CaptainPatch wrote: ↑
October 7th, 2018, 12:27 am
Do you get that consumers buy games to play for fun
One person's fun...eh?
Your ironclad stance boils down to, "This is the game _I_ want, and it's already all that I want. (Or at least what I can comfortably accept.) If you want something different, go play something different!"
Were you not the one just previously advocating self discipline for those that don't like the features that you'd have be imposed upon them?
I believe that you are making an assumption about what I want, and ignoring the fact that the series already was
the game I (and others) wanted to play—and keep playing, as the sequels came out for it. The ironic thing that always
happens in this kind of gaming discussion, is that the other person (the one advocating the trendy change) uses the point "if you want something different... go play something else." Whilst they ignore that their suggestion is usually the tampering element, and it is that they that should logically look elsewhere.
I'm not saying that you should look elsewhere, but I am
pointing out that this is akin to telling the locals to go home.
Why do you want others to NOT have the kind of fun that they want?
Doesn't it occur to you that you could validly be asked the same question?
Why is it that you don't want devs to not even consider tweaking some mechanics that would please players that are not-you?
What makes you think it's about me? I would say the same of any game that had this done to it—even ones that I loathe and would never play. This is an industry-wide negative trend that affects everything yet to come.
Your argument about too many options -- which seems to be ANY Options -- degrades the quality of the overall game is bs.
I am not surprised; that's because that is what you interpret it to be. It is not. The number of options don't matter, it is the effect of those options. If the effect is not deleterious, then it doesn't matter how many options there are. Take Icewind Dale for instance (and the BG1&2 games); those games have a lot of options, but none (or at least very few) of them damage the core rules or radically alter the gameplay away from D&D. There isn't a check box that says, "disable combat turns"—but there is one that disables the animation effect that HIDES the combat turns...but the game still evaluates the turns; (which is also the default). Every combatant in the game has a turn schedule, and only acts when it is time... but by default, they continuously act out of turn—even though these visible actions don't actually count, or have any effect. It's a harmless option; it's cosmetic.
If inXile had tossed in 5-10 alternate Options for various game mechanics, but the Default setting gave you EXACTLY what the game is now, how would that degrade the quality of the game. By making some unworthy players more satisfied by permitting them to play a "substandard" game?
Well... as I mention above, they are alternate mechanics; they change the core rules—I am assuming; beyond that it depends... you would have to elaborate on what those mechanics were.
Yeah. Now that I reflect on the whole discussion, I have to agree that your argument sounds rather elitist.
Any argument sounds elitist if it opposes one's own preference by recommending 'No'.
As opposed to your own arguments, that are contrary to my preference, by recommending an unfiltered 'Yes'.
But I am not advocating 'no', I am advocating the filter.