What strawman i ever made exactly?
Are you capable of supporting a single of your statements with anything at all?
Several are mass market features that belong somewhere else.
There's the strawman argument, but it's not the only fallacy in that sentence. For starters, who decides what is a mass market feature? You? And even if you could state authoritatively that a certain feature is designed to appeal to the masses instead of it being merely a smart design decision, who's to say that said feature is detrimental to this particular game? You never explained why.
The other type of fallacies are self-evident in my deconstruction of your points (more below). Read a book on critical thinking if you have trouble spotting them.
How disparingly the term is used - rightly so - has nothing to do with your statements that some specific people assumed hand holding and streamlining are bad and never objectively analyzed the suggestions.
I never mentioned specific people, so put more words in my mouth please. You yourself routinely dismiss ease of use and quality of life suggestions without giving them much if any thought, if your faulty explanations are anything to go by. Some examples:
Most of them heavily break the fourth wall only for your personal laziness ease of use issues
Why are his ease of use suggestions indicative of "personal laziness"? Would having to click each character individually to move (ie. no linking feature) benefit the game (it would increase the characters' "individuality" which you seem to prize)? You didn't provide a real argument. You also never explained how they broke the fourth wall. Let's look at some of what you did attempt to explain:
I dont want to repair all and identify all. I want to choose what and when. By a single character that can do it. I want to take the item from another character inventory and transfer it to the one with enough lore and have him other identify them and then give them back.
What the hell kind of argument is this? Why should anyone care what you want? In a later post you made an attempt at a real argument, so let's have a look at that:
Since this is a single player game I see no reason not to allow a player to experience the game as they wish within certain constraints (I.E. the game becomes so easy as to eliminate any challenge or sense of discovery whatsoever).
Where in this sentence is the internal coherence and consistency of the setting, the story, the game and its specific gameplay? Where is the importance of the world and characters in it compared to those cheap metagaming desires of two spoiled, devolved lard-asses?
How does one character identify items others are holding exactly?
How does one character fixes all items at once?
How is a character able to carry dozens of two-handed axes on his person? Answer: it's not explained how; it's a compromise for the sake of gameplay, as is the ability to transfer items between characters that are several meters apart. Is the game better for it? Yes, as the interplay between items is a major component of this game and thus you need to be able to carry an inordinate amount of items.
The question you need to ask yourself regarding simultaneous item identification and repair is also: would the game be better for it, and why? While I'm also a fan of games that have consistent mechanics (Path of Exile bosses are susceptible to the same effects that regular players are, including stuns, though that might have changed in the months that I've not touched the game), if enforcing that leads to repetitive, mindless gameplay, then it's not worth it.
My suggestion to the OP regarding this issue is the ability to drag and drop an item from a character's inventory to another character in the game world, triggering a context menu which allowed the latter to identify or repair said item (which would never leave the original player's inventory). Would part of this process be left unexplained? Yes. Would it be a satisfactory compromise to help attenuate the repetitive, extremely tedious prospect of identifying and repairing dozens of items in one sitting? That is the question a smart designer should ask himself. That is the question a critical thinker would ask himself.
No. Walk "yourself". Maps are actually small. In case there are enemies around this could lead into all sorts of problems and ultimately into a RTS movement over map. Horrible suggestion.
As the OP mentioned, this would be particularly useful in traversing already explored areas. If a player chose to travel to no-man's land, then he should live with the consequences of his choice should his party happen to stumble upon the AI, initiating combat. Whether or not he would stand and fight or choose to use the flee option would be another choice he would have to make. There would be no need for "RTS movement over map" any more than there is now. Did you even think this through?
As I explained earlier, this suggestion would allow us to do more interesting things when back-tracking on the map (such as organizing the inventory, reading notes, etc.), which is infinitely preferable to having to baby-sit your characters through terrain which has already been cleared, or worse, panning the camera until you find the spot you want to travel to which is what I've seen a few twitch streamers do.
Larian, did you hear that?
Yer game there is like an excel sheet to this fine specimen of devolution and so you need to streamline the shit out of it.
What's wrong with streamlining, if it's done to better the game?
Let's proceed to pick apart the rest of your reply.
The term hand-holding is commonly used to describe almost any game feature which isn't absurdly hardcore,
err... can you actually prove that with anything at all, instead of just claiming it is so?
This is not exactly archaic knowledge. If I linked a few examples you'd just call them isolated cases. Google "no respawn penalty hand-holding" and see for yourself.
and doesn't always relate to giving directions in a game. Quest text too descriptive? Hand-holding. Maps? Hand-holding. Free respawns? Hand-holding.
No, thats not what hand-holding means and this is the first time i ever hear or see anyone claiming that quest text that is "too descriptive" is considered hand-holding - by some unknown entities.
Same goes for maps.
Feel free to point me to a single evidence that anyone ever said that a map in a game that should have a map is hand-holding.
But i have to admit i dont really get the term of "free respawns" in relation to our discussion or OS.
Are there respawns that are not free? wut?
See above.
The truth is, what one person deems to be hand-holding might seem hardcore to someone else.
How is that a "truth"?
Any evidence to support that claim or is it just a stray thought that just fired off?
See above.
Oh, and by your rationale, a spell that pointed a player to the next quest (I believe there is such a spell in Skyrim), is internally coherent and thus ceases to be hand-holding.
No, thats not internally coherent feature because you see... it is not enough just to throw something inside the game to make it internally coherent. You thinking and saying that is somehow my rationally is a strawman argument.
You never asked me for explanation about that. You claim that as if it sa fact you somehow know.
To be internally coherent a feature must make sense in the setting as it is, in the story and the overall game world and its lore or everyday life and reality.
In Skyrim, if you really want to mention that particular game, there were several hand-holding features for the brainless masses.
And masses hated it. Atleast a lot of players did.
The compass that was showing absolutely everything, every place, every location, every cave, hut and place of interest and WITHOUT which you could not find any of the locations various quests told you to go to or find or discover - was one of the biggest such features.
Hated even by regular fans and players of the game, let alone any old-school players who chanced upon that game or tried it.
One of the first mods that came out on Nexus, removing various functions from it was one of the most downloaded mods, probably still is.
Of course it was impossible to remove it completely because NO OTHER WAY to find anything in the game existed. So most people would just disable it showing various places of interest - so they could atleast keep some sense of discovery for themselves.
While engaged quest would still need to be shown, otherwise you would never find them.
Some people played without it completely but those were just the usual masochists.
The spell you mentioned only points out the direction to selected quest and it is basically just another, secondary quest compass, only superficially in the form of a spell. That does not make it internally coherent or consistent because no one else uses that in that whole world.
Its a player only hand-holding gimmick. It exists only for the players benefit. Doesnt affect anything else at all and its not connected to anything else in the setting-game world-lore-everyday life or anything else.
I concede the point; that particular spell is incongruous with the rest of the game and I should have asked for your particular definition of internal coherence.
You never said anyone made that argument?
And you say that in reply to a quote of yours where you claim that someone did exactly that?
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.
And you say you never said that?
Point to me where I said that someone in this thread made that argument. I just explained "the argument"; I did not claim that said argument was made by anyone in specific or even originated in this thread, although in retrospect I perhaps should have made that clear. As an early access adherent, I read many posts in the beta forum that explained issues away under the "it's an old school game" umbrella. You've been here longer than I have, and busy by the looks of it, so you must know what I'm talking about.
Right, at this point i will stop.
Because bashing intellectually challenged people isnt really cool thing to do.
And there is nothing else we need to discuss any further.
No, at this point you just demonstrated that you are unwilling to admit to your mistakes, which is why you did not address the points where you were made to look a fool. Shameless and transparent, but hardly surprising.
