The major flaw in this thread: assuming that hand-holding and stream-lining are necessarily bad, instead of objectively analyzing the issues. Oh, and ad hominem arguments.
Didnt i already mention strawman arguments and other assorted fallacies?
Trying to blame the other side for these falacies while you are using them directly to do so - is a strawman argument.
And ad hominem fallacy of sorts.
First strawman argument:
assuming that hand-holding and stream-lining are necessarily bad, instead of objectively analyzing the issues.
Who exactly has done this and how do you know thats what that someone was thinking? The answer is - nobody. It never happened.
As for me, i did in fact objectively look at the suggestions and analyzed them in that way, which was replied to with nonsensical screaming about self entitlement and "opinions". Which prompted several other exchanges of opinions.
In fact, a game with no hand-holding whatsoever is a game that can only be beaten by trial and error.
Is that a fact now? In what alternate reality?
I would rather say that you dont understand the difference between term "hand holding" and the game giving the player character internally consistent and coherent information.
The difference between a mass market game leading players somewhere
by the hand, directly - without ever bothering to provide any real valuable internally coherent information that could serve to alow player to find anything himself.
Various quest compasses, shining lights over characters, and other such brainless, mindless customers features - including designing the whole game in a way that prevents any possibility of player somehow not knowing where to go and what to do.
Such as various bethesda, blizzard and bioware games, are full of, for example.
BBB... hmm..
Anyway, making declaratory statements that you cannot explain or support with anything isnt a real argument, buddy.
What is relevant in this discussion is what amount of hand-holding is best suited for what.
None whatsoever. Read the above again.
Second direct straawman argument:
the argument "they were aiming for an old school feel therefore no hand-holding!" is a poor one because that would only make sense if old games were perfect.
Nobody actually made that argument so... you are putting something you invented into others people mouths.
Double strawman since nobody thinks the old games were perfect.
Which does not mean that your mass market stremlining and hand holding should replace some of the old design values.
They were anything but, and some were purposely designed to be esoteric so as to artificially increase the length of a play-through (due to storage deficiencies; I'm sure some of you remember what it was like having to juggle several floppy disks).
That actually doesnt have anything to do with anything....
And it doesnt even make sense.
Juggling floppy disks does not increase the length of a gameplay since thats completely external to internal game play-through length.
In addition of having nothing to do with what we are discussing here at all.
You just found something archaic to use as another cheap, laughable strawman fallacy.
Several old school RPGs did not even have a map, and forced you to memorize labyrinthic areas or draw them yourself. D:OS would undoubtedly be more hardcore if it had no world or mini-map -- and if I were like Hiver I would call you all devolved fools for not criticizing the maps -- but would it make it a more enjoyable game?
This is a very thin and cheap ad hominem, while taken altogether its just another distorted logical failure based on a fallacy... about an ancient feature directly related to hardware issues of the earliest computers and gaming consoles.
Which has nothing to do with subjects and suggestions discussed here.
Therefore i will conclude that you are a cheap moron, who is not actually capable of creating any real argument but instead relies on strawmans and ad hominems.
btw, calling you this is not an ad hominem because it is true.
You should atleast understand that ad hominems fallacies are based on intentional distortion of facts and usage of personal insults that have nothing to do with reality to distort the discussion in attempt to win it through other means then real facts.
Of course, if you were able to understand this then you wouldnt have written that opening constructed only of strawman arguments, ad hominems and incoherent logical fallacies.
