Jump to content

Can we really play the whole game with just one character?


Recommended Posts

I think it is more of the challenge that someone wants to undertake once they beat it.  For me at least.  So, say I already beat it 3 or 4 times with varying party sizes.  So I want to test myself.  I setup a challenge to see just how good I am.  It is why people like to do other challenges for games to limit themselves in some fashion that overcoming it all brings a sense of accomplishment for it.  Some do it for other reasons, but for me I just like the challenge faced with a limit I impose on myself (outside of what the game already has for challenges).  Will it be impossible to do?  Will I be able to do it knowing the systems the game uses?  What do I need to do to overcome this hurdle of a single player run through with no companions?  A test of knowledge, skills, and perseverance.

 

If it turns out that I can't do it, oh well.  If I can, great.  Like mentioned, it is a single-player RPG that is party based.  But that party based experience isn't forced.  Yes, it is built around the premise of having a party, but nothing that says, "You MUST have a party."  Just, "If you don't play with a party we won't stop you, but we aren't building it around that playstyle."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it is a little late in the game for that, you will get used to it.

 

Personally I hope it turns out to be next to impossible to solo the game.  I never got why people even tried.  The game isn't more fun that way, the story is no different, etc etc.  So if it comes about that soloing the game is actually something that can't be done I will be perfectly happy with it.  Even if it is doable and there are big achievements with it that let me brag to my friends and flount my gamer cred .... I still won't even bother trying it.  It is a party based RPG, why would I ever want to play it without the depth of an actual party and the fun that adds to the combat and story?

 

Oh I know, that is why I said it will take some getting used to.

 

Why would it bother you that someone else is playing the game solo? Is it important to those people that you don't find it fun or don't get it? You come of sounding like, "Well I don't find it fun, so it shouldn't be possible", that is akin to those people that rage at others for cheating in a single player game.

 

 

Nothing is "needed" Sarex, but it's beneficial for the game. It separates, generally speaking, hit points into a tactical element (stamina) and strategical element (health). Since you suffer only 1/4 of damage to your health and stamina does regenerate after combat, you don't have to rest after every battle, but you still have to pay attention to your health.

 

Ok, then let me rephrase that, it will detract from the game in my opinion. I think that a similar system could have been done with just health. You could still have the maim effects and you could still limit resting and you would simplify the system by not having the stamina.

 

Of course as I have not yet played the stamina system, this is all conjecture. But to me it seems convoluted for no reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the stamina/health system is probably one of the best design choices Obsidian has made on PoE.

 

  • Like 5

"Good thing I don't heal my characters or they'd be really hurt." Is not something I should ever be thinking.

 

I use blue text when I'm being sarcastic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

What confuses you about the stamina/health system? It has a clear purpose.

 

Nothing confuses me, I just think it isn't needed.

 

Well it is a little late in the game for that, you will get used to it.

 

Personally I hope it turns out to be next to impossible to solo the game.  I never got why people even tried.  The game isn't more fun that way, the story is no different, etc etc. 

 

The story is usually no different if you're playing a chick, a different class, or a different race either.  It's basically a nice thing to have for a person who like to roleplay as a loner type character.  Not to mention it's nice for alternate challenges.

Edited by bonarbill
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm sure it will have an acheivement linked to it, and I will get it.

 

AFAIK there are no achievements in the game.

 

 

According to the old FAQ, there are Steam achievements. I don't know if this has been changed.

 

How will I get my digital copy of the game?

 

We're busy developing our fulfillment site, where you'll be able to specify how you would like to get the game, as well as provide us with any other details depending on your tier (for example, T-shirt size, or name in the credits, etc.) We support both GOG and Steam for distribution, so if you prefer DRM-free, you can choose the GOG option, and if you prefer achievements, multi-platform play (via Steam Play) and cloud saving capabilities, you'll be able to choose Steam.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well it is a little late in the game for that, you will get used to it.

 

Personally I hope it turns out to be next to impossible to solo the game.  I never got why people even tried.  The game isn't more fun that way, the story is no different, etc etc.  So if it comes about that soloing the game is actually something that can't be done I will be perfectly happy with it.  Even if it is doable and there are big achievements with it that let me brag to my friends and flount my gamer cred .... I still won't even bother trying it.  It is a party based RPG, why would I ever want to play it without the depth of an actual party and the fun that adds to the combat and story?

 

Oh I know, that is why I said it will take some getting used to.

 

Why would it bother you that someone else is playing the game solo? Is it important to those people that you don't find it fun or don't get it? You come of sounding like, "Well I don't find it fun, so it shouldn't be possible", that is akin to those people that rage at others for cheating in a single player game.

 

.... I said "I never got why people even tried", not "it bothers me that they do this".  You can play the game any way you want, I don't care.  Doesn't make my opinion any more or less valid or change the fact that I see no point in playing solo in a game designed for parties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.... I said "I never got why people even tried", not "it bothers me that they do this".  You can play the game any way you want, I don't care.  Doesn't make my opinion any more or less valid or change the fact that I see no point in playing solo in a game designed for parties.

 

 

Obviously you do care. So much that it's one of your 'personal hopes' that it will be impossible to solo the game. Seems a little weird to hope for something that has no effect on you (since you won't be trying it) but does have an effect on other players who get great enjoyment out of.

 

For me, I play games to get enjoyment. I don't 'hope' for things to be impossible for other players when it doesn't affect how I play the game my way. It's their game, it's their way of playing.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

.... I said "I never got why people even tried", not "it bothers me that they do this".  You can play the game any way you want, I don't care.  Doesn't make my opinion any more or less valid or change the fact that I see no point in playing solo in a game designed for parties.

 

 

Obviously you do care. So much that it's one of your 'personal hopes' that it will be impossible to solo the game. Seems a little weird to hope for something that has no effect on you (since you won't be trying it) but does have an effect on other players who get great enjoyment out of.

 

For me, I play games to get enjoyment. I don't 'hope' for things to be impossible for other players when it doesn't affect how I play the game my way. It's their game, it's their way of playing.

 

It's probably best not to tell other people what they think, especially when they have just specifically clarified their position.

 

He didn't say he hoped it would be impossible, he said "next to impossible", which represents extreme difficulty. Extreme difficulty is exactly what people are looking for when attempting a solo play through.

 

 

Seems a little weird to hope for something that has no effect on you (since you won't be trying it) but does have an effect on other players who get great enjoyment out of.

I don't want to speak for him, but the implication is that he does not want the difficulty of party play-throughs to be sacrificed in order to enable more approachable solo play, based on the assumption that the game is easier with more party members. This is one way in which it could indirectly affect him despite not playing solo himself.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's probably best not to tell other people what they think, especially when they have just specifically clarified their position.

 

He didn't say he hoped it would be impossible, he said "next to impossible", which represents extreme difficulty. Extreme difficulty is exactly what people are looking for when attempting a solo play through.

 

 

Perhaps letting Karkarov explain himself. And it seems to be splitting hairs or changing the context.

 

The connotation of pretty much any adverb applied to "impossible" is that there is a known circumstance or set of events that would produce the "impossibility", but that those circumstances are so improbable as to not be worth consideration. And so any term you can think of with a similar definition would be synonymous.

 

Almost surely impossible - that the event described has a theoretical probability of one (here, referring to the probability of the "impossible" event not occurring). That doesn't mean the opposite (the "impossible" event) can't happen, just that the chances of it not happening are (N-1)/N for a "large" N (approaching infinity).

Practically impossible - The connotation that it is "impractical" (not worth the cost) to plan for it to happen. Doesn't mean it can't, but the odds are so slim the costs and benefits of expecting it aren't worth it.

Nearly impossible - "Nearly" is a synonym and possible definition of "virtually".

All but impossible, more or less impossible, nigh impossible, near impossible - ditto

 

The way Karkarov's post comes across to me was he hoped it would be next to impossible, meaning it may be possible but hoped it wouldn't be.

 

 

 

I don't want to speak for him, but the implication is that he does not want the difficulty of party play-throughs to be sacrificed in order to enable more approachable solo play, based on the assumption that the game is easier with more party members. This is one way in which it could indirectly affect him despite not playing solo himself.

 

 

Yes you do want to speak for him. Which is what you're doing. And no one is suggesting solo play with be more approachable based on the game is easier with more party members. I expect the game to be extremely difficult with solo play. And going by Josh Sawyers comments, it seems the game is not balanced around solo play but a certain number of members in your party. Perhaps taking your own advice 'It's probably best not to tell other people what they think'.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the support there Brainmuncher.

 

I will clarify to the anal retentive degree.

 

You are designing a game, your game is designed around the idea of a party of characters being used by the player to complete it.  Your combat, encounters, mechanics, levels, all of it is designed around the idea that the player has more than one character at his beck and call.  It is done this way from the ground up.  So imagine that someone comes along with only one character and beats the whole thing.  What does that say about your design?  Remember we are supposed to be designing a game you need a party to play.  So if someone can beat it with no party at all when it was designed to be expecting a party that may indicate there is a weakness in the design doesn't it?  Maybe it is too easy, or maybe there are large exploits that can be abused, maybe the class they use is OP as hell?  All of which I consider to be design flaws.

 

Is my point and opinion crystal clear now?  I sure hope so cause I am not posting about it again.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Agree

 

I believe I once tried to play with at least two characters, but perceived a solo-run as a self-mutilation of some sort.

Edited by Messier-31

It would be of small avail to talk of magic in the air...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the support there Brainmuncher.

 

I will clarify to the anal retentive degree.

 

You are designing a game, your game is designed around the idea of a party of characters being used by the player to complete it.  Your combat, encounters, mechanics, levels, all of it is designed around the idea that the player has more than one character at his beck and call.  It is done this way from the ground up.  So imagine that someone comes along with only one character and beats the whole thing.  What does that say about your design?  Remember we are supposed to be designing a game you need a party to play.  So if someone can beat it with no party at all when it was designed to be expecting a party that may indicate there is a weakness in the design doesn't it?  Maybe it is too easy, or maybe there are large exploits that can be abused, maybe the class they use is OP as hell?  All of which I consider to be design flaws.

 

Is my point and opinion crystal clear now?  I sure hope so cause I am not posting about it again.

 

Or maybe, just maybe, you get xp faster with less characters, thus your power is ramping up faster. Also who says that design has to be perfect for a game to be good. Making a design that is perfect and unexploitable is just wasting time that could be put in to making the game more fun and longer. This is a single player game, it is for you to play it like you want to, there is no need to be anal about it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sarex P:E will have a level cap. Gaining XP faster will just make you hit that cap faster and then plateau. If the endgame is balanced for or near the level cap, you're going to be roughly 1/6 as powerful as a full party at that point.

 

That should be bloody close to unwinnable from where I'm at, or else it will probably be too easy for a competently played full party.

 

(Unless you level scale to total party levels of course. :ducks: )

  • Like 3

I have a project. It's a tabletop RPG. It's free. It's a work in progress. Find it here: www.brikoleur.com

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sarex P:E will have a level cap. Gaining XP faster will just make you hit that cap faster and then plateau. If the endgame is balanced for or near the level cap, you're going to be roughly 1/6 as powerful as a full party at that point.

 

That should be bloody close to unwinnable from where I'm at, or else it will probably be too easy for a competently played full party.

 

(Unless you level scale to total party levels of course. :ducks: )

 

Or it will just be 6 times harder.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and if 6 times harder than the default difficult isn't nearly unwinnable, then the default difficulty can't be very hard, can it now?

 

Or someone is just 6 times better then you at the game.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me just ask something.  And no one take offense to this, as it isn't meant to offend anyone.  The game is made around a party system for completing it.  And we know that different people will invariably be better at completing the game on different modes.  So, say you have a hard time beating it with a full party on the highest difficulty.  Someone else has a pretty moderate challenge for beating it with a party of 4 on the highest difficulty.  But, someone else is so good at the game that they can beat it with one character on the highest difficulty.

 

So, taking all of those different people with different skills in beating the game, can you say that just because someone else beat it with one character and no party that the mechanics that were made for a party game are broken?  

 

Since I am asking, I will also give my opinion.  No, I don't see the mechanics of the game as broken or faulty because someone was able to accomplish something I was unable to.  We know it is set around a party beating the game, and won't be optimized for solo play.  But, just because someone can beat it doesn't mean that it is broken or faulty, it just means someone is that much better than I am.  I can find it the hardest challenge in the world with a full party, and can possibly not even beat it then.  That is just my opinion about it.

 

 

Edit:  But, if I could load up the game today and beat it with one party member on the highest difficulty with no real knowledge of the game system, then yes, I would consider it broken and faulty.  That would be a pretty crappy game design and most likely boring as heck to play combat wise.

Edited by StromIV
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, taking all of those different people with different skills in beating the game, can you say that just because someone else beat it with one character and no party that the mechanics that were made for a party game are broken? 

Okay let's make something clear.  The game won't be "broken".  If it were broken no one could beat it because the mechanics would be broken and therefore unplayable.  People need to stop using that word to describe poor design, bad design is not "broken" it still works it was just designed badly.

 

That said, again, in a game that has been implicitly stated to be designed around the use of a party and solo play (supposedly) not considered in the design... then yes I would say the design is poor if it can be completed solo.  If the whole idea was using a party and come to find out you don't need one at all then something somewhere in your implementation must have failed on a fundamental level.  Either that or you were considering solo play the whole time and you did want it to be possible you just didn't want to outright state that for some reason.

 

The achievement list will speak volumes.  If there is an achievement for completing the game solo then we will know despite whatever has been said to this point solo play has been considered and somewhere in there they purposefully made sure it was possible to clear the game alone.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay let's make something clear.  The game won't be "broken".  If it were broken no one could beat it because the mechanics would be broken and therefore unplayable.  People need to stop using that word to describe poor design, bad design is not "broken" it still works it was just designed badly.

 

That said, again, in a game that has been implicitly stated to be designed around the use of a party and solo play (supposedly) not considered in the design... then yes I would say the design is poor if it can be completed solo.  If the whole idea was using a party and come to find out you don't need one at all then something somewhere in your implementation must have failed on a fundamental level.  Either that or you were considering solo play the whole time and you did want it to be possible you just didn't want to outright state that for some reason.

 

The achievement list will speak volumes.  If there is an achievement for completing the game solo then we will know despite whatever has been said to this point solo play has been considered and somewhere in there they purposefully made sure it was possible to clear the game alone.

 

 

I'm sorry but that is such a ridiculous statement. So if the game doesn't force you to use the whole party then, it's bad design. Yeah, I'm not buying that at all.

Edited by Sarex
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you are saying, but I will just have to agree to disagree.  Just because someone somewhere can pull it off, doesn't mean everyone can pull it off even if that one person told a million people.  Not everyone is as skilled at completing games as everyone else.  Like mentioned, it is built around party play and solo play isn't taken into account.  But just because something isn't taken into account does not mean someone out there isn't smart enough to out think the developer.  No one developing team can ever take into account every possible persons strategy for playing a game.  Just isn't possible.  So, if someone manages to out think the developer, then I can't blame the developer for that and say that the system failed.  Unless you think someone can come up with some miraculous formula for designing a game that no one can ever work around?  Never seen a full proof system that is so perfect that just because the game is designed a certain way that a player can't outsmart it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is, everyone's operating under the same constraints. There's a level cap, for example. So, even gaining experience and leveling faster than your whole party normally would, you can never be level 15 when your party of anywhere from 2-6 people would've been level 12, and stuff was still challenging, even for them.

 

Either:

 

A) the stuff is easy for the level 12 party of 6, or

B) the stuff is ludicrously impossible for the single level 12 person. OR

C) what you face actually scales to how many people are in your party, in some form or fashion.

 

Those are really the only possibilities.

 

No matter what level you reach, solo, you're going to be 1/6th as mathematically capable than a full party at that same level. No matter how much player skill you have, you can only hit so many enemies with a single spell, and you can only have SUCH high defenses.

 

This isn't an action game, where good enough timing and active dodging will prevent you from taking damage. You can't just will Attack Resolution to not take place.

 

So, yeah, it should be pretty darn ridiculously hard to get through the whole game solo, and probably only possible at all on Easy, MAYBE Normal.

 

Karkarov is simply observing this inherent relationship in the difficulty. It's not about players being super skilled. It's about inherent limitations that no amount of player skill can change. Those have a relationship with the number of characters you're controlling, no matter what.

  • Like 5

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is, everyone's operating under the same constraints. There's a level cap, for example. So, even gaining experience and leveling faster than your whole party normally would, you can never be level 15 when your party of anywhere from 2-6 people would've been level 12, and stuff was still challenging, even for them.

 

Either:

 

A) the stuff is easy for the level 12 party of 6, or

B) the stuff is ludicrously impossible for the single level 12 person. OR

C) what you face actually scales to how many people are in your party, in some form or fashion.

 

Those are really the only possibilities.

 

No.

 

D) the stuff is normal for the level 12 party of 6, or

E) the stuff takes longer to overcome for a single level 12 person, or

F) Your solo character is using multiple ways and skills (which would normally be done with multiple characters) in that lengthy battle to overcome it, or

G) You're using tactics, skills or things in the game that work and which follow the rules to overcome the enemy that other people may not have thought of, or

H) You're great at playing games with these sort of challenges which gives you the edge over others who can't do this.

 

And there would be more ways that other people would try.

 

Concerning point G. You can finish IWD2 with a level 1 Rogue and open every chest, find and disarm every trap in the game. The way you do this is multiclass to a different class (say a Mage) and level up that second class and you can still allocate points to your thieving abilities with your second class. That's all within the rules. Even though PoE doesn't have mutli-classing, you can still allocate points in other skills you probably wouldn't. So that solo mage in PoE can now find, disarm traps and pick locks. In a normal party of 6, you wouldn't be allocating thieving points to your mage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of agree that if a party-based game is soloable, it's probably because of lacking monster/combat/encounter design. Not necessarily, there's certainly a lot of player skill and relentless experimentation involved in such feats, but most of the time it comes down to abusing some part of the game.

 

Soloing IWD 2 Heart of Fury mode, which is definitely the hardest challenge in the IE games, is based on endless Monster Summoning (+Animate Dead, +Gate etc.), best done with an aasimar paladin 1/sorcerer X. There's basically no other way to do it (if there is, please let me know!). It abuses these facts:

- No limit on summons.

- Summons get the same stat upgrades that mobs get, so these spells become automatically über-powerful by playing HoF, while all others spells don't (in fact, thanks to the +10 to monster attributes AND higher base saves AND tons of extra hit points, most of other the spells get significantly weaker in actual use).

 

So the extra party helpers which are disposable by default are also incredibly strong in HoF, and numerous by DnD default. And yes, I consider that broken game design. Abusing broken game design DOESN'T make you a better player. That's just the power fantasy that you tell yourself. There's very little skill involved in the above playstyle, you call a crapton of summons safely out of enemy sight, drop a few buffs and then focus target mobs, maybe throwing in some AoE disable spells like the Symbols or Wail of the Banshee at the start, hoping for a few fails on the tough HoF saves. Repeat until your fingers are sore, not that much different from Diablo's gameplay. The only challenging fights are where you're immediately dropped into combat after traveling, with no buffs on you and no summons with you. Even then, casting invisibility takes care of the immediate threat, and you can continue to cheese your way through the game. ;)

 

Anyone who wants a "nice" solo challenge should try any of the following games with just a single character:

-- Bard's Tale 3

-- Dragons Wars

-- Incubation and its expansion, The WIlderness Missions

 

Good luck. The above games didn't fail to provide an abuse-proof party-sized challenge.

  • Like 1

The Seven Blunders/Roots of Violence: Wealth without work. Pleasure without conscience. Knowledge without character. Commerce without morality. Science without humanity. Worship without sacrifice. Politics without principle. (Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi)

 

Let's Play the Pools Saga (SSI Gold Box Classics)

Pillows of Enamored Warfare -- The Zen of Nodding

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of agree that if a party-based game is soloable, it's probably because of lacking monster/combat/encounter design. Not necessarily, there's certainly a lot of player skill and relentless experimentation involved in such feats, but most of the time it comes down to abusing some part of the game.

 

Soloing IWD 2 Heart of Fury mode, which is definitely the hardest challenge in the IE games, is based on endless Monster Summoning (+Animate Dead, +Gate etc.), best done with an aasimar paladin 1/sorcerer X. There's basically no other way to do it (if there is, please let me know!). It abuses these facts:

- No limit on summons.

- Summons get the same stat upgrades that mobs get, so these spells become automatically über-powerful by playing HoF, while all others spells don't (in fact, thanks to the +10 to monster attributes AND higher base saves AND tons of extra hit points, most of other the spells get significantly weaker in actual use).

 

So the extra party helpers which are disposable by default are also incredibly strong in HoF, and numerous by DnD default. And yes, I consider that broken game design. Abusing broken game design DOESN'T make you a better player. That's just the power fantasy that you tell yourself. There's very little skill involved in the above playstyle, you call a crapton of summons safely out of enemy sight, drop a few buffs and then focus target mobs, maybe throwing in some AoE disable spells like the Symbols or Wail of the Banshee at the start, hoping for a few fails on the tough HoF saves. Repeat until your fingers are sore, not that much different from Diablo's gameplay. The only challenging fights are where you're immediately dropped into combat after traveling, with no buffs on you and no summons with you. Even then, casting invisibility takes care of the immediate threat, and you can continue to cheese your way through the game. ;)

 

Anyone who wants a "nice" solo challenge should try any of the following games with just a single character:

-- Bard's Tale 3

-- Dragons Wars

-- Incubation and its expansion, The WIlderness Missions

 

Good luck. The above games didn't fail to provide an abuse-proof party-sized challenge.

 

There is a glitch that you can abuse with a bard, the songs for some reason stack. So the level 1 song with the ballad of the three heroes you gain +1 attack bonus, +1 damage, +1 saving throws per stack. if you get to level 11 with the bard you gain the war chant of sith, this makes you auto win any encounter, you gain +2 armor, damage resistance 2/- and regenerate 3 hit points per round, all of this also stacks. So you can essentially pause the game and regen you character to full health or spam the song every round.

  • Like 2
Link to post
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...