What Is Ironman Mode To You?

[nikolokolus]

I completely understand why people like Iron Man mode. it's not really for me though. I rarely have a lot of time to put into a game, and losing a lot of progress because I wasn't paying attention because I was tired doesn't appeal to me.

 

What does that word mean in a game though?  There are no lasting consequences for success or failure in a game where animated pixels move about a screen according to mouse movements and key presses.  Not judging your preferences, just thinking "out loud" about the concept of "progress"

[obsidiansquid]

 

 

I completely understand why people like Iron Man mode. it's not really for me though. I rarely have a lot of time to put into a game, and losing a lot of progress because I wasn't paying attention because I was tired doesn't appeal to me.

What does that word mean in a game though? There are no lasting consequences for success or failure in a game where animated pixels move about a screen according to mouse movements and key presses. Not judging your preferences, just thinking "out loud" about the concept of "progress"

I think you're thinking a little too hard about this. Simply put, I don't want to lose a character that I've invested time into, or have to replay portions of a game against my desire.

[IndiraLightfoot]

I'll definitely wait before I'll try that, and I'm not even sure that I will go ahead and use it.

 

I've tried various forms of ironman modes in other games. In Diablo 3 I did some hardcore, which took a much more careful approach and more hoarding-up of good-enough items before you dared pass bosses and certain tough elites. In the end, it wasn't really worth it - it wasn't that exciting, I'm too old to get a kick from games that way. But I must say that XCOM EU:s hardcore certainly got me juices going a fari bit, so perhaps PE's can be something like that.

 

Being a quite seasoned CRP-gamer, I nearly always pick hard difficulty, though, and one of the best I can remember in later years is actually Obsidian's hardcore difficulty for DS III. The challenge was there all along, it felt like certain computer games from the 80s and 90s that didn't compromise on difficulty. Heck, just a short bit into DS III, you'll meet a witch who means business. That was great! So yea, sometimes a bit of frustrating setbacks can make a game better, at least for me, but no masochism, please!

 

Most importantly, just like D&D-based CRPGS, I will engage myself in the characters I'll roll up, so they won't be power-gamey all the time, that usually happen in me 3rd or 4th playthrough, and perhaps then I'll switch to PE's ironman mode.

Edited February 11, 2013 by IndiraLightfoot

[Sedrefilos]

Ironman is a hardcore game mode. I don't use it in rpg's. A i don't "trial and error" ever. I make a dicision and stick with it. Unless the game is so bad written i choose something and the game act completely different of what i imagined it would. It happens seldom, but it happens. That time and only that time i reload the game.

 

So, ironman mode is a good addition that should be optional only.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Sedrefilos

[TRX850]

I imagined it to be like "Heart of Fury" mode in IWD1&2.  Enemies have much higher HP and do more damage, but give a lot more XP.

 

Need to remove level capping in that case.

[Osvir]

I imagined it to be like "Heart of Fury" mode in IWD1&2.  Enemies have much higher HP and do more damage, but give a lot more XP.

 

Need to remove level capping in that case.

 

Or simply adjust the level capping making enemies have higher level scaling which equals "More HP+More Damage". As enemies doesn't seem to drop experience in P:E, what with Objective-Based Experience (anything new on that that I've missed?), how would they give more?

 

Honestly I hope that Experience tables stay the same, just because I play on a Harder Difficulty I shouldn't be awarded with more Experience. Actually, to go further Hardcore I'd personally prefer if you actually got less experience.

[Umberlin]

A waste of manpower, effort, time and resources better spent elsewhere.

[maggotheart]

A waste of manpower, effort, time and resources better spent elsewhere.

 

Come on Umberlin, including features that you don't like / won't use doesn't make those features a 'waste'. By that logic, every feature that Umberlin isn't going to use or doesnt like is a waste of manpower, effort, time and resources.

[Gorgon]

If the difficulty is just perfect I prefer Ironman as well. You have to be cautious, plan ahead. Things you wouldn't otherwise bother with.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

A waste of manpower, effort, time and resources better spent elsewhere.

 

I couldn't disagree more. Creating a mode where only one save file is possible, and triggered only on exit and loss isn't very complicated. If anything, the existance of Ironman mode will force the developers to more critically ponder the balance and mechanics of their system. Furthermore, I believe it will lead to better scenario, quest, and encounter design--as GOTCHA moments will be passe. "Just reload" or "reload until you discover narrowly defined strategy X" will not be acceptable conclusions.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Mr. Magniloquent

[Larkaloke]

A game mode for something that I'll likely do eventually anyhow, although I may or may not use the actual mode (I like to make many saved games even if I'm only ever going to reload them in case of a crash or to look back on where that party was at a particular point). 

 

The more I play various games, the more I like to challenge myself while playing through them. For Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale and such, this has mostly come in the form of allowing myself only a certain number of reloads throughout the whole game or per chapter. I haven't quite made it to none at all yet, but I intend to, and eventually I expect to get to that point with Project Eternity also. 

 

It can be frustrating at times, but it feels more satisfying in the end to me to complete a game with minimal to no reloads. 

[Umberlin]

Come on Umberlin, including features that you don't like / won't use doesn't make those features a 'waste'. By that logic, every feature that Umberlin isn't going to use or doesnt like is a waste of manpower, effort, time and resources.

 

Funny you make it sound like it's only me, when, the reality is, the major portion of the gaming community have no care or want for such modes. Such modes, and the hardest difficulties are always the least used, least played and least cared about. Outside of the scope of a few loud mouthed elitists, and a few not-elitist, but very hardcore gamers, that is. Any time, manpower, effort and resources they could spend on a mode so few will use, let alone care about, could be infinitely better spent on features that the majority will actually make use of. It's the old MMO only 5% of players ever seeing the end game issue, why make content that only a tiny fraction of the total possible populatin will ever use? It doesn't make a lick of sense from any perspective, save for a few stuck in the constant, but loud, minority.

 

Still, none of that matters. The original poster asked a question. I gave an answer, no one has to like or agree with my answer. He certainly didn't ask for answers that he'd like, and especially not for ones you'd like. Just for answers. I gave mine. It doesn't matter anymore than your answer. We have ironmad mode regardless. You don't have to like or agree with my opinion. I don't have to agree with yours, and I honestly don't care enough to like or dislike yours besides.

[maggotheart]

 

Come on Umberlin, including features that you don't like / won't use doesn't make those features a 'waste'. By that logic, every feature that Umberlin isn't going to use or doesnt like is a waste of manpower, effort, time and resources.

 

Funny you make it sound like it's only me, when, the reality is, the major portion of the gaming community have no care or want for such modes. Such modes, and the hardest difficulties are always the least used, least played and least cared about. Outside of the scope of a few loud mouthed elitists, and a few not-elitist, but very hardcore gamers, that is. Any time, manpower, effort and resources they could spend on a mode so few will use, let alone care about, could be infinitely better spent on features that the majority will actually make use of. It's the old MMO only 5% of players ever seeing the end game issue, why make content that only a tiny fraction of the total possible populatin will ever use? It doesn't make a lick of sense from any perspective, save for a few stuck in the constant, but loud, minority.

 

Still, none of that matters. The original poster asked a question. I gave an answer, no one has to like or agree with my answer. He certainly didn't ask for answers that he'd like, and especially not for ones you'd like. Just for answers. I gave mine. It doesn't matter anymore than your answer. We have ironmad mode regardless. You don't have to like or agree with my opinion. I don't have to agree with yours, and I honestly don't care enough to like or dislike yours besides.

 

So the game should be made entirely by majority opinion and if I like Ironman mode and/or complete the content in games I play I'm automatically an obnoxious elitist? It's not so much that I dislike and disagree with your opinions, it's that they are objectively bad opinions and it should be pointed out if you're going to come in here and post them.

[JFSOCC]

I don't think I;ll play ironman, but who knows, maybe I'll try it sometime and I might find I'll like it.

[Osvir]

 

Any time, manpower, effort and resources they could spend on a mode so few will use, let alone care about, could be infinitely better spent on features that the majority will actually make use of. It's the old MMO only 5% of players ever seeing the end game issue, why make content that only a tiny fraction of the total possible populatin will ever use? It doesn't make a lick of sense from any perspective, save for a few stuck in the constant, but loud, minority.

Yep, and that's how Dragon Age, Mass Effect and other dumbed down games came to existence. And yeah the MMO example explains so good why such "great" game like TOR burned down like a supernova.

 

I believe creating a game at the highest difficulty gives most to everyone. Why? Design the game at 100% (Josh Saywer Designed?*) Difficulty and you can adjust the % for lesser difficulty. However, if you design a game at 10% Difficulty, how do you expect to create the rest of the 90%?

 

I am not just trying to be an elitist Hardcore Gamer when I say "Make the game as difficult as possible!" I believe that it is healthy and a wise choice for the development and the best course of action to deliver a great game for everyone.

 

Similarly, creating the game 100% Difficulty allows fan-mod-community to make an even higher difficulty.

 

* Who decides the difficulty of the game? EDIT: @Obsidian that is

 

EDDIE'T: This is a response to Umberlin btw.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Osvir

[Amentep]

 

A waste of manpower, effort, time and resources better spent elsewhere.

 

I couldn't disagree more. Creating a mode where only one save file is possible, and triggered only on exit and loss isn't very complicated. If anything, the existance of Ironman mode will force the developers to more critically ponder the balance and mechanics of their system. Furthermore, I believe it will lead to better scenario, quest, and encounter design--as GOTCHA moments will be passe. "Just reload" or "reload until you discover narrowly defined strategy X" will not be acceptable conclusions.

Its funny you should say that, because I find Dark Souls/Demon Souls to be essentially made of GOTCHA moments where you die and reload until you discover narrowly defined strategy X and yet is considered to be one of the best "hardcore" RPG games in recent memory.

 

I have no interest in an Ironman Mode generally speaking.  I don't mind harder difficulties even though I rarely move above/below the default difficulty but a mode which will delete my save?  No thanks.  But that means its inclusion is ultimately irrelevant to me.

[Brother Pain]

In regular PnP, where the GM can improvise on the spot, fib dice rolls (even if they don't) and so on, I still prefer games that don't so easily outright kill you. Like games with Fate Points, bleeding rules, and so on. Losing a character in a PnP game is disheartening, and if it happens too many times, I tend to lose any and all empathy with the new characters I make.

And a total party kill has often been the end of a campaign.

 

I can't imagine I'll ever touch Iron Man mode, and any game that makes me lose several hours of progress when I die is a game I likely won't be playing for long (see: mid to high level Everquest, Demon's Souls, DayZ, and any game without free saving or regular save states/check points).

[Mr. Magniloquent]

 

 

A waste of manpower, effort, time and resources better spent elsewhere.

 

I couldn't disagree more. Creating a mode where only one save file is possible, and triggered only on exit and loss isn't very complicated. If anything, the existance of Ironman mode will force the developers to more critically ponder the balance and mechanics of their system. Furthermore, I believe it will lead to better scenario, quest, and encounter design--as GOTCHA moments will be passe. "Just reload" or "reload until you discover narrowly defined strategy X" will not be acceptable conclusions.

Its funny you should say that, because I find Dark Souls/Demon Souls to be essentially made of GOTCHA moments where you die and reload until you discover narrowly defined strategy X and yet is considered to be one of the best "hardcore" RPG games in recent memory.

 

I have no interest in an Ironman Mode generally speaking.  I don't mind harder difficulties even though I rarely move above/below the default difficulty but a mode which will delete my save?  No thanks.  But that means its inclusion is ultimately irrelevant to me.

Demon Souls may be single save, but you are permitted more than one death. Like so many others, I've died in those games more times than I can count. That's very far from having only one irrevokable, game-ending death. Between being able to respawn, and the game having deliberate sadistic/mascochistic elements, I don't believe balance was really much of any concern in Demon Souls. I have never played Dark Souls, so I can't really comment. I'm led to believe they are very similar though.