I have put forth a constructive argument, and Hiver apparently wishes to refute it with a fallacious, albeit impassioned attempt at an argument. Against my better judgement:
If you are talking about pure mechanical balance, then I absolutely, vehemently disagree that it is necessary, or even relevant at all, to single player games. If two mechanical decisions have the same outcome - then there is no choice.
If all choices are equal, then that is the same (functionally) as saying that there is a "right" way to play the game. If that is true then playing the game is no different then "playing" a book where you click to turn the pages rather than to make real decisions about gameplay.
This only shows a drastic misunderstanding and ignorance about what kind of gameplay an RPG game is supposed to provide and be.
(you dont even mention an RPG in that tirade, just a "game")
Relevance? A single-player game is a single-player game.
The balance in SP RPG games does not mean that all choices produce the same result or outcome.
Actually, truly balanced choices require the same or similar outcome, or else one outcome would be more viable than another, and be the better, "overpowered" option.
Or give same amounts of XP for that matter.
The fact that you have defeated a straw man does not contribute to your argument.
It only means that all options you have should be similarly viable.
Not the same. Not producing exact same results.
See the refutation above your straw man.
You only jumped to that initial completely wrong assumption because of fear logic and denial of a unbalanced feature being so easily achievable (while its still easily achivable even like this, for extra laughs), and then get your whole logic distorted because of it.
Ad hominem attacks are not an argument.
And its not like its a new issue. The same ignorant, misguided, incorrect and laughably wrong assumption have been repeated for Pillars of Eternity since its kickstarter.
More irrelevant ad hominem.
..usually by people who cannot understand simple sentences.
Ad hominem.
For example - you are able to through different gates in Cysael and do different quests in somewhat different order - only because the game is balanced enough to allow it. Mate.
If it wasnt. You couldnt.
Petitio principii. You assume your conclusion, "Cyseal is balanced," and then try to prove it with your evidence, that "You have a choice in quest order." Which, by the way, is evidence that contradicts your conclusion.
But then again all this just shows fundamental misunderstanding and ignorance about a whole genre and, generally speaking a completely different spoiled brat screaming mindset.
... Finishing off with more ad hominem.
And, perhaps the greatest fallacy you have committed is that your argument is a massive ignoratio elenchi - you have missed the entire point of my post: that balance is not necessary in a single player game.
Now, if you like balance, that is fine - however you wish to play your single-player games is totally valid. However, I shall continue to support my ability to choose in my games. It's a shame that Larian is removing it from the vanilla game, though.
Please note that I am not trying to belittle you or your argument... I am merely informing you that it neither strong nor cohesive. Try sticking more to your point, and pay more attention to what the argument is about instead of making ad hominem attacks and constructing straw men. If you need help constructing an argument, I would suggest starting your research here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArgumentationAs an aside, you may wish to calm your passionate attempts at rhetoric slightly - while Rashar and I certainly have thicker skin than the general populace, there are others who may find your manner offensive and rude.
