Similarly viable is the right term i feel. It does not mean the same.
I am talking about the gameplay of this game in this instance, which consists of combat and dialogue options with which you can solve, finish or sidestep some parts of the quests, mostly some combat encounters.
120% resistances is an option which is STILL THERE for the people who wish to have it. The only difference is that it is no so easily achievable anymore.
Which is correct for an RPG and this specific game - seeing how elemental damage and effects play such a big role in its gameplay.
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:
You dont start the reply by making baseless, fallacious claims about your own righteousness and my facetiousness - without proving a single point of it.
Thats just an empty declaratory statement that is completely worthless.
Well, except proving that you dont have a better judgement but instead just imagination in which everything you say or think is somehow automatically right.
What you have put forward is not a constructive argument (just because you say so) but a jumble of misunderstandings and ignorance that lead to completely wrong and incorrect conclusions.
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.
And thus we end the discussion before it even started.
Because you just proved me right when i said you are laughably ignorant.
But because you are so arrogant based on arguments from ignorance ill give you a complete makeover.
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.
No, one outcome would be DIFFERENT then the other, which is the core of the RPG gameplay.
For the player they should be similarly viable, or doable depending on the differences in character builds but each should lead to somewhat different outcomes - in general - for an RPG to play like one.
And infact, when your choices are "similar" and there is no clear one single option that is extremely better then the others - is when the player really has the choice with meaningful consequences. Which also have to be appropriately different, although similar (generally, to an extent), for the choice to even matter.
So, yes, as you just said yourself - balanced gameplay is what creates RPG gameplay. balance in choices, balance in consequences. Which have to work together and make sense.
Mate.
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 wasnt meant as a strawman as i didnt particularly claim you have said that. It was an addition to the issue. One particular angle to it all that often gets mentioned in talks about this general issue.
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.
This doesnt have anything to do with the part you imagined was a strawman so your answer is completely ludicrous and nonsensical.
:lol:
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.
Truth is not an ad hominem.
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.
How the flying
duck is mentioning Pillars of Eternity an ad hominem?
:lol:
wtf?
Maybe you havent followed, but the lead designer Josh Sawyer is waging a one man war on balancing the RPG, and his ideas and explanations have been met with a lot of complete, utter idiocy and cretinism, especially on the rpg.codex and its PoE thread, where different less intelligent posters are screaming how Josh wants to make everything "THE SAME" and thus ruin the differences in RPG gameplay - for months now.
..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.
I do not assume anything since ive played through Cysael about 30 times so far.
And i am using your own words as a part of the "evidence" - since it was you claiming that being able to take somewhat different path through the Cysael content is what makes it good for you...
- if you remember?
Its only a few posts back, mate.
And just claiming : "Which, by the way, is evidence that contradicts your conclusion." (without providing any argument why that might be so)
Is just an empty declaratory statement that is laughable in the context since you are refuting your own words.
haha.
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.[/quote]
Truth.
Which youve just proved several times over.
The ones that are screaming the most about this small balance fix are precisely that kind of people. Self entitled mass market brats that dont have a single functioning synapse in their heads except those that seek and want more content! more awesome powahs! more ego massage! more, more,more!
Like some rabid ... hmm... zombies.
ohhh... that what Romero meant with all that "braiiinnzz,... braiiiinzzz!" consumer stuff.
things you learn every day, eh mate?
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.
Right, because you say so.
At the end of your whole laughably incorrect post.
And you think that just repeating the same incoherent, nonsensical declaratory statements that only reveals how ignorant you are - will work if you repeat them more times?
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.
Larian is doing no such thing. Infact, with this little fix they have increased the options and choices in the game since they atleast somewhat lowered or removed a single overpowered unbalanced build.
Please note that I am not trying to belittle you or your argument...
:crocodile smile:
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.
No?
Really?
wow, your such a nice dear, you and rashar. Informing me... so nice.
:lol:
Maybe you two could hold hands while prancing around forums and telling other people how rude they are and "informing" everyone about this or that instead of replying to actual argument.
Im afraid it is you who needs help. Several years of psychotherapy by the looks of it. Also, i would suggest looking over the term "psychological projection" mate.
I see youre fond of dictionaries.
Well, even an aspergers can serve some good if understanding of terms comes together with their copy-pasting.
