@Ellary, I didnt see you posted before i finished that last post of mine.
Maybe the second part of it will make things clearer.
Hiver, I have received many emails complaining about the way you communicate on the first page of this topic, for instance. It is not what you are saying, it is how you are saying it. If you disagree, make arguments and defend your vision, but stop calling people idiots, halfwits, dimwits, etc. This only makes your position less clear and makes your post sound as if you have no real arguments. In the future, refrain from flaming. It will increase the quality of your posts, that often have truth in them, but I tire of having to read them if they contain so many cusswords...
The thread was going alright until cromcrom decided to make it clear he cannot read that much text and that he wants me to provide him with appropriate short version, made especially for him, then chimp decided to throw in that spectacular addition and then Dragomist wrote those two replies without even bothering to read what i am actually suggesting here - and he presumed i actually want to make normal mode harder.
While i am actually saying the opposite all this time.
I've read through this thread. Please point out where cromcrom requests that you provide him with an "appropriate short version." Perhaps you got that from another thread. It appears no where in this one.
I'm not sure what you're describing as Chimp's spectacular addition. If you mean his post that refers to you failing utterly in your attempt to keep the opening post short, I believe it is quite accurate. Your opening post is anything but short. If you desired to create a lengthy, detailed post, perhaps you should have excluded the verbiage "I want to keep this short."
As for your reference to Dragomist's posts, how do you know he did not read your posts? His comments seem completely in line with someone who disagrees with normal mode being too easy, which is exactly what you mentioned in your opening post.
I'm not quite sure what to make of the last sentence, specifically "While I'm actually saying the opposite all this time." Are you suggesting that instead of normal mode being harder, it should in fact be easier? That would appear to be contrary to all of your previous positions.
Then JoeBart felt he just has to tell me how the normal mode of the game should be made for the wide audiences and that what "i want" is wrong and how i should do this or that and how i actually think ... which he assumed based god knows on what, probably just reading that post of Dragomist, instead any of mine. Which is about third or fourth such post of his in a row, over several threads - where he tells me what i actually mean and how i think.
And then he argues against it. And he wants me.. to defend... and excuse myself... from that?
Please enlighten me as to where I demand what you should think. I merely stated that any game should be designed for a wide audience to be a commercial success. Creating a game that is too difficult for a new player could be detrimental to this goal. I fail to see how this is demanding that you think a certain way.
In my latter reply to your post, I mention specifically what the general point of your original post was about. That has not been lost on me.
Again, I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence. It would appear you're inferring that you're aghast someone would request you defend your position. So, yes, I do ask that you defend your position. Do you think an early game elemental arrow should do enough damage to almost wipe a tanky character? If so, why?
Less cusswords?
A bit of a tall order, that. Ill see what i can do...
Most folks can have civil discourse without cusswords. I've managed so far. Why is this a tall order for you?
Take a look at the second section in your opening post. The first sentence there is "currently the game is very, very easy." Myself and others have argued that for a new player, it is not.
You arguing about that is pointless - since yes, indeed a new game is a bit more difficult for the new player - duh! - until he learns the rules and generally how things work in it.
It was such for me too the first time i booted this beta up.
That has nothing to do with the purpose of my post, since i argue that the normal mode should be left as it is.
As "difficult" as it is for new and or casual players and as easier for those that play it some more. Whatever.
Nowhere in your opening post do I see you arguing that normal difficulty should be left as is. In fact, you specifically mention that developer time should be spent further balancing and improving normal difficulty, thus implying that it should not be left as is.
In addition, your overall tone suggests an overall contempt for normal difficulty and that you would like it to provide a greater challenge.
It was merely a introduction sentence, to which you took objection in that wrong way you just described and made your subsequent posts about - which means they are nonsensical.
Then it was a sentence that could have, and should have been removed from your opening post as it has no relation to your overall point. Why mention normal difficulty is "very, very easy" if your entire post is to be about your desire for a properly implemented hard mode?
If you want a hard mode to feature advanced AI, different enemies, less barrels, etc., stick to that and solely that. There is no need to mention you find normal mode "very, very easy."
What folks took issue with was your insistence that the normal difficulty of the game is very, very easy.
There is no "folks" there, there is only you and one or two others who also took offense at that sentence. For some mindboggling reason. Or just got lost in some other assumption without even reading what i wrote, or disregarding it and arguing about some other nonsensical assumption, as you did.
While the game current version is actually very, very easy.
The difficulty some new player experience because he doesnt fully understand all the features is not the realistic actual difficulty of the beta, as it is now.
What do you mean there are no folks here? Are you implying that the individuals posting are not people? I'm having trouble comprehending your topic sentence there. Perhaps I'm obtuse. But a few people could qualify as folk.
And once again, I clearly provided you a clear summary of your opening post, which undoubtedly means I read everything in it. You are welcome to read it again, as it has not gone anywhere and I still believe it is a very, very accurate summary. If it is indeed wrong, provide me with reasons why.
Furthermore, I would argue the "actual" difficulty of a game is indeed what a new player experiences on the first playthrough, and not what that player experiences on subsequent playthroughs. An individual going through a game the second time has the advantage of knowing what to expect in each battle, and what he or she can do to have an advantageous position. Thus, the difficulty of a normal mode should be tailored to an individual who has not had the luxury of playing through the game.
No one doubts you have put forth a lot of time and effort into this game Hiver. No one has said anything of the sort.
That section is not addressing you or assumes anyone doubts anything about that. So dont imply that. Dont think it, dont assume it.
I am merely providing clear background to my proposition so anyone who actually reads it can get a quick sense of where im coming from.
Then why include a description of your merits if you did not assume anyone doubted them? Like I said, no one on these boards doubts that you have put quality effort into the game. You were the one who felt the need to espouse your credentials.
Why the need to implement this feature other than an achievement of some sort? If you want this challenge solely for the purpose of self gratification, then simply don't recruit any henchmen. There is no need for the developer to put forth the effort to make recruitable character unrecruitable.
Because despite what you are thinking and despite that, so common misconception of "if you dont like it dont use it" - how a game is set up and presented actually matters - a lot.
Actually knowing some specific feature is there or isnt at all - makes a huge difference for each players.
I just finished the beta playing it without companions - as i said - so there is really no need to go and tell me, "well if you dont want just dont take them" - or imply i want that for personal gratification - because I just did that.
Players actually KNOWING there is no companions in some theoretical harder mode, will have a completely different approach and experience with such a mod, then if it is only a "take your pik" feature.
That is why that logic of "if you dont like it - dont use it" is absolutely false and wrong, unless it concerns some really minimal, non important features.
We both argued that henchmen could perhaps be integral to the plot or at the very least provide very entertaining sub dialogue. A player should not be deprived of this for playing on hard mode. If they elect to make the game even more difficult by not recruiting henchmen, that is on them.
A hard difficulty should stand on its own merits. It should not be a forced "no companion" mode. That, in my honest opinion, is a cheesy, forced difficulty option. It is intentionally depriving the player of assets provided to them, and perhaps story plots, with the sole intention of making it difficult.
You have continually argued any harder difficulty should be provided by advanced AI, different enemy layouts and setups, and the usage of different enemy skills. This is very much in line with a plot oriented harder difficulty setting as you have proposed. Your proposal of a forced inability to recruit party members, is in my opinion, a contrived and forced increase in difficulty that is no different from merely increasing the enemy damage and HP.
A mod or a game needs to present a focused specific form to the players, in all of its important parts. It cant just be - "choose whatever you want and if you dont like it dont use it" - because that work is then just a pile of random chaotic garbage, not an actual work of skill, art and expertize that has its form, shape, atmosphere, feel, depth, specific setting, story, gameplay. - etc.
This is not a complete sentence. Please complete your thought as I'm lost, as are likely most readers. "not an actual work of skill, art and expertize [sic] that has its form, shape, atmosphere, feel, depth, specific setting, story, gameplay. - etc." is very much an incomplete thought. I do not know what you mean by this sentence.
All that being said, it is just a simple idea i put forth - and i explained the obvious drawbacks myself - which means you dont need to waltz in and tell me those very same drawbacks mean that the idea is bad.
Its not bad, its not great.
It is put forward for the consideration - not as something that must be!
That is me saying "Here is the idea, it has some merit, - which is this, this and this specifically. But it has these specific drawbacks and we dont know a lot about how actually important that is - so lets talk about it. Lets consider it."
It is not that which will make the Hard mode by itself.
A single feature cannot make anything. All have to work together.
That is just one theoretical such feature.
It is one of the features that can be considered.
Then please consider that someone else may find that proposal utterly ridiculous, as I do. I've agreed that certain ideas you have proposed have merit. I've argued that others could perhaps use some tweaking, specifically your idea of unrecruitable henchmen.
And im figuring that, since Larian put in a lot of time and effort into fleshing out these companions (and some new one should appear too i think) - that it probably wont be possible to include it.
But i felt it should be mentioned, since thew game actually plays nicely with two Source Hunters alone.
Only furthers my point that companions should always be recruitable.
I could be wrong, but I very much doubt a person who just purchased this game is going to fire it up on hard mode. I firmly believe the majority of players will play on normal. If they begin on a hard difficulty, that is their fault and complaints would be invalid.
That has nothing to do with current mass market and games made for it, where normal mode is easy, and hard is barely what normal use to be.
There will be such players, such complaints and demands.
Such "hard mode" can be made relatively quickly and relatively easily.
But i think the time is short to make anything more substantial then that ... which is why this idea came up, and i figured it could be done, with some actual PR benefits to boot.
- Gets you on the first page of Steam for a few days at least.
And you get a bit of a hubbub from all the players commenting on it.
Once again, I did not dispute this point. If I'm wrong, quote me where I did. I've agreed that the hard mode you want implemented likely can't be done by the targeted release date. I've also agreed with some of your proposals for a hard difficulty setting many players would likely enjoy.
