The Bard's Tale IV Update 58: Director's Cut Launch Announcement

[Drool]

This is the Struggler's Lament song that's been discussed previously, allowing you to bypass progression puzzles.

So, being a song, it's still optional?

For instance, I have it enabled and come across a puzzle. I can try the puzzle if I so wish, or use the song if I don't feel like doing it. Or if I try it and just can't figure it out, right?

[whippleshuffle]

This is the Struggler's Lament song that's been discussed previously, allowing you to bypass progression puzzles.

So, being a song, it's still optional?

For instance, I have it enabled and come across a puzzle. I can try the puzzle if I so wish, or use the song if I don't feel like doing it. Or if I try it and just can't figure it out, right?

That's right, you have the option. You can try a puzzle and if you're just not solving it (and it's one that can be bypassed with Struggler's Lament!) you can choose to skip it. You aren't penalized or anything like that, so it's really just if you're looking to not have the puzzles block your progression. But you will have to live with the reality that deep down you're a quitter.

[Drool]

But you will have to live with the reality that deep down you're a quitter.

Yeah, at my age, I can live with that.

[whippleshuffle]

But you will have to live with the reality that deep down you're a quitter.

Yeah, at my age, I can live with that.

Me too... I'm not proud to admit that I've been playing a lot of Found Object adventure games recently for whatever reason and if I can't solve one of the actual puzzle-puzzles in 5 minutes I'm using that Skip Puzzle Gem button or whatever it is. Ain't nobody got time for that.

[phimseto]

It reminds me of the conversations I see for The Bard's Tale remasters, where people talk about enabling this or that Legacy Mode feature, but then if someone asks, "Are you disabling the automap?", 99% of the respondents are like, "Disable the automap?!? F%#k that!" Many of us are at that age now.

TheBruce excepted, of course: last of the hardcore cartographers.

[Gizmo]

Lands of Lore (rather brilliantly) gave the player an in-game choice of whether to take the King's magical atlas—or not. If they took it, then it would then become part of the UI, and they could use it; if not... then it was never there to use.

[Woolfe]

It reminds me of the conversations I see for The Bard's Tale remasters, where people talk about enabling this or that Legacy Mode feature, but then if someone asks, "Are you disabling the automap?", 99% of the respondents are like, "Disable the automap?!? F%#k that!" Many of us are at that age now.

TheBruce excepted, of course: last of the hardcore cartographers.

I must admit I was one of those who actually enjoyed the cartography part.... BUUUUT... I'm also a lazy bastard who likes to automate things

[_noblesse_oblige_]

But, on https://www.inxile-entertainment.com/bardstale4?lang=en, there is only a passing mention of this "Legacy Mode" with no actual detail - what's in this mode?

When beginning a new game you'll be presented with a number of options to change game difficulty and which UI options you want to use or not. "Legacy Mode" (actually called 80's Style in-game) is a preset that changes options in an Exploration Style menu before beginning the game. You can turn these on/off individually, or choose from a preset.

Thanks for the answer. Not what I hoped, but an answer nonetheless.

[_noblesse_oblige_]

Instead of accepting that I say what I say because I think and feel the way I do, just like you. There *needs* not to be any other reason.

I see. So you lack a social filter and just lash out at anyone however it pleases you and call them names. One wonders whether you do this in face-to-face conversations or just behind the anonymity of the Internet.

The point is, you are insinuating I do it because I'm hoping to get moderator status or some other benefit from Inxile.

Again, I'm not insinuating anything. Only trying to understand why you even bother to attack me. Based on what you said earlier, it sounds like you lack a social filter and feel that it is no big deal to demean other posters and try to antagonize them by repeatedly calling them names. Usually, this sort of behavior is branded as trolling.

Pulling out a dictionary and then trying to pin a definition on someone, claiming that somehow makes you objective or factual rather than a name-caller, is quite disingenuous. No one actually has accept what you're trying to pin on them. Bringing a dictionary into the argument doesn't somehow make you more objective or "factual".

No, it does. The dictionary definition is meant to not weasel out on it by claiming semantic differences "Oh, but for *me* whining means something else."

I haven't whined. I've been somewhat tenacious in reminding inXile that I'm not happy with how they misrepresented this Barrows Deep project in order to entice fans of the original series into backing it. When someone takes money from me and then doesn't do what they say they're going to do with it, you can bet I'm going to get in their face a bit.

But, if you want to play this way, I could use the word "overbearing" or "entitled" to describe your insistence on trying to publicly chastise me. If you don't like the whole "I used a dictionary word on you and therefore I'm all objective and factual" thing used on you, then don't use it on others.

[_noblesse_oblige_]

It reminds me of the conversations I see for The Bard's Tale remasters, where people talk about enabling this or that Legacy Mode feature, but then if someone asks, "Are you disabling the automap?", 99% of the respondents are like, "Disable the automap?!? F%#k that!" Many of us are at that age now.

TheBruce excepted, of course: last of the hardcore cartographers.

I must admit I was one of those who actually enjoyed the cartography part.... BUUUUT... I'm also a lazy bastard who likes to automate things

I also enjoyed the cartography part on first playthrough when I was a kid and then again 15+ years later because I didn't have my old maps and had forgotten enough content to make it enjoyable again. But, nah, I wouldn't do it again now. I remember too much of the dungeons for there to be sufficient novelty now.

I suppose that there may be parts of the Barrows Deep game where hand-mapping might be enjoyable, but there are enough other barriers preventing me from enjoying that game to probably ever try.

[Gizmo]

Lands of Lore has one of —if not— the best automaps that I have ever seen.

I would bet that most players among those against automaps, are really just against bad automaps; the ones that ruin with too much information, or impossibly known information.

Now... Eschalon had an automap that relied upon the PC taking the cartography skill. You have at least one point in the skill for the map to exist, and the map's accuracy was affected by the PC's cartography skill.

[phimseto]

Gizmo, do you watch Kilgore Trout's channel on Twitch at all? He plays all retro games and not too long ago tackled Lands of Lore. He even knew enough to never say just "Lands of Lore" but to proclaim it in his best Patrick Stewart voice "LANDS OF LORE!"

[Gizmo]

I've rarely watched Twitch; but he's right about the emphasis.

[svdp]

One thing that does happen in public forums, is that new people keep showing up, and often repeat old questions (and assertions) because it's new to them. Old arguments resume as newly rephrased/updated replies that are quite familiar to members that have read it all before from the last several times it was posted.

When newcomers come with the same things, they apparently didn't bother to read the thread, but I wouldn't call them whiners. Only if they repeatedly do so, are they whiners. As that is the definition of whining. It's about the *same* people who endlessly whine about the same things. If it was merely a problem of newcomers, you could make one big post where the 'oldies' put all their gripes and frustrations and demands, update that regularly if something new came along, and for the rest guide people who wish to complain also to have a look there. It would drastically reduce the repetitiveness then, of newcomers.

But of course, in reality that isn't the problem. You already see now, even with whiny oldtimers, that THEY themselves keep making and making and repeating the same things. It has nothing to do with newcomers, or even trying to establish a good communication with the devs to see what improvements may be possible in the game - it's just venting frustrations, sometimes thinly disguised as questions. It's the "I want it, and I'm not going to stop nagging until they give me what I want". In fact, that's almost literally how some have said it, so the spoiled-brat invocation is rather spot-on.

*It's worse if (or when?) member is told by moderation staff that they are not to repeat the points... (as would happen on Bethsoft), but they would still get direct questions and accusations—which they were forbidden to properly answer; and their lack of reply would get pounced upon— mistaken as a weakness, or seen as an advantage.

Well, luckily I'm not staff or a moderator, then! And that's just the conundrum the staff and mods are in, when responding: they're damned if they do, and they're damned if they don't. They have to remain polite and cordial, even if other people are rude to them. They have to go through these incessant wailings and whinings, with demands that are unrealistic - certainly this late in the game - and sometimes unwanted, but they can't tell they're a bunch of whiners with spoiled-brats complexes, because they don't want to escalate things.

I, however, have no such qualms or restrictions. And thus I say it as it is: people who whine, are whiners. And people who don't stop nagging until they get what they want even though one should know better, are spoiled brats.

In the case where complaints [often meant as benevolent advice]

Often not.

were directed at the studio, at developers [correctly or incorrectly]

Often incorrectly.

perceived as uninformed, or on the wrong path... the tendency is to post verbose and anywhere appropriate, in the hopes that it will be read by the studio.

Mostly brash-verbose. Often inappropriately. Which is what immature behavior is.

Regular forumites will get over exposed to it, and it will seem like every post from a given member is always harping on the same thing, or similar complaints.

Well, except it does not *seem* that way, it largely *IS* that way - at least with certain members.

See my solution above, if one truly wants to reduce overexposure.

In the end, when they realize that the forum is not a place to offer advice to developers, and having seen their's and other's advice summarily ignored——occasionally even seen the perversely opposite implemented... one can become embittered to it and them.

Which again means being immature, spoiled-brat-like, and even spiteful.

Afterwards, one might continue to post either in honest (but misguided) hope

Certainly misguided. Mostly dishonest. - unless they suffer from an unbelievable naivety, which I don't attribute to many of the people who whine.

that at least —someone— (preferably a developer) will eventually reply with comprehension, if not actually take the advice to heart... or they post in spite, just to make it unavoidably obvious that the advice was there, and could have been heeded to avoid the later pitfalls that they warned about.

Well, I largely agree with that one. Which is why I say they should move on, instead of souring the grapes endlessly.

*Just so you know... Though _noblesse_oblige_ has chosen to be a jerk towards me personally, I tend to agree with most of [his?] posted sentiments & observations of the games, and the reasons given for them; often preempting my own similar post on the topic.

And just so you know - well, I might or might not have spoken with you before, and I'm too lazy to check, but I don't feel personally towards anyone in particular. I'm just getting fed up with the whining. But I'll say once again that, if you think you have good arguments, feel free to say so. Even *I* have had some suggestions for improvements made to Inxile, and I also had a complaint about crashes. But you say it once, maybe twice if you think the other party genuinely didn't understand what you meant (or asks for more info), and keep it polite and amicable, *and then you stop*. Once you made your point, you made your point. If they don't react the way you want, someone with some maturity does not fall into spite, but moves on.

I disagree that it's subjective, and will say that it is very possible to like (or to dislike) a game, movie, book, image, or musical performance for reasons the person might not realize or understand... or even for the side effects of such reasons.

Hoh, my friend! (colloquial use of the word ) Of anything, I couldn't disagree more than with your disagreement. But first of all: when using definitions, one have to agree to the dictionary definitions, hence to not fall into the semantic "it means something else for me" trap. And then, I want to point to the specifics of the claim: not that there are observably differences to be noted between the games, or even the lore of the games, but that they are *vital*.

It's outright impossible to objectively demonstrate to any strong degree (let alone "prove" in the only way that we know of getting as close to objective as we can; with the scientific methodology) that something is vital, because how detrimental or vital something is, is per definition subjective, since it's a VALUE, not an observational fact. And that value is given by individuals, which means the value is derived from what they think is vital.

For Instance: In Fallout, it was a vital tenet that there always be at least three solutions to [at least] the main quests; so that character development didn't lock the player out. So much so that they would even cheat to make sure of it; like having a certain guard always fail to notice when he is pick-pocketed, as a last minute means to satisfy the rule. This made the game seem more open-ended than it was, and let the player's PC really shine (through their abilities). I am sure that many players hadn't a clue about that, but they appreciated the effects of it.

Well, I'll play advocate of the devil here, just to show that it's definitely subjective ALL of it.

It was NOT a vital tenet. I think two is enough. I found the character development didn't lock the player out with it. I liked the fact he would get pick-pocketed and didn't notice, and I certainly didn't think it was vital to the game whether he did or not.

Bard's Tale [2] had the mechanic that one had to make it back to town alive [risking random encounters—even in town, before they could advance], and that the Bard needed to drink & carouse; spell casters needed the Sun. This added a layer of tension to the game, and anchored the party to human settlements on the surface world.

I thought it was annoying and didn't put a layer of tension, but a layer of burden. It was certainly not vital.


Etc, etc. I'm not going to keep... going on, because you give a plethora of examples, but hopefully you understand my point of playing the devils' advocate: while you certainly are convinced of your stance, it's coming from you, just like it's coming from someone else. But everyone can have opposing ideas or feelings about something, and thus, it does not matter how many examples you give, someone else may find or like the opposite. The *value* you give it, your measurement of it being detrimental or vital for the game, is subjective, and inherently so. If you would claim: reducing it to two questions destroyed the game, because it was detrimental to the game, is not an objective measurement, it's your own value. If someone *disagreed* with you, he could well say: "no, see, I'm playing the game with two questions, and it works just fine." then: "But you feel locked" - "No, I don't" - "but it's missing a sense of complexity" - "No, I find it complex enough". Etc.

You see? It's ALWAYS going to be a matter of what one person thinks is valuable, important or vital, and another. When people think diametrically opposed to each other, the debate will never - ever -stop. Which was the point I made in my former post.

Now, I don't really care if people chat a bit about their ideas and suggestions, far from it; that can be quite interesting. It's just that one shouldn't nag someone else with it endlessly, especially if there was no invitation or hint to begin with. I shouldn't have to explain the difference between some back-and-forth about ideas, and constant nagging and repeating the same thing over and over to try get what you want and impose your wishes for the game on someone else, even if that someone else are people from Inxile. The former can be pleasant, the latter is obnoxious. If everyone would keep their attitude along those lines, the general atmosphere on the fora would be better as well. Having some open brainstorm-session, or spouting one's sour grapes, are two different things.

[svdp]

I see. So you lack a social filter and just lash out at anyone however it pleases you and call them names. One wonders whether you do this in face-to-face conversations or just behind the anonymity of the Internet.

I would say it is correctly describing the attribute that is shown, and in this case, it's whining, and people that whine, are whiners. And you already know the definition, so it's being factual, not name-calling. What you describe as a "social filter" is what is commonly known as "political correctness"; the thought that you need to thread on eggs to not hurt anyone's feelings, even to the detriment of telling the truth. The real difference is: to tell someone straightforward, or to do it via insinuation and only imply it. Do I do this face-to-face? Only when it's warranted. I'm a believer in reciprocity, and if adults are behaving immature, it's for another adult to rectify such behavior. Who else is going to do it, socially? A kid? Your mom? Social interaction always comes from both (or more) sides, thus one shouldn't be surprised that the filter gets less if you're displaying less of a filter to begin with. You're also wrong on the account that it somehow pleases me: I actually would rather NOT have to deal with whiners, but letting it slip never brings respite or betterment, I've noted. You're still busy with the same complaints a year later, and I very seldom addressed them, after all. But look, you're still busy saying them. Ignoring annoying behavior does not help, it only aggravates it, because the person in question starts to think it's normal and starts to live in his own ego-bubble.

I'm calling you out, and look what a fuzz you make of it, continuously asking if it's personal beef and what not. No. It's just that your behavior is NOT normal, for an adult, and it's annoying. and I hope you will contemplate on your own attitude, instead of blaming others and doing projection.

Again, I'm not insinuating anything. Only trying to understand why you even bother to attack me. Based on what you said earlier, it sounds like you lack a social filter and feel that it is no big deal to demean other posters and try to antagonize them by repeatedly calling them names. Usually, this sort of behavior is branded as trolling.

Again: yes, you are. It's posed as a question, but that doesn't diminish the implied thought behind it. "Do you get something beneficial from Inxile?" implies, at the very least, that I would have ulterior motives. And you keep rehashing it, while I've told you 3 times already what and why I say what I say. For your argument about "social filter" again, see above. As for "no big deal", this is in parallel to "getting pleasure"; you're wrong on both accounts, but sometimes it's better to deal with it. Otherwise, you keep living in your OWN socially constructed bubble, where constant whining and immature behavior is normal.

You've asked me: would I do that in real life, face to face. Well: would you whine like a spoiled brat, face to face? My answer is dependent on yours.

I haven't whined. I've been somewhat tenacious in reminding inXile

And in that tenaciously "reminding", did you complain or expressed disappointment, or unhappiness, with said state of the game or their decisions?

Then you were whining, period.

But, if you want to play this way, I could use the word "overbearing" or "entitled" to describe your insistence on trying to publicly chastise me. If you don't like the whole "I used a dictionary word on you and therefore I'm all objective and factual" thing used on you, then don't use it on others.

Ho-ho! One moment. You presume I wouldn't accept the dictionary definition, it would seem, when it's applicable. I would certainly agree with "overbearing", for instance, since I may quite well fit the bill, since I'm confident - at least about this - and no doubt you feel unpleasant by it. some points could be contested, like what is "too" confident. Maybe I was too confident the same person wouldn't start complaining to the moderators. That would be 'too', indeed. Maybe... someone who thought me overbearing?

In any case, you don't have such ambiguity in the description of "whining", since it didn't say "too much", but just repeatedly. If you've uttered the same more than once, you've repeated it. No room to wiggle. Which is why having clear definitions are good, look, even now you were trying to use euphemisms like "tenacious reminding"... after I said in the last post the definition is there not to weasel out on what it means, the next post you already try to bend it differently.

Anyhow, I'm not denying a priori I could be what you say. No. It's YOU who denies being a whiner at all costs. For all your social filter-talk, you've done very little self-contemplation. Maybe, just maybe, you should consider that you were, in effect, whining. And even if you were right with everything about me, it still wouldn't absolve *you* from that.

[Woolfe]

RE SVDP and Noblesse arguing.

Ok so clearly there is some background history going on here. Whatever.

To me, it seems more than appropriate to comment on elements that were promised but haven't been added to the base game yet, when we have an announcement about a "Director's cut".

[_noblesse_oblige_]

What you describe as a "social filter" is what is commonly known as "political correctness";

No, lacking a social filter means that you're impulsive and truculent. You're attacking because you can, not because you have any reason. (You clearly stated that you didn't have a reason, but I'll let you backpedal on this if you need to.

You've asked me: would I do that in real life, face to face. Well: would you whine like a spoiled brat, face to face? My answer is dependent on yours.

Huh? Why would your answer be dependent on mine?

I haven't whined. I've been somewhat tenacious in reminding inXile

And in that tenaciously "reminding", did you complain or expressed disappointment, or unhappiness, with said state of the game or their decisions?

Of course I expressed disappointment with their decisions. That was the point of the effort. You may want to read some of my posts if there was any doubt about that.

In any case, you don't have such ambiguity in the description of "whining", since it didn't say "too much", but just repeatedly. If you've uttered the same more than once, you've repeated it.

Oh my gosh, I've repeated the same thing more than once! What crime is this?!

What you may not realize is that for 3+ years before the game was released last year, a number of us fans of the original games tried engaging with inXile in a generally peaceful and measured manner to let them know what our expectations were for a new entry in the Bard's Tale series, especially after they showed an increasingly alarming lack of regard for the foundations and core elements of the original series in their infrequent communications. We continued to try reaching out to them, to find some way of having a meaningful dialog with them, and we were pretty much ignored wholesale, except for occasionally being given vague promises or having some of what we said willfully misinterpreted to fit their own designs. (Their notion of a "Legacy Mode" is the latest such willful misinterpretation - what's particularly "legacy" about those presets?) This pattern of arrogance on the part of the people who asked for and received our money, by dangling falsehoods and half-truths, continued on past the alpha and beta releases of the game. Naturally, we also sounded louder and more frequent warnings in an attempt to get their attention - and, yes, we repeated messages in so doing. We also left feedback via the official channels for the alpha and beta program and had that ignored, whether it was bug reports (the long-running inventory flickering bug, for example) or content errata. A lot of us had given up hope by the time the final release hit, but some of us stuck around after that. Each patch went out and the situation did not improve. Most of us, who were left, seem to have despaired and written off this whole bloody mess, but you will still see some of the others stop by and comment from time to time. And, yes, they too repeat things that they said previously. There is nothing wrong with repeating a message. Sometimes that's the only way one can get a message through.

Anyway, not sure why I bothered explaining the historical background to you, since you're probably going to come back with another round of name-calling. But, no, I'm not done here yet, no matter how many people like you come along and call me "immature", "annoying", or whatever or tell me to "get over it". I'll probably repeat some of the same things again before I'm done here, regardless of how much you scream at me about it. Your time and energy would best be spent elsewhere, as you won't succeed in browbeating me into submission or trolling me into an outburst from your constant stream of antagonism.

By the way, if inXile had responded to inquiries, such as my earlier questions in this thread, in the way that Micah did to mine, they would probably have found themselves in much better standing with fans of the originals than what they presently find themselves. No, Micah didn't answer everything I asked, but at least the "Legacy Mode" question did get a clear and detailed answer, the kind of answer that has been sorely lacking from inXile the past four years.

[Gizmo]

It's the "I want it, and I'm not going to stop nagging until they give me what I want". In fact, that's almost literally how some have said it, so the spoiled-brat invocation is rather spot-on.

I haven't seen this myself. What I have usually seen is recollected explanations of systems that seem to be either totally off the radar for the devs—in the cases where they do not understand the material, or it is a highlighting of the devs intentionally ignoring those systems—either for [inappropriate personal preference: as in the case of Ashley Cheng on FO3], or for the slightly [almost] forgivable reasons of chasing a greater monetary gamble; the hopes of a better selling product—as opposed to a merely better product. This comes down to the case for selling milkshakes, or selling [milk-less] "shakes" —that are loosely tolerable to milkshake seekers, while also the lactose intolerant; and being cheaper to make. There is merit is considering the milk in a milkshake as a vital ingredient of a milkshake. While calling milk-less milkshakes —"shakes" is fine (albeit slightly disingenuous because of the implied meaning), calling a game Fallout 3, Wasteland 2 [or 3], or Bard's Tale 4 — is tantamount to calling those milkless shakes... milkshakes when they are not. ALL of these games have shockingly little in common with the progenitors of the namesakes by which they are sold. It doesn't matter if the market for those original game series have dwindled into unprofitablity; that simply means don't make a sequel to them— it does not mean deface & defile the name and reputation in pursuit of hawking some other barely related product by using the famous name as a marketing hook.

eg.

One simply does not mutate the established product into a more profitable one by excising the product's main features; at least not without getting called out on it.

*It's worse if (or when?) member is told by moderation staff that they are not to repeat the points... (as would happen on Bethsoft), but they would still get direct questions and accusations—which they were forbidden to properly answer; and their lack of reply would get pounced upon— mistaken as a weakness, or seen as an advantage.

Well, luckily I'm not staff or a moderator, then!

That's not the problem; which is that the member gets hamstrung on the forum by being forbidden to answer... due to the answer being made off limits to them.

In the case where complaints [often meant as benevolent advice]

Often not.

were directed at the studio, at developers [correctly or incorrectly]

Often incorrectly.

perceived as uninformed, or on the wrong path... the tendency is to post verbose and anywhere appropriate, in the hopes that it will be read by the studio.

Mostly brash-verbose. Often inappropriately. Which is what immature behavior is.

Citations please.

In the end, when they realize that the forum is not a place to offer advice to developers, and having seen their's and other's advice summarily ignored——occasionally even seen the perversely opposite implemented... one can become embittered to it and them.

Which again means being immature, spoiled-brat-like, and even spiteful.

So how dare they be spitefull when spited?

Afterwards, one might continue to post either in honest (but misguided) hope

Certainly misguided. Mostly dishonest. - unless they suffer from an unbelievable naivety, which I don't attribute to many of the people who whine.

You seem to only take the negative view—yet you say this...

But I'll say once again that, if you think you have good arguments, feel free to say so.

... But what incentive is there for that when their crafted argument falls upon intentionally deaf ears—reasoning not just discarded, but instead —only— mined for a negative retort?

I disagree that it's subjective, and will say that it is very possible to like (or to dislike) a game, movie, book, image, or musical performance for reasons the person might not realize or understand... or even for the side effects of such reasons.

I couldn't disagree more than with your disagreement.

Then are you not claiming it to be impossible for a person to enjoy a thing without knowing precisely why? My point was that the creator/designer's careful intentions bring about the possibility for enjoyment by people who might be oblivious to the technical reason for it. Kids can hate cows and love milk with their cereal. Adults can love a brand of chewing gum, and not realize that it's made out of plastic; or love a vanilla confection and be clueless that they are tasting castorium...
*They don't necessarily know what's not important.

It was NOT a vital tenet. I think two is enough. I found the character development didn't lock the player out with it. I liked the fact he would get pick-pocketed and didn't notice, and I certainly didn't think it was vital to the game whether he did or not.

It is if they say it is—simple as that; and they did.

Bard's Tale [2] had the mechanic that one had to make it back to town alive [risking random encounters—even in town, before they could advance], and that the Bard needed to drink & carouse; spell casters needed the Sun. This added a layer of tension to the game, and anchored the party to human settlements on the surface world.
I thought it was annoying and didn't put a layer of tension, but a layer of burden. It was certainly not vital.

This part... it's simply the case that it's not there without it... hence it is vital to having it. And Once again it's like making milk-less milkshakes without it.