then no - I see no need for that much variance (and the extra work it would entail) for content that is only seen at certain difficulty levels.

 

They have already said that there will be choices in the game that may open or close other choices as the game progresses so you will be unable to do everything thats possible to do in a single playthrough and I think thats plenty of variance in plot lines etc. and those are not going to be restricted based on what difficulty you choose - hence will be available to everyone.

So you're saying that people who aren't good at IE-style games should be punished for not being good at them. How is this a good idea? Denying unskilled players for whom this kind of game just isn't their "thing" access to the full game is an outdated concept that detracts from both the gameplay and narrative experience, especially given Obsidian's strong slant toward story and characters.

 

What's the point of telling a story if you selectively choose the "weak" and tell them to leave the room so they don't get to hear the best part or the ending? It's like literary eugenics.

Edited October 28, 201213 yr by AGX-17

I'm strongly opposed to this.

 

1. As others have mentioned, some people simply aren't that talented at this sort of game. If they want to buy PE for the story, I don't see why the game should punish them.

 

2. It all but ensures that a player's first playthrough will be the shortest and most boring playthrough. I know some people have an impulse to save the best for last, but that sort of design means that a lot of players will never end up seeing that extra content because they weren't that thrilled by the game the first time around.

 

3. It makes the game very inaccessible to new players. It's already somewhat so because its design will be unfamiliar to many people. But it's kind of a nail in the coffin if people can't even recommend it to their friends without mentioning that it doesn't get good until the third time through.

 

4. There are lots of other ways to enhance replayability: making the combat so fun people want to try it on a more challenging setting, allowing enough reactivity so that characters can make very different choices, making the game easily moddable so players can create their own content. Gating story content based on combat skill seems cheap in comparison.

 

5. Beyond all this, if someone likes the game but only feels like playing it once, I don't think that's a terrible result. I suspect most of this game's audience is over the age of 25, and some people's work and personal lives are going to limit their ability to constantly replay games. Other people just like to take the one tour through on their special characters. PE isn't an MMO, so I don't see why there would be a need to push people who don't really want to replay a game to do so. They paid the same upfront price, and I think they deserve to have their only playthrough be an amazing experience, not a shortened version of the story that people who have played several times get.

Edited October 28, 201213 yr by eselle28