Originally Posted by Tulkash01
Originally Posted by LoneSky
Originally Posted by Tulkash01

The idea that a game should be as easy as humanly possible because otherwise some people will feel "frustrated" about it seems rather flawed to me. At the same time people will feel frustrated and bored when a game does nothing to challenge them. Difficulty system will probably ber implemented but the idea that somehow limiting rest spam should be reserved for higher levels of difficulty seems ridicolous. Let the "rest whenever you want" option for the easiest setting, normal needs to offer at least some challenge.

The game doesn't have to be easy or challenging, but adjustable by the players, so can be both. No more frustration then related to difficulty.

Everyone likes a different level of challenge, and if it's too easy or too hard compared to that subjective expectation, then the game becomes less fun to play. We are very different. I can't even decide for myself, what level of challenge I want; depends on my mood when starting a playthrough. Usually need mods in most games to adjust difficulty properly, which is fine, since mods can do far more than just that.
We just need the base game to provide a good enough foundation for mods, but the more adjustable it is the default difficulty settings, the better.

When you put difficulty modes into a game you start by the "normal" one. That's the benchmark for the others. So I ask you: in your opinion how should rest work in BG3 normal mode?

What's wrong with how it's working now, for Normal? What other difficulties are we confirmed to have? Usually there are at least two higher, Hard and Nightmare types. If they set the bar too high here, with people already complaining about "bullet sponges", what else are they going to add? What if they plan to add an "Iron Man" mode? What are they going to be able to do, if they set the bar too high in Normal? Normal is usually that setting where the mobs are "what you see is what you get", and the same applies to the PC. Hard they start adjusting the rules ever so slightly to favor the mobs, Nightmare is progressed upwards from there, and an "Iron Man" mode has all the Nightmare stuff, and usually things like rest and save restrictions as well as permadeath. These aren't concrete, but are a generalization of how these settings have worked over the years.

They have to have somewhere they can realistically go from Normal. I'm not sure how things work going down from Normal, I've never played a game below Normal, and usually I tend to play at least hard, depending on the genre. But let's be real here, shall we? What are the odds that, even if the harder modes align with what people want, this thread would still be here? Maybe you wouldn't be the OP of that fictional thread, but you can bet it would still exist. What makes me say that? I've seen it before. For all the "but it's not good for the game" we see here, that excuse can, and has, been touted when people start being mad that people that aren't as "good" at the game as they see themselves are still able to beat it. Now, and I'm not implying that anyone is asking for this, in a game like Dark Souls, or Cuphead, I fully agree with them on there not being lower difficulties, as these games are aimed at a specific kind of player. If I'm not one of those players, I'm not going to expect them to "lower the bar" to accommodate me. Here, it's not aimed specifically at that kind of player, so yes, there are multiple difficulties, in order to get as many players as possible. The beauty of this system is that if one feels like Normal is too easy, they don't have to play Normal, and can jump up to Hard, or higher. Now that's not an option in EA, yet, and I can't say it will be, but I'm fairly certain that there will be higher and possibly lower difficulties at launch. I sure don't expect them to "balance" Normal so high that Nightmare would be unplayable by most players, probably more than a few posting here about this scenario. That's not how this kind of system generally works.