Steam installieren
Anmelden
|
Sprache
简体中文 (Vereinfachtes Chinesisch)
繁體中文 (Traditionelles Chinesisch)
日本語 (Japanisch)
한국어 (Koreanisch)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarisch)
Čeština (Tschechisch)
Dansk (Dänisch)
English (Englisch)
Español – España (Spanisch – Spanien)
Español – Latinoamérica (Lateinamerikanisches Spanisch)
Ελληνικά (Griechisch)
Français (Französisch)
Italiano (Italienisch)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesisch)
Magyar (Ungarisch)
Nederlands (Niederländisch)
Norsk (Norwegisch)
Polski (Polnisch)
Português – Portugal (Portugiesisch – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (Portugiesisch – Brasilien)
Română (Rumänisch)
Русский (Russisch)
Suomi (Finnisch)
Svenska (Schwedisch)
Türkçe (Türkisch)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamesisch)
Українська (Ukrainisch)
Ein Übersetzungsproblem melden
Diskussionsregeln
Diesen Beitrag melden
Which means that in reverse any of the defenders follow this flawed position that lacks any basis.
I name Demons Souls because you seem to lack knowledge about the heritage of the gamedesign inherent to the Souls Series and so refer to Dark Souls, a game that came afterwards. Just to avoid confusion.
Demons Souls isnt a game that is "hard", actually. Thats subjective anyway. But it does difficulty different.
Yeah yeah people love to say "oh my god its so hardcore", but in reality Demons Souls implemented a way to have difficulty by gamedesign and surprise, to then raise the difficulty by stats the further you move on.
Meaning that the Souls Series has no difficulty you can set.
You can come as far as you want as each new attempt raises the difficulty.
There will be a spot where you might not be able to move on as it becomes too hard by stats.
But by design its ever the same difficulty.
People who learned the design of a Soulsgame can get through the game although the stats should stop them.
Which means that its possible to beat the game several times without even using a weapon, but that needs a player to have learned the game.
If you would actually understand what you are talking about, you would know that.
But in fact while people get called into a generalized classification of gamers (the PUBG casuals), you and the OP belong to those people who dont actually know what difficulty really is, or what the subject of gaming is about.
You mention experience.
Yet you only talk about your personal experience and not everyone elses experience with the game.
Adding more options to make the game easier and harder for gamers, adds content to the game and so adds spectrum to the game.
Which means that a big audience can play the game contrary to only having one difficulty that excludes certain players or at least lowers their experience.
Which factually cant "tarnish" the experience in any way.
When you set your game to 130%, you will get your experience with 130% of difficulty.
Another player who likes it easier can set the game to only 20% and have his/her experience.
I cant see where a random person right now playing the game on easy affects my experience with it in any way.
So please stop talking as if you would like the game to be better for everybody, you are comming from a selfish and egocentric position.
Your whole post (and the OP) is (are) just about you and how you want something, so the comments before the quoted one are right, you are spoiled.
Currently you are on the position that only tries to defend a selfish demand while others asking for more difficulty options are defending the position of all the other players here, admitting that the individual experience with the game is not defining the overal experience and demand of a collective.
So we could say that you literally made a comment in a thread to fight alone versus the whole community while the only achievement you could get is knowing that the game will be how you want it to be and that all the others dont get what they ask for.
And i bet you dont even know what you want anyway.
I mean, what could tarnish the experience with the game actually?
Like, having a setting to get 100% of the build costs back would now how exactly tarnish YOUR experience?
Defending in such a generalized and contradicting way is the lowest of the low.
Ignoring and desperately working against the demand of others for no other reason than selfishness.
Sounds hard, but breaking it down its certainly that.
I further doubt you (or the OP) are able to classify gamers at all, i mean you are too incompetent to do that (as am i).
Thats not really an insult, and thinking about it a few seconds would reveal that.
A game like Minecraft or PUBG has many aspects and layers that range from casual playing to hardcore playing.
You can play Minecraft and run around a bit, digging a hole, or you speedrun it and build a Star Destroyer with working logic blocks that have a digital TV screen running.
You can play PUBG and just jump out at the School, shoot a bit and die.
Or just drive around for fun.
Or you play it hardcore and try to be really good, tactical and take the game seriously.
A good game offers the whole spectrum of difficulty and playstyles. And so you cant say "this one who plays game X is a person i know and classify".
A good game is able to provide a good experience and fun for casual players, and enough depth to be appealing for hardcore players.
And certainly, if TaB wants to be a good game, it has to deliver on that point.
So asking for what you asked for (or the Op asks for), is asking for a lower quality level, not a higher one (ergo contradicting).
With that im done replying to the thread and its request in general.
On the topic itself.
I hope that they implement more options for people to tweak and set their difficulty so they can enjoy the game the way they want.
I thought for example about having more choices regarding stuff like the repay you get with destroying a building/scrapping it, easier = you get back 100%, normal =50%, hard=0%.
Or stuff like having the whole map revealed, have fog fo war or no fog of war.
I would love more options.
Although i personally enjoy playing the game on brutal and keep playing anyway, i would like if all the other players here had what they want and have fun even if they play on lower difficulty or even sandbox.
I dont mind, why would i, it doesnt affect me anyway and even if i dont see a negative reason to deny a better game.
If PUBG and Minecraft stand for bad games for casuals in your dictionary, i would certainly like if TaB was like those.
Because both offer great variety and options to be played and so fun for millions of people.
Contrary to just being good for people like you.
So while i support the "lower the floor but dont lower the ceiling" statement, i even say "lower the floor and expand the ceiling."
This
puitting a casual mode and a hardcore mode in the game is completly fine and doesn't affect anyone. And why casual should except that your opinion is the right and the game HAS TO BE hard? This is ironic.
Do yourself a favor and accept that casuals are dominating the game market. If you want that your favorite games are successfull, then accept that the devs have to satisfy both sides. I mean why the hell is a difficult setup such a big problem for someone? I'm a hardcore player too but I don't care about such things as long I can enjoy the game at my own difficult.
Yes, what I clearly experienced personally in my life must be totally made up. Yup. Of course. No issues here. Yeah.
Please, if you want to troll at least make a decent attempt. I never played Warcraft on Lan for instance but played by modem, that's just a plain fact since I've done it at least a dozain times. Finding people to play was the real challenge really, the internet didn't even exist back then. Or, more precisely or to the point, wasn't readily available where I am (since technically it "existed" decades before it was widely available about anywhere. Since you're just trolling I GUESS I have to point out every single details?).
Love people pulling dodgy links on the internet to try to prove things. People or sites make up "news" all the time, it certainly was a thing when the internet started and you just have to look around for five minutes to see that it is still the case even today.
Also, to conclude, let me tell you that the fact that you even think that LANs were a thing back in the '90s for example make me laugh so hard it brings me tears. There was no such thing as laptops or portable computer fast or good enough to play games back then. If you wanted to make a LAN you'd have to lug your computer around with you, with a monitor about fifteen times the size of the flat ones we have right now (almost as big as the computer case itself) to some place that you'd need to hope was actually equipped to handle both the electrical drain and have all those cables plus routers set up... It was such a pain that it was completely reserved to special events or the resident TOWN tech wiz just because people didn't bother with such things...
Categorizing this game as a Rogue-Like might be a stretch, I won't argue much about that. I did say I'd call this game an hybrid. But your definition of Rogue-Like is so frigging out of touch with reality it make me twitch. A Rogue-Like have absolutely nothing to do with reacting to anything, it is all about completely randomized and unfair generation of a limited world and the difficulty of a game depicted by a single life and the impossibility to save which make your decisions final and decisive.
The difference between a classic RPG and a Rogue-Like is rather thin. The real difference come from the fact that in any classic RPG you can just save anywhere to try or test something and then come back instantly to the point whenever something bad happen, thus lowering the difficulty to an abysmal low level in comparison. If we could do the same in TaB then I suspect most people would not even be playing since it would be a walk in the park; just complete it once or twice in like 3 tries and you're done.
PLEASE stop using such phrases as 'Most People' or 'Most Players' unless you have personally polled more than half of the players in the world. The same goes for the word 'Everyone'.
PLEASE stop stating things as fact when it's opinion. The big difference is that Gravity is a fact but how you feel about anything is Opinion. I HAVE to care about Gravity. I don't have to care about your Opinion. (Hint: If you're guilty of any of the stuff listed above, I likely don't)
Unless you've spent a significant amount of time as a game developer, PLEASE stop talking about what the 'player base' wants or does not want. Particularly when dealing with a single-player game. You know what kind of players PLAY single-player games? Players who don't care how everyone else thinks and just want to have FUN. If a person's idea of fun is spending twenty bucks for a zombie game with a big red 'I win' button WHO CARES?
I'm not sure how to tell you this.
Dune II categorically has no multi-player code in it. You can download the code for yourself to check: http://duneii.com/downloads/
You're perhaps thinking of OpenDUNE (https://github.com/OpenDUNE/OpenDUNE) which is a fan made reconstruction.
Warcraft: Orcs vrs Humans (the first) had IPX code (like DOOM) but it appears that modem p2p was possible. (And yes, I had to look up how):
https://www.dedoimedo.com/games/reviving/dosbox_multiplayer.html
MODEM and IPX aren't really online - you're basically getting a p2p connection going, requiring you to know the IP of the other party. I did attempt to gently point this out in reference to DOOM. (Btw.. I own the vr 1.0 release disks, which didn't have the IPX netcode).
...wow. Do you live in an Ex-Soviet country or something?
Private LAN parties were at their peak in popularity during the late 1990s to early 2000s when broadband internet access was either unavailable or too expensive for most people at the time. Another purpose for attending private LAN parties was also the opportunity to share software, movies or music among the participants. File-sharing over LAN networks provided a convenient way to exchange content among participants, as most average internet users did not have access to the high-speed and bandwidth that a broadband Internet connection offers to accommodate large file size downloads.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAN_party
And yes, people really did cart their desktops around for them. In case your "memory" cannot allow you to imagine this, I'd suggest image searching for "1990's LAN party".
You'll get thousands of images like these: https://asset-f.soupcdn.com/asset/1876/0492_fb2a_500.jpeg
And yes: those are old CRT monitors on top of either 386 or 486(DX if you were rich) machines.
Are we done with your "reality" yet?
Also, like I said, love how people just pick random links to act like they know stuff. I actually was there doing that, kiddo. Of course file exchange was a thing when you were participating in a LAN: the speed of transmission was like a hundred time faster than if you got your files on a BBS, which WAS the standard way to transmit files at the time.
Also note what's written here: "as most average internet users did not have access to the high-speed and bandwidth that a broadband Internet connection offers". Proof of what I was talking about earlier about modems, which you completely dismissed. Without "high speed internet" (does not mean the same thing now than it did back then but not too important) then you're stuck with a modem the old fashionned way. Which is also exactly how BBS's used to work too... Except that BBS's peak were when people had speed around 2400kb or 14k modems. By the end 56k modems were the norm even tho I never saw a computer using one ever going to that speed anyways considering you were using phone lines which always have a huge amount of line noise...
Dune II has no multiplayer code. "Kiddo".
The way you typed this makes me conclude that you do NOT consider yourself a casual by any means. Why then do you think you can speak for them?