Grimrock

cryocore wrote:

Fargol wrote:to cryocore ....

Nice attitude.

So why are you against adding OPTIONS to render CERTAIN PARTS of the game (i.e. timed puzzles) more forgiving?

It DOES NOT affect YOUR game. As a matter of fact, it isn't your game, and anyone who paid for it has EVERY RIGHT to make requests of the development team, provided they do so in a polite and civil manner, which people have done in this thread.

Because its the typical PC pandering that slowly erodes complexity and challenge.

The timed puzzles were designed to offer a specific challenge, the combat is designed to offer a specific challenge. People inability to cope/deal with them is the players fault/issue asking a developer to completely rewrite a specific part of the game only because certain individuals are incapable of meeting the set challenge is frankly idiotic.

Should we lower college requirements so that its easier for people to get in just because they lack the intelligence or drive to meet the current requirement?
Should we remove certain words or phrases from movies/TV shows because some people dont understand them?
Should we make it easier to pass exams just because some people struggle?
Should we lower the requirements for passing your drivers licence because some people struggle and will never pass?
Should we decrease difficulty because some people cant cope with it?

The issue I have is that people are asking for something to be removed/made easier because they are unable/unwilling to meet the challenge set. Not due to poor implementation, not due to it being broken, but because its too difficult. It was designed to be difficult its not the games failure its a failure of the player.

Sorry but its a game and not every game is made for everyone. If you cant deal with the challenge then this game was not meant for you regardless of any desire you might have to play it.

If some people miss out then why should I or anyone care? I cant play fighter games. I never have. I just lack the skill to be even remotely competitive. I would like to be better, and no doubt would enjoy playing them if I could, but I cant. I am not arrogant or self-centred enough to even suggest that the designed complexity be reduced just to cater to my inability to play the game.

If the game is too hard... too bad. Its your issue, deal with it yourself.

Your analogies are silly because the changes would apply to everyone.

I'm only saying that OPTIONS would make it work. I am not suggesting that the devs make changes to the game (i.e. dumbing it down) that is not an option. It's a single-player game - you can keep the difficulty as high as you want. Others should have the option to soften things.

Again, let me reiterate - I'm talking about options.

cryocore wrote:
Because its the typical PC pandering that slowly erodes complexity and challenge.

The timed puzzles were designed to offer a specific challenge, the combat is designed to offer a specific challenge. People inability to cope/deal with them is the players fault/issue asking a developer to completely rewrite a specific part of the game only because certain individuals are incapable of meeting the set challenge is frankly idiotic.

Should we lower college requirements so that its easier for people to get in just because they lack the intelligence or drive to meet the current requirement?
Should we remove certain words or phrases from movies/TV shows because some people dont understand them?
Should we make it easier to pass exams just because some people struggle?
Should we lower the requirements for passing your drivers licence because some people struggle and will never pass?
Should we decrease difficulty because some people cant cope with it?

The issue I have is that people are asking for something to be removed/made easier because they are unable/unwilling to meet the challenge set. Not due to poor implementation, not due to it being broken, but because its too difficult. It was designed to be difficult its not the games failure its a failure of the player.

Sorry but its a game and not every game is made for everyone. If you cant deal with the challenge then this game was not meant for you regardless of any desire you might have to play it.

If some people miss out then why should I or anyone care? I cant play fighter games. I never have. I just lack the skill to be even remotely competitive. I would like to be better, and no doubt would enjoy playing them if I could, but I cant. I am not arrogant or self-centred enough to even suggest that the designed complexity be reduced just to cater to my inability to play the game.

If the game is too hard... too bad. Its your issue, deal with it yourself.

If I could +rep you, I would.

I am SO sick of people demanding things get dumbed down. Games today are WAY too easy as it is. Even THIS game is easy compared to many games of yore. I was almost disappointed at how easy this game is and these people want the devs to spend time they could be spending on the level editor or possible expansions on dumbing the game down for them because they're too slow or stupid to play it the way it was intended? People demanding games get dumbed down and taking developer time from real things are a CANCER on gaming lately. A plague.

Fargol wrote:
Your analogies are silly because the changes would apply to everyone.

I'm only saying that OPTIONS would make it work. I am not suggesting that the devs make changes to the game (i.e. dumbing it down) that is not an option. It's a single-player game - you can keep the difficulty as high as you want. Others should have the option to soften things.

Again, let me reiterate - I'm talking about options.

Do you think the dev time to rework the game to include your options exists in a bubble? By demanding devs spend time creating options to dumb down the entire gameplay mechanics for you, you're taking dev time away from things that other people want (level editor, expansions, new maps, sequel, etc...). So it absolutely DOES affect us.

Darklord wrote:

Dandy wrote:At I guess, I would say your not a good listener cryocore.

Did he say something? I've click Foe on him, so am blissfully unaware!

Daniel.

Yes Daniel. He says you look flee bitten.

Gotta agree with Cryocore.

If the devs do add in these easier option for future installments, I just hope they'll leave them for a later date, and focus on the more important things now. (Which is making the game even better and deeper then it currently is)

I'm a couple days into the game, and while its great to once again, be exploring a dungeon the like of which I havent played for many a year, there are elements of the game, which, for me, are dissapointing. They are:

1. The character screen obscures many of the levers etc so has to be closed all the time, it also obscures the arrow movement keys, making it a necessity to continually close the char screen. Not so good when one is in combat trying to take potions, move items to weapon slots etc. Why cant the arrow keys (if you switch on that option) be where they should be? i.e. in the middle of the screen? or at least have the option to place them there.

2. I intensely dislike the magic requirement of having to select the glyphs each time a spell is to be cast. Pls, none of this the mage has to summon from the ether nonsense, its just barmy, and starts making the game a real chore is you use a mage, and perish the thought of a pair of them with differents chools and therefore different glyphs.

3. Much combat seems to require the player to circle the monsters. I really dont need an exercise in youthful dexterity to play the game. At age 58 its beyond me. Reminds me more of some kids shooter than a trad RPG.

4. No Cleric! Its not a trad RPG without a cleric. The scarcity of the materials for potions, esp when poisoned, means resting all the time. It becomes a bore with no realistic healing method other than to rest. Fight, rest, fight, rest. It also takes away one of the major parts of an RPG, healing.

5. No real options for any sort of combat strategy, click the buttons, done.

6. The dungeon is boring! At end of Level 3 and so far every single wall has been the same. The secret switches arent secret, they are either the little keyhole switch or a rectangular button. Rewards are all about walking facing walls to find buttons.

7. Why cant doors be closed on monsters to damage them?

8. Why is the food requirement not an option, or just for the Hardest setting?

Much of these could be solved with options. Allow the hard core gamers to play the hard core version, and someone such as myself, to be able to use, for example, the magic scrolls in hand to repeatedly cast the same spell. To have a choice where the movement keys are on screen, to use doors to crush removing much of the need for circling.

For me, its great to see someone come out with a remake of the games I loved. But this one leaves a lot to be desired. I so wish there had been a demo, maybe thats what there isnt one

I would be fine for the game to have an options list you can only set when creating a new game. As long as they are only opt-in and can't be changed once a new game has been started. For people complaining about "dumbing down the game", there is absolutely nothing wrong with options, as long as these changes don't affect my gaming experience.

The changes I support are those that don't affect the core systems in the game. These options would be to make the game playable for those who the game would be otherwise unplayable. If you have a phobia towards spiders and it affects enough people's ability to play the game, sure maybe add an option to replace them scorpions or something. Can't physically do timed puzzles? An opt-in option at the start of a new game to maybe change the timed to be 1.5% their duration or something would be fine. If you're having trouble being a pro caster getting off a spell every time it's available? Does not casting every time cooldown expires make the game unplayable? No. So that so that isn't an option I would implement.

There is a difference between dumbing down a game, and including options that make the game playable for more people. I bought the game on release, and I just finished it last night. I can say that I am satisfied with the gameplay and when expansions and custom dungeons come out, I would like to play them the same way I played the default campaign.

tl;dr, I support opt-in options that don't affect my playing experience and that make the game playable for those who it would otherwise be unplayable.

and again I see people complaining because its too hard. Too bad play something else.


As for the 'give us options so more people are able to play it' people. Please stop. The reason why games are shallow, boring, and simple shadows of their former self is because of this "make it easier/more appealing for people outside the core fan base philosophy.

What it does is invites in people who would be unable/unwilling to play the "harder" games. Soon you have a large group of people who require the game to be easier and soon the subsequent games are simpler/shallower/easier to appease this group who should never had been pandered to in the first place. All it does is alienates the core fanbase to appeal to the "masses". Look at BioWare... hell look at the RPG genre as a whole. Finding a challenging and intelligent game is virtually impossible as they are now targeted at as large a group as possible and by extension pushing out the old fans who liked the games as they were.

The magic system is supposed to be like that. Its requires you to multitask (deal with the movement, enemy, and spell casting) it offers a challenge. If you cant deal with it too bad play something else
The combat is simple but challenging due to your inability to face off toe to toe with the creeps. This is deleberate and once again requires you to be aware of your surrounds and actually concentrate.
The timed puzzles are a challenge BECAUSE THEY ARE TIMED. Its the entire point of them. If you cant deal with them either practice or go play something else.

Much like all the examples I gave adding in more options to make the game easier will not affect me directly for this title, but what it does is lower the benchmark overall and as has ALWAYS happened when you add in the easy options over time every subsequent game is made easier.

The amount of crying and complaining about Monkey Island 1 and 2 when they got rereleased is a perfect example of how far we have fallen. I remember when the originals were released. We had no internet and the games were really hard and required thought, trail and error and a lot of time to get past the puzzles. We loved them, and they were critically acclaimed. When the enhanced version were released there were so many complaints about them being too hard, or unintuitive and thats with a the built in hint/cheat system inbuilt in to the new versions.

If you cant meet an in game challenge due to lack of skill, impatience, or some disability sorry but too bad. There are plenty of titles out there to appeal to your needs there are very few that actually provide any real challenge, or offer an old school experience. I say go pay the games that suit your needs and leave these niche titles to the niche they were designed for.

regomar wrote:

Fargol wrote:
Your analogies are silly because the changes would apply to everyone.

I'm only saying that OPTIONS would make it work. I am not suggesting that the devs make changes to the game (i.e. dumbing it down) that is not an option. It's a single-player game - you can keep the difficulty as high as you want. Others should have the option to soften things.

Again, let me reiterate - I'm talking about options.

Do you think the dev time to rework the game to include your options exists in a bubble? By demanding devs spend time creating options to dumb down the entire gameplay mechanics for you, you're taking dev time away from things that other people want (level editor, expansions, new maps, sequel, etc...). So it absolutely DOES affect us.

I'm demanding nothing. I'm pointing out that people who bought the game can ask for anything they want.

And yes, things the devs do that people would not prefer they do does affect some of us. But that's not what you were arguing before. And I never said they should do those things exclusive of all else. Stop putting words in my mouth.

JudauVidan wrote:I would be fine for the game to have an options list you can only set when creating a new game. As long as they are only opt-in and can't be changed once a new game has been started. For people complaining about "dumbing down the game", there is absolutely nothing wrong with options, as long as these changes don't affect my gaming experience.

The changes I support are those that don't affect the core systems in the game. These options would be to make the game playable for those who the game would be otherwise unplayable. If you have a phobia towards spiders and it affects enough people's ability to play the game, sure maybe add an option to replace them scorpions or something. Can't physically do timed puzzles? An opt-in option at the start of a new game to maybe change the timed to be 1.5% their duration or something would be fine. If you're having trouble being a pro caster getting off a spell every time it's available? Does not casting every time cooldown expires make the game unplayable? No. So that so that isn't an option I would implement.

There is a difference between dumbing down a game, and including options that make the game playable for more people. I bought the game on release, and I just finished it last night. I can say that I am satisfied with the gameplay and when expansions and custom dungeons come out, I would like to play them the same way I played the default campaign.

tl;dr, I support opt-in options that don't affect my playing experience and that make the game playable for those who it would otherwise be unplayable.

Well said, and that mirrors what I said.

A company would be wise to consider such things since it's likely that such options would increase sales, both for LoG and subsequent games/sequels/add-ons.