Be honest - do you cheat, and how?

[Zeno]

OK, OK. I just get a little mad when people insist games are too hard. Pet peeve. Oh yes, and yes Call of Duty had difficulty settings. The game didn't really get harder, so much as it did increase the number of grenades enemies threw at you. Also, I love health bars, and all those little bundles of fun known as health packs. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. did regen to perfection. Use health packs during fights, afterwords let your health regenerate.

The idea of offering a reward for playing tougher settings makes perfect sense. You're playing a tougher difficulty, you need better stuff. The game gives you better stuff. You play an easier difficulty, you can just take the average stuff and survive. Or, at least, that's how I see it. Maybe I'm blind.

So, you admit that the only way to learn how to play is by trial and error?

That is a very poor way to teach the player how to play the game. If there's no obvious way to know "this place is too hard and will kill me by sneezing at me", and I blunder in, I'm going to be angry. I'm going to be very angry if this means I lose a large portion of play, or worse, if it means that save slot is fucked because I saved whilst in over my head.

You've never played NetHack, have you? EDIT: http://www.nethack.org/ Try it. Good game. Learn by trial and error.

Game developers keep catering to you at the expense of those of us who would like to enjoy a game, and they quickly go out of business - for good reason. Catering to the niche hardcore gamer crowd is economic suicide.

That's the thing, though. Indie developers can take risks. They can make a game that will make one specific niche as happy as could be. Ever heard of Uplink? It's a game by Introversion that's essentially a computer hacking sim. Most gamers would be turned off immediately by the fact that the "game" consists of very little actual stuff identifiable as gameplay. It boils down to clicking on all your little hacker tools and then clicking the corresponding security. Upon examination, it really is a simple game. A specific niche that enjoys the building tension as a trace signal closes in on you, or as a government official finds the server you're hacking from, however, will love this game. I love that game.

I'll repeat it again: if you don't like this game, or find that the experienced is spoiled due to having to cheat, then find another game. You don't need to give all we forum-goers (who seem to love the game) a hard time. Just let it go, and realize that we like the game, and you (maybe) don't like it. Move on.

I really hope that person is me, so I can have you locked up for assault.

Don't forget battery!

[Kreador Freeaxe]

Shadowdragon8685,

For some reason you sound like you're set to "I hate everything." For a perspective, you sound like you're saying that Eschalon Book I is impossible without cheats for any but the hardest of hardcore gamers. I'm a long way from hardcore. This is only the second CRPG I've played in a decade. My first time through, I knew nothing of cheats or any of that, and I managed two of the three possible endings anyway. I found all the side-quest objects. And I enjoyed the game so much that I have played it over and over (sometimes with re-roll cheating just to see what I can get, sometimes straight).

If you see value in something, you should be as critical of it as possible. I expect nothing less from the guys who read my writings, and I will give nothing less to the developers of games I see potential in. I wouldn't waste my breath talking about a non-Half-Life shooter.

As for "impossible", by definition it's not. If absolutely nessessary, you can save/load every round until every hit you make is critical, and you've acomplished the statistically impossible simply by employing enough metaphorical typing monkies.

The point is, for the casual gamer, will they have fun? That's what a game is, ultimately, about, and is a point that is all-too-often missed by the hardcore gamer who does have fun by having his ass handed to him; will someone have fun the whole game, or not?

I, for one, was not having fun when I had twinked my character - cheated, in fact - my character for Thief-style theft, and found myself out of lockpicks on the very first lock I encountered. You wouldn't think it was very much fun if you were playing a swordsman, had pushed every stat and skill available to you as regards swordsmen to the max, and found you had less than a one out of three chance to hit the very first Fanged Salamander you came across, would you?

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you. You have your opinion, and it's valid for you. I just disagree. I think Thomas and his crew did a great job balancing a game for the casual gamer, and I'm looking forward to a lot more fun with Book II.

I think you'll find it's less about whether my opinion is valid for you, than that it is or is not valid for the vast majority of potentially-paying customers.


Okay, so you're mad that you cheated to start the game (tweaking your character to make him an uber level 1 thief) and still couldn't get the first lock to open with your three lock picks. I'd be interested to know which lock that was. If the one upstairs in the broken-down inn near where you wake up, there may be a reason for that. It's telling you that location isn't really for a level 1 character.

Also, since you clearly have a lot of knowledge and practice with cheats that include messing with the program, I don't think you could be counted as a casual gamer. Yes, you like to have fun, which you appear to define as being the ultimate fighter (or thief or whatever) and you don't like the actual work of getting there. I thought the work of getting there was the point of playing a Role Playing Game. You're playing the role of a guy who just woke up and doesn't remember much of anything.

Since Eschalon revived my interest in games (as I said, I had played only one other CRPG in the last decade, so I would be the definition of a casual gamer interested in an old-school isometric experience), I've spent some time on a few boards seeing how players react to games. I find it very interesting that so many want only the experience of being the uber-champ, not the experience of discovering the game world. It's a sad fact linked, probably, both to age and to a culture that tells people that it's more important to be the best, however you need to get there, than to do the best you can.

Maybe you're right. Maybe your opinion matches more closely to the vast majority of people looking to buy CRPGs today. I find that a bit sad, actually. I hope there are enough people like me out there, who find posts like mine and buy the games, to make Thomas comfortably successful. There probably aren't enough to make him slobberingly rich, but again, that's a false goal of a warped society, in my view.

[CrazyBernie]

*Cuts the hostility in the room with a knife*

Damn, people!

We can all agree on the fact that Eschalon is a niche product. I'm pretty sure BW knew that when he set out to create the game, and is well aware that it was going to be difficult for many. The goal of a developer isn't necessarily to create a game to cater to everyone. Some of them actually set out to create the type of game that they themselves enjoy so that they might share those types of experiences with others who might feel the same way. Go figure. Making money is not always the sole goal in game development!

This baloney about creating a game for niche gamers being economic suicide is just plain silly. If one thing can be said about the hardcore niche gamers, is that they buy games. Hell, during this whole economic recession shit that's going on in US, the only industry that seems to not be on a sinking ship is the gaming industry. (Well, not counting the whole Midway fiasco ) Game companies go out of business because they lose focus and have ridiculous development schedules, overpaid CEO's, over-the-top expectations, and throw copious amounts of money into advertising as a way to try to cover for releasing a game before it's ready. BW already met his sales budget, and now whatever extra he sells is gravy, which he can use to pay his bills or pour onto Book II/III development. Not bad for a first run, I think.

Video games used to be a lot harder. I'm actually ashamed that I'm not as good at gaming as I used to be, when I go back and play some older games and find myself lowering the difficulty level.

Yet I personally don't find Eschalon to be "very, very hard." Having adjustable difficulty would be nice, but it didn't prevent me from playing through the game once with no cheating. Just once, mind you... I guess I'm too greedy. The fact that I keep playing speaks volumes about the quality of the game, if you ask me.

If there's one thing I've learned through gaming over the years, it's save your game!! The more save slots the better, 'cause I'm going to fill them all. If you thinking saving the game before a boss fight or before going into every room or before trying to disarm a trap is all a sign of cheating, well then I guess I'm a hardcore cheater. And while you have to start a whole area over because you weren't expecting to get your ass handed to you in a particular part of a dungeon, well I'm already past it because of strategic saving.

In the end, everyone's entitled to his/her own opinion (speaking of "her", I bet the ladies are sitting back laughing at this gratuitous display of testosterone ), but surely that's no reason to threaten each other with physical violence... mmmkay?

[Zeno]

^What he said.

[ShadowDragon8685]

^^^ Speaking of the me-toos...

OK, OK. I just get a little mad when people insist games are too hard. Pet peeve.

I get mad when people tell me I'm playing it wrong.

Oh yes, and yes Call of Duty had difficulty settings. The game didn't really get harder, so much as it did increase the number of grenades enemies threw at you. Also, I love health bars, and all those little bundles of fun known as health packs. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. did regen to perfection. Use health packs during fights, afterwords let your health regenerate.

I'm of the school of thought that if you ever have to invoke trial and error gameplay, or DIAS ("Do it Again, Stupid") gameplay, you're failing to make a good game.

The idea of offering a reward for playing tougher settings makes perfect sense. You're playing a tougher difficulty, you need better stuff. The game gives you better stuff. You play an easier difficulty, you can just take the average stuff and survive. Or, at least, that's how I see it. Maybe I'm blind.

It makes no sense.

The point of playing on a tougher difficulty is to have things go less smooth. This means you should get shafted in every way - NOT get the uber-powerful items that are basically your only chance of survival if you don't play 110% perfectly.

If anything, the loot table adjustment should be another difficulty option! Make it harder by getting less, and what there is is less likely to be good!

You've never played NetHack, have you? EDIT: http://www.nethack.org/ Try it. Good game. Learn by trial and error.

No, and I never will. Trial and error is for science, not gameplay. I don't have fun by doing something that seems normal, logical, or right in the context of the game (looting a corpse, walking through a door towards my plot objective) only to, with absolutely no warning, get suddenly screwed over (disease, portcullis slams down with no Spot Hidden notice.)

That's the thing, though. Indie developers can take risks. They can make a game that will make one specific niche as happy as could be. Ever heard of Uplink? It's a game by Introversion that's essentially a computer hacking sim. Most gamers would be turned off immediately by the fact that the "game" consists of very little actual stuff identifiable as gameplay. It boils down to clicking on all your little hacker tools and then clicking the corresponding security. Upon examination, it really is a simple game. A specific niche that enjoys the building tension as a trace signal closes in on you, or as a government official finds the server you're hacking from, however, will love this game. I love that game.

That's not a risk - and it's not a game, it's a virtual toy. For what it is, it might work, because it's pioneering something new.

This is not new, this is old. Better gamers and game developers have done this before, and failed, not because their game was bad, but because they blew something critical - failure to attract enough gamers.

I'm talking about Troika, the guys who made Arcanum. These are literally the people who developed Fallout and Fallout 2, before moving on to found their own company. There was seemingly no way they could fuck up - and they didn't. Arcanum is one of the best games out there today, but they still stumbled and failed as a company.

In their case, it failed because the game was good - too good. So good that everyone wanted it, but thanks to Atari, they had to delay the US English release for the game to be translated into like, 14 other languages, a process which took ten months, given the huge number of jokes, word-play, and such, which simply would not translate easily. During this time, of course, it was flying high on the warez sites, and by the time people actually saw Arcanum disks in stores, everyone who gave a crap had played it and beat it several times over.


In this case, I think it's at risk of failure by catering to people who are too oldschool, and who want to have their asses handed to them.

I'll repeat it again: if you don't like this game, or find that the experienced is spoiled due to having to cheat, then find another game. You don't need to give all we forum-goers (who seem to love the game) a hard time. Just let it go, and realize that we like the game, and you (maybe) don't like it. Move on.

And I'll say it again: I wouldn't be wasting my breath if I didn't give a damn. I've bought games on Steam that have turned out to suck coming, going and staying, and I wouldn't waste my time.

I give a damn because I see potential here, and I don't want to see it hobbled and fall. If a creator - any creator - only listens to the yes men, the me-toos, and the sycophants, he becomes insulated from any real critism. If he works for Electronic Arts, that's fine as far as him bringing home the bacon is concerned, but if he's on his own, it could spell not only the game and it's full potential failing, but bacon-bringing failure as well.

You know, like Troika. Or worse, Hellgate Studios - you know, the original Diablo and Diablo II team, put together an MMORPG with strong FPS functions set in modern-day london with a demonic incursion? How the hell could that fail - oh wait, it did, because they only listened to the sychophants and the yes men, and didn't listen to everybody who was complaining.

Don't forget battery!

I figured you'd just cop a plea to the assault and get battery dropped.

Game developers keep catering for customers that want a challenge? You have it the wrong way around.

No, I'm warning against it. If you'll note, there's no game developers who cater only to those who want a challenge because they all go out of business.

You cheated in Knights of the Old Republic, one of the most easiest games to come out in 2003? I can see why you find Eschalon: Book I very hard, you must be a terrible gamer.

No, I cheated in KotOR because I didn't want to have to choose which of the skills to be good at, because being good at only some of them meant that the ones I didn't, I was missing out on, and consequently, missing part of the game. I don't like slogging back through stuff I've already done just to try something else with a different set of skills.

At the end of the day, Basilisk Games have made enough money to continue the Eschalon series. People tried the demo, and obviously had fun to buy the full game. Hopefully the next installation won't be dumbed down for people like yourself and include a quest compass and Vita-Chambers.

Quest compasses are, frankly, pretty much required. There's nothing more frustrating than wandering around saying "Where the hell is it?!" Granted, the quests in Book I weren't too bad, but that was only because of the proliferation of road maps and the high level of detail in the map I bought at the store - and the fact that between the item map and my high cartography skill, and that everything I was directed to go to was clearly marked, it wasn't too hard to figure out where to go next.

If the player is wandering around looking for the next part of his quest, his time is being wasted. He's not having fun, and he's likely not enjoying the game.

Frankly, I bought this game because it's been a long damn time since I saw a CRPG I could play on my system. Hopefully, the next installation will be more fun and not require me to pump my character up to godlike levels in order to continue.

Okay, so you're mad that you cheated to start the game (tweaking your character to make him an uber level 1 thief) and still couldn't get the first lock to open with your three lock picks. I'd be interested to know which lock that was. If the one upstairs in the broken-down inn near where you wake up, there may be a reason for that. It's telling you that location isn't really for a level 1 character.

Then I have to call poor game design at that point. There is an inherant - nay, expected - tradition and expectation that the first areas you find are designed specifically so that even a real newb would have to work hard at failure in order to fail. The upstairs lock was just one part of that, then there's the dungeon below the wine cellar. That place was a freaking nightmare, and I only got through it by savescumming and, at one point, resorting to using ArtMoney SE simply to hack my hitpoints up so I didn't die to poison!

And this was supposed to be Garret, the masterful Thief?

Difficulty is supposed to curve, not lay flat - or worse, jump up high.

Also, since you clearly have a lot of knowledge and practice with cheats that include messing with the program, I don't think you could be counted as a casual gamer. Yes, you like to have fun, which you appear to define as being the ultimate fighter (or thief or whatever) and you don't like the actual work of getting there. I thought the work of getting there was the point of playing a Role Playing Game. You're playing the role of a guy who just woke up and doesn't remember much of anything.

As I say every time I wind up forced to grind in WoW, "If I wanted to do something stressful, un-fun, that can be defined as work, I'll find someone and make him pay me for the privledge, not the other way 'round!"

Just because I'm playing a guy who just woke up does not mean I shouldn't be good at what I have decided to make myself good at. On the contrary, I should be pretty damn good, even if only latent skills remain, since I was

[+] SPOILER

supposedly good enough to find the Crux of Ages on the field of battle, presumably having wrested it from Goblin hands.

There should be some expectation that skills would remain, even if memories do not.

Since Eschalon revived my interest in games (as I said, I had played only one other CRPG in the last decade, so I would be the definition of a casual gamer interested in an old-school isometric experience), I've spent some time on a few boards seeing how players react to games. I find it very interesting that so many want only the experience of being the uber-champ, not the experience of discovering the game world. It's a sad fact linked, probably, both to age and to a culture that tells people that it's more important to be the best, however you need to get there, than to do the best you can.

Most people, in the real world, are nobodies - you, me, even Basilisk is a nobody in the grand scheme.

We play games - especially role-playing games - to get away being a nobody, and be someone who's good at something - whether the moonsilver-tongued talker who can convince merchants to pay you for the privledge of giving you their goods (possible if you get your Merchantile up to truely broken levels), the swordman who can hack his way through any army, or the mighty mage who can fell armies with a few spells (not possible actually, given how poorly mana-per-HP-damage scales against enemy HP).

I do not want to play, at any point, something that could be described by any of the following: "Nobody", "Dirt-scraper" "Scum-sucker" "Inadequate" or "Helpless". I get enough of that IRL, thank you very, very much.

Even a starting thief character should be able to rob starting areas blind (which means there should be something there to rob), a starting swordsman should hack apart the first monsters he meets with relative ease, and a starting wizard should blast the first bad guys apart.

The journey is in starting out in low-key areas where you're dominant - maybe not overly so, but you should still be a very significant force in the area - and moving on to a high-key area around the time you get to be strong enough to dominate them as well. You should never, so long as you don't overextend your reach, find yourself in a position where every path is fraught with peril where failure is more than a threat for not taking things seriously, but a threat simply for trying.

The player should never have to rely on the dice to decide whether he wins or loses. The dice are there to tell him how long it takes to win, and how many resources he has to expend in order to do so. If random chance, outside of statistical probability, is determining whether the player is losing or succeeding, and the player has not overextended himself, then the game has been balanced incorrectly.

Maybe you're right. Maybe your opinion matches more closely to the vast majority of people looking to buy CRPGs today. I find that a bit sad, actually. I hope there are enough people like me out there, who find posts like mine and buy the games, to make Thomas comfortably successful. There probably aren't enough to make him slobberingly rich, but again, that's a false goal of a warped society, in my view.

Sure, blame it all on society...

*Cuts the hostility in the room with a knife*

Damn, people!

We can all agree on the fact that Eschalon is a niche product. I'm pretty sure BW knew that when he set out to create the game, and is well aware that it was going to be difficult for many. The goal of a developer isn't necessarily to create a game to cater to everyone. Some of them actually set out to create the type of game that they themselves enjoy so that they might share those types of experiences with others who might feel the same way. Go figure. Making money is not always the sole goal in game development!

Not to sound like a Randroid, but look at what happened to Troika. They made the game they wanted to play, and then they didn't get to make Arcanum 2, because they went out of business.

Granted, they failed for a different reason (unreasonable delays imposed by the publisher causing Warez saturation to set into the market, as well as not having hired business professionals to run the economics side of the business,) but it still holds true. If you're going to cater to a niche market, and that market is too small to sustain your activity, you have two options: Failure, or give it away for free as a labor of love. (a la Toady One and Dwarf Fortress.)

This baloney about creating a game for niche gamers being economic suicide is just plain silly. If one thing can be said about the hardcore niche gamers, is that they buy games. Hell, during this whole economic recession shit that's going on in US, the only industry that seems to not be on a sinking ship is the gaming industry. (Well, not counting the whole Midway fiasco ) Game companies go out of business because they lose focus and have ridiculous development schedules, overpaid CEO's, over-the-top expectations, and throw copious amounts of money into advertising as a way to try to cover for releasing a game before it's ready. BW already met his sales budget, and now whatever extra he sells is gravy, which he can use to pay his bills or pour onto Book II/III development. Not bad for a first run, I think.

Exactly what games came out for the niche of hardcore CPRG gamers? Other than Eschalon, that is?




Yeah, I thought so. There are none, because the niche is too small. You can expect fair sales on the first one, if only because the market is hungry - if someone put out a Wing Commander game, right now, no matter what it's reviews, I'd bet huge money that game would sell like hotcakes, because the niche of people who like space shooters has been starved since WC: Prophecy.

Whether the game is shit or not detemines the sales of the sequal. Need for Speed: Most Wanted sold huge because Underground 2 was good, but NFS:MW sucked balls, so NFS: Carbon (which also sucked balls) sold for crap. NFS: ProStreet is almost unheard of, and now EA are desperately trying to re-inject some life into the franchise. (Franchisim is another evil, but not the point of this rant.)

Video games used to be a lot harder. I'm actually ashamed that I'm not as good at gaming as I used to be, when I go back and play some older games and find myself lowering the difficulty level.

Yet I personally don't find Eschalon to be "very, very hard." Having adjustable difficulty would be nice, but it didn't prevent me from playing through the game once with no cheating. Just once, mind you... I guess I'm too greedy. The fact that I keep playing speaks volumes about the quality of the game, if you ask me.

It says more about you, really.

Honestly, take the worst, most shit game out there today, and if you look at it's fans - usually found at that game's own forums - you will see a stunning picture of amazing perfection that completely fails to mesh with what you experienced playing the game. And thus, the danger of listening only to the me-toos.

If there's one thing I've learned through gaming over the years, it's save your game!! The more save slots the better, 'cause I'm going to fill them all. If you thinking saving the game before a boss fight or before going into every room or before trying to disarm a trap is all a sign of cheating, well then I guess I'm a hardcore cheater. And while you have to start a whole area over because you weren't expecting to get your ass handed to you in a particular part of a dungeon, well I'm already past it because of strategic saving.

Yeah, see, that shouldn't be nessessary. Barring the quicksave function (A key I have yet to find), you shouldn't have to save that often - that's called trial-and-error gameplay, and it sucks.


[qoute]In the end, everyone's entitled to his/her own opinion (speaking of "her", I bet the ladies are sitting back laughing at this gratuitous display of testosterone ), but surely that's no reason to threaten each other with physical violence... mmmkay?

... I didn't threat any violence. ???

[Zeno]

OK, I wasn't sure at first, but are you the guy from that Twenty Sided site? You sound like him, even if you aren't. Or maybe you already said you were. I probably didn't look hard enough.

BUT: This all comes down to tastes. You think Trial-and-Error is cheap. I think it's great. You think this game has potential. I think it's as good as it could have been, though I do await the next installment. I can't even tell what you were talking about in response to my Uplink comment. I think it's a game, and a good one at that, if you were saying it wasn't. I also believe the point of Indie developers is to take chances, to do what big companies won't, including appealing to the niches that are out there. You have your opinions, I have mine.

Tah-maa-toe, tah-mah-toe. Let's call the whole thing off.

[Randomizer]

Exactly what games came out for the niche of hardcore CPRG gamers? Other than Eschalon, that is?

Blades of Avernum has been out for years for all those hardcore CRPG gamers that wanted to be able to create their own adventures after playing some of Spiderweb Software games. In financial terms it was a failure. In spite of all those people that posted on the site that they wanted that type of game, there weren't enough other gamers interested in buying it at the time.

Since then Jeff Vogel has changed his newer games to dumb them down to a casual gamer level and irritated the hard core players looking for a challenge. Puzzles became simpler so you could brute force solve them when you couldn't reason them out and were placed in the expert areas that weaker players could avoid. Combat at the hardest levels was made easier so that normal level was a cakewalk and even a new player should be able to get through the main quests.

Pleasing everyone fails and right now the idea is to sell to the most players.

[Kreador Freeaxe]

Exactly what games came out for the niche of hardcore CPRG gamers? Other than Eschalon, that is?

Why do you keep saying that Eschalon is a game only for niche hardcore CRPG gamers? It's a game for people who like isometric, turn based CRPGs, and possibly also for people who liked role playing games when they were younger but never really got into computer games before.

Maybe the difference in our reactions is one of expectations. I came into Eschalon expecting that I'd have to try a few things, probably fail a few times, until I really picked up how to play the game. Once I did figure it out, I expected the game to give me some fun challenges and entertain me for an hour or two a day for a week or so. It has, in fact, entertained me for an hour or two every few days for many months, so I'm a satisfied customer.

Clearly, the game succeeded for me. Clearly, there's enough in the game that entertained you that you have spent a lot of time writing long screeds about how Basilisk Games was so close to greatness but instead made something nearly unplayable (pardon me if that's not what you think, but it's sure how your posts sound).

[Unclever title]

Eschalon Book I is a game that requires you to adapt your strategy to it. I love games like this. This is also part of the reason I enjoy a lot of platform games (which are about adapting your timing) a genre that almost always seems to walk a thin line in terms of difficulty.

I haven't played many CRPGs (almost no Old-school) and in fact I'm mostly a console gaming customer.

There are too many games that can be beaten by the same rote strategy as its many predecessors. A game that makes you think, to me, is the ideal because I really like to think.

I like a challenge simply because I like overcoming it. I don't want my ass handed to me, no one does. But you certainly do get a greater sense of satisfaction in completing a task if it has a greater difficulty. For everyone there's a point at which you can't take repeated dying anymore; for me it's after about the 7th or 8th time in a row at the same spot unless I'm particularly determined. Even then sometimes I decide it's time to try this from a new angle.

I guess that makes me a "hardcore gamer" but really I just like finishing what I've started. Particularly when there's an interesting storyline involved.

Trial and error is the very basis of learning in human existence. You don't want that in a video game? This baffles me.

I understand wanting something to be intuitive, but there's a limit to that. If it's entirely intuitive it's probably because it's just like every other game of it's genre in which case is there much merit in playing that specific game? Conversely if something is entirely trial and error it can be frustrating at first but then you learn and learn how to avoid things/how to recover. If you don't like the method of avoidance/recovery then that's preference and I understand that.

I guess an alternative is having an in game explanation how to play/things to avoid, but those are usually pretty cumbersome/4th wall breaking outside of hint windows, which Eschalon has btw, but I think most people immediately dismiss those, I know I do.

Well whatever, I think I made my position on this clear, sorry if I offend or if I needlessly repeated anything. This thread is far too long and I have far too little time to read it all but I skimmed and that's what I think.

[CrazyBernie]

I'll preface this by saying that I came into this game with no intention of playing 'fair'. I do this with pretty much every non-multiplayer RPG (or indeed, any game) I play.

I've cheated my arse off at every CRPG I've ever played that I had the ability to cheat at. KotOR and KotOR2, you bet. Final Fantasy Tactics? Absolutely. I have nothing but contempt for a game where cheating is unnessessarily difficult or impossible.

Honestly, this reason alone pretty much precludes you from making any valid comment about what makes a good/bad game. One of the most basic gameplay components in an RPG, or any game for that matter is overcoming obstacles. You choose to go around obstacles, using some twisted form of "I wanna be a superhero" logic to justify that choice. It's like you have some sort of deep rooted fear of failure, and avoid it at any costs.

If you see value in something, you should be as critical of it as possible.

I understand this, but I don't see you being critical at all, I see you complaining because it doesn't work the way you want it to and hiding behind the excuse that it's somehow related to how all those potential paying customers out there. Your response to any and everyone's suggestions is a big fat /FAIL, because if they don't agree with you then they must be wrong.

I, for one, was not having fun when I had twinked my character - cheated, in fact - my character for Thief-style theft, and found myself out of lockpicks on the very first lock I encountered.

What's that age old adage.... "Cheater's never win"?? I find that incredibly poignant here.

I'm of the school of thought that if you ever have to invoke trial and error gameplay, or DIAS ("Do it Again, Stupid") gameplay, you're failing to make a good game.

So you're saying that if you have to stop and think, it's a bad game. Bravo.

The point of playing on a tougher difficulty is to have things go less smooth. This means you should get shafted in every way - NOT get the uber-powerful items that are basically your only chance of survival if you don't play 110% perfectly.

So you're saying that some of the most successful games in History, take Diablo for example, which reward you for completing a harder difficulty, are horrible games. Brilliant.

I do not want to play, at any point, something that could be described by any of the following: "Nobody", "Dirt-scraper" "Scum-sucker" "Inadequate" or "Helpless". I get enough of that IRL, thank you very, very much.

Sadly I'm quickly beginning to understand why. Your piss-poor attitude is such that I wouldn't be surprised if you never left your house.

Granted, they failed for a different reason (unreasonable delays imposed by the publisher causing Warez saturation to set into the market, as well as not having hired business professionals to run the economics side of the business,) but it still holds true. If you're going to cater to a niche market, and that market is too small to sustain your activity, you have two options: Failure, or give it away for free as a labor of love. (a la Toady One and Dwarf Fortress.)

You admit that their reasons for failing had nothing to do with their target market yet still site it as being a valid example. Genius.

Exactly what games came out for the niche of hardcore CPRG gamers? Other than Eschalon, that is?

As previously mentioned, it's not really that hardcore. As I previously said, hardcore gamers are the ones more likely to spend money, so it doesn't hurt for a small development company that doesn't have a bloated budget to cater to them somewhat.

Video games used to be a lot harder. I'm actually ashamed that I'm not as good at gaming as I used to be, when I go back and play some older games and find myself lowering the difficulty level.

Yet I personally don't find Eschalon to be "very, very hard." Having adjustable difficulty would be nice, but it didn't prevent me from playing through the game once with no cheating. Just once, mind you... I guess I'm too greedy. The fact that I keep playing speaks volumes about the quality of the game, if you ask me.

It says more about you, really.

Honestly, take the worst, most shit game out there today, and if you look at it's fans - usually found at that game's own forums - you will see a stunning picture of amazing perfection that completely fails to mesh with what you experienced playing the game. And thus, the danger of listening only to the me-toos.

Actually, I hardly gave the game a glowing review. But what it does tell me is that you like easy games that offer little to no reward for playing. Secondly, I don't listen to "me-toos" or critics when I make my game purchase decisions. If the storyline sounds interesting, I'll buy it. I fully expect that not all the games I get are going to be ones that I would give an A+ rating to. That's life pal, and there's no cheat-codes for it. Sorry to disappoint you there.

Incidentally, the ambiguous insult you offered there is the only reason I wasted my time responding back with this post. I probably wouldn't have bothered otherwise. But I suppose that's part of the confrontation that keeps you going in life.

Yeah, see, that shouldn't be nessessary. Barring the quicksave function (A key I have yet to find), you shouldn't have to save that often - that's called trial-and-error gameplay, and it sucks.

Perhaps if you spent less time cheating and more time learning how to play the game, you'd enjoy it more. Oh, wait, I'm sorry... you like everything handed to you on a silver platter. In that case, let me help you... it's called the "F2" key.

... I didn't threat any violence. ???

And what makes you assume that I was referring to you? Were you that absorbed in your self-importance? I was talking about zeno's desire to hurt someone.

I really hope that person is me, so I can have you locked up for assault.

You didn't threaten violence, but you couldn't resist stepping out in front of the swing.

Which frankly, means that if I buy Eschalon Book II (Still working out whether I want more or not), what I'm going to do is check off "food and water", "equipment deteriorates", "no save/load", and "random functions".

Instead of Book II, I'd recommend "Fate" or its recent sequel. It sports dumbed down gameplay that requires less skill. It's kind of like a kiddie version of Diablo. Shouldn't offer any challenges when you decide to cheat.

[ShadowDragon8685]

OK, I wasn't sure at first, but are you the guy from that Twenty Sided site? You sound like him, even if you aren't. Or maybe you already said you were. I probably didn't look hard enough.

Shamus Young?

HAH! He hates my guts (if I'm lucky; more likely he's forgotten me by now), after I called him out, to his face on his own blog, as being a hypocrit for censoring my calling-out of a pollitical party for censorship... In a debate about censorship that he started. No doubt he's barred my IP from posting, but that's okay, since I haven't visited his site since then.

That said, I agree with him on almost everything.

BUT: This all comes down to tastes. You think Trial-and-Error is cheap. I think it's great. You think this game has potential. I think it's as good as it could have been, though I do await the next installment. I can't even tell what you were talking about in response to my Uplink comment. I think it's a game, and a good one at that, if you were saying it wasn't. I also believe the point of Indie developers is to take chances, to do what big companies won't, including appealing to the niches that are out there. You have your opinions, I have mine.

Trial-and-Error Gameplay, frankly, is a waste of my time. It's not fun, to fail for reasons I couldn't have reasonable forseen, for taking actions that were reasonable, or avoiding ones that seemed unreasonable.

In spite of my criticism, I had fun with Eschalon: Book I. Not for it's difficulty, for it's story. That's what I play for.

I'm going to be perfectly honest with you. From your posts, I believe Eschalon: Book I is too complicated for you. You obviously don't understand the audience intended for this game. And since you cheat in every game, why even bother complaining about the difficulty? Perhaps you should go back to playing Oblivion where the game practically holds your hand? Basilisk Games will not dumb down their games for you.

It's not too complicated for me, it's more difficulty than I feel like enduring in pursuit of what makes me happy.

Also, I never have, and never will, play Oblivion. It's not a game that holds your hand, it's a game that rapes you in the arse.

Pleasing everyone fails and right now the idea is to sell to the most players.

Thank you, finally someone gets my point.

Eschalon Book I is a game that requires you to adapt your strategy to it. I love games like this. This is also part of the reason I enjoy a lot of platform games (which are about adapting your timing) a genre that almost always seems to walk a thin line in terms of difficulty.

I haven't played many CRPGs (almost no Old-school) and in fact I'm mostly a console gaming customer.

There are too many games that can be beaten by the same rote strategy as its many predecessors. A game that makes you think, to me, is the ideal because I really like to think.

A game that requires thought is fine. A game that says "your best isn't good enough, the only outcome is FAIL" is not fine. So I did, in fact, think. I thought like James T. Kirk, a man whom I'm pretty sure every nerd here will instantly idolize.

He didn't beat the Kobyashi Maru by fighting harder, he did it by changing the parameters of the scenario itself.

I like a challenge simply because I like overcoming it. I don't want my ass handed to me, no one does. But you certainly do get a greater sense of satisfaction in completing a task if it has a greater difficulty. For everyone there's a point at which you can't take repeated dying anymore; for me it's after about the 7th or 8th time in a row at the same spot unless I'm particularly determined. Even then sometimes I decide it's time to try this from a new angle.

I guess that makes me a "hardcore gamer" but really I just like finishing what I've started. Particularly when there's an interesting storyline involved.

I don't really get off on overcoming challenges. I play for the story, really, for the reward, for the success. In my opinion, Challenge should be a speed-bump in the road of the game, not a suddenly-appearing solid steel wall that pops up when I'm going at 190 Mp/h and forces me to start over.

Or, to put it another way, reloading should only happen, in my opinion, because I do something grossly wrong. I shouldn't be forced to reload because I attempted something my character supposedly is good at, and I fail. I had to reload, for example, in the Goblin Citadel, because I didn't spot the portcullis trap and got crushed. That's what I'm talking about - Garret, my character, was supposedly a master thief (above even being a master of everything). There should have been a "halt movement, there's a suspicious pressure plate here!" notice.

Trial and error is the very basis of learning in human existence. You don't want that in a video game? This baffles me.

I understand wanting something to be intuitive, but there's a limit to that. If it's entirely intuitive it's probably because it's just like every other game of it's genre in which case is there much merit in playing that specific game? Conversely if something is entirely trial and error it can be frustrating at first but then you learn and learn how to avoid things/how to recover. If you don't like the method of avoidance/recovery then that's preference and I understand that.

Have you ever played Half-Life 2: Episode 1 and Episode 2? If you've ever listened to the developers pontificate (in great detail) about how they make it a habit to train players to overcome a given task in a non-stressful environment before compelling them to do so under pressure, you will learn a lot about what makes a great game.

I guess an alternative is having an in game explanation how to play/things to avoid, but those are usually pretty cumbersome/4th wall breaking outside of hint windows, which Eschalon has btw, but I think most people immediately dismiss those, I know I do.

I read them all, very carefully. I have never felt compelled to cheat, for example, on Half-Life 2 or it's Episodes, because I have never been frustrated. I may have needed to reload once or twice because I zagged when I should've zigged, or chose to take cover on top of a combine soldier's grenade, but I never felt as if I were looking around wondering what I needed to do.

And I don't just mean with quests, I mean for everything. There was little to no 'training' in Eschalon: Book I, and by that I mean training the player how to play. That, combined with the steep chances of failure at anything, the unforgiving nature of attempting to do something you're not minmaxxed for, lead to me being frustrated.

KotOR's different. I just mainly like to be able to make every item, pick every lock, and so forth and so on.

Well whatever, I think I made my position on this clear, sorry if I offend or if I needlessly repeated anything. This thread is far too long and I have far too little time to read it all but I skimmed and that's what I think.

No offense taken. You're not being irate, irational, irritable, or mean.

Honestly, this reason alone pretty much precludes you from making any valid comment about what makes a good/bad game. One of the most basic gameplay components in an RPG, or any game for that matter is overcoming obstacles. You choose to go around obstacles, using some twisted form of "I wanna be a superhero" logic to justify that choice. It's like you have some sort of deep rooted fear of failure, and avoid it at any costs.

Funnily enough, I consider "cheat my character to superheroic levels" to be a valid means of "overcoming obstacle". It's one I don't especially relish resorting to, but if I feel that the resources I've been given are woefully inadequate to the task of making steady, expectant progress in the story, then so be it.

If you see value in something, you should be as critical of it as possible.

I understand this, but I don't see you being critical at all, I see you complaining because it doesn't work the way you want it to and hiding behind the excuse that it's somehow related to how all those potential paying customers out there. Your response to any and everyone's suggestions is a big fat /FAIL, because if they don't agree with you then they must be wrong.

Funny, I've been quite critical. There have been complaints, but the game gave me reason to complain, and I voiced them.

And as I am wont to say, when you tell me I'm wrong, then I say it is you who are wrong.

I, for one, was not having fun when I had twinked my character - cheated, in fact - my character for Thief-style theft, and found myself out of lockpicks on the very first lock I encountered.

What's that age old adage.... "Cheater's never win"?? I find that incredibly poignant here.

Actually, I did win - quite handily. I simply cheated more. It wasn't the cheating that caused my failure, it was the presence of an unreasonably difficult lock in the newbie area, an area I inherantly trusted existed to allow me to get some familarity with the game mechanics in an environment safe for me to do so, and to build me up a few easy levels so I could go and take on the rest of the world.

I'm of the school of thought that if you ever have to invoke trial and error gameplay, or DIAS ("Do it Again, Stupid") gameplay, you're failing to make a good game.

So you're saying that if you have to stop and think, it's a bad game. Bravo.

No, I'm saying that if I get my ass handed to me because of something I couldn't reasonable anticipate, prepare for, or - the worst kind of DIAS/T&E - because I did something that I reasonably expected to work, because it had worked all the other times, only to find out that with no warning it suddenly backfires in my face - that I get angry.

So you're saying that some of the most successful games in History, take Diablo for example, which reward you for completing a harder difficulty, are horrible games. Brilliant.

Diablo doesn't 'reward' you for completing a harder difficulty, it just runs you through the same stuff over again with proportionally better gear. What you're proposing is not the same.

I do not want to play, at any point, something that could be described by any of the following: "Nobody", "Dirt-scraper" "Scum-sucker" "Inadequate" or "Helpless". I get enough of that IRL, thank you very, very much.

Sadly I'm quickly beginning to understand why. Your piss-poor attitude is such that I wouldn't be surprised if you never left your house.

Thanks for the personal dig. I appreciate that - really, I do.

I guess my attitude is so piss-poor that my poorness is why I've had a pair of lesbians masturbating one another in the back seats of my truck every night for the last week while me and our other friend rocked to music in the front - or why we got invited into the fire hall to play pool and drink up their beer (which I did not partake of, as it happens) whilst loud music played from the on-demand video music channels on the large screen and surroundsound.

Note to self: See if we can play infra-red camera hide-and-seak sometime in the firehouse.

Granted, they failed for a different reason (unreasonable delays imposed by the publisher causing Warez saturation to set into the market, as well as not having hired business professionals to run the economics side of the business,) but it still holds true. If you're going to cater to a niche market, and that market is too small to sustain your activity, you have two options: Failure, or give it away for free as a labor of love. (a la Toady One and Dwarf Fortress.)

You admit that their reasons for failing had nothing to do with their target market yet still site it as being a valid example. Genius.

I am warning about the high failure rate of isometric CPRG developers, and pointing out that, despite not making the most obvious mistake (aiming for too hardcore an audience, which BasiliskWrangler seems to be doing), they still failed. Because I give a damn and see enough potential in Eschalon that I want to be able to buy Book II and Book III and Book <increment here> and have fun.

Exactly what games came out for the niche of hardcore CPRG gamers? Other than Eschalon, that is?

As previously mentioned, it's not really that hardcore. As I previously said, hardcore gamers are the ones more likely to spend money, so it doesn't hurt for a small development company that doesn't have a bloated budget to cater to them somewhat.

Funnily enough, it damn well can. Despite the act that hardcore gamers are the ones more likely to buy, they are also far in the minority.

Video games used to be a lot harder. I'm actually ashamed that I'm not as good at gaming as I used to be, when I go back and play some older games and find myself lowering the difficulty level.

Yet I personally don't find Eschalon to be "very, very hard." Having adjustable difficulty would be nice, but it didn't prevent me from playing through the game once with no cheating. Just once, mind you... I guess I'm too greedy. The fact that I keep playing speaks volumes about the quality of the game, if you ask me.

It says more about you, really.

Honestly, take the worst, most shit game out there today, and if you look at it's fans - usually found at that game's own forums - you will see a stunning picture of amazing perfection that completely fails to mesh with what you experienced playing the game. And thus, the danger of listening only to the me-toos.

Actually, I hardly gave the game a glowing review. But what it does tell me is that you like easy games that offer little to no reward for playing. Secondly, I don't listen to "me-toos" or critics when I make my game purchase decisions. If the storyline sounds interesting, I'll buy it. I fully expect that not all the games I get are going to be ones that I would give an A+ rating to. That's life pal, and there's no cheat-codes for it. Sorry to disappoint you there.

Funnily enough, what you consider 'reward' may be what most people consider 'things preventing you from getting to the reward'.

And I could give a crap who you listen to - I was cautioning BasiliskWrangler about listening to you to the exclusion of everyone else - myself included.


And yes, there is a cheat code for life. Unfortunately it's handed out randomly, it's called "be born rich".

Incidentally, the ambiguous insult you offered there is the only reason I wasted my time responding back with this post. I probably wouldn't have bothered otherwise. But I suppose that's part of the confrontation that keeps you going in life.

I thought you were the one who liked a challenge?

Yeah, see, that shouldn't be nessessary. Barring the quicksave function (A key I have yet to find), you shouldn't have to save that often - that's called trial-and-error gameplay, and it sucks.

Perhaps if you spent less time cheating and more time learning how to play the game, you'd enjoy it more. Oh, wait, I'm sorry... you like everything handed to you on a silver platter. In that case, let me help you... it's called the "F2" key.

Exactly how was I supposed to know that? My Steams game list didn't give me the "read manual" option when I rightclicked the name of the game. There was no in-game training as regards the quicksave/quickload button, there was never in any options menu I explored (and I explored them all) a key-map.

Don't blame me for failing to learn to play a game that failed to teach me to play it.

... I didn't threat any violence. ???

And what makes you assume that I was referring to you? Were you that absorbed in your self-importance? I was talking about zeno's desire to hurt someone.

Of course I knew. I just said it because you used it to cap a huge post largely critical of myself, because I wondered if you'd get self-righteously indignant enough to lambaste me about percieved arrogance.

I really hope that person is me, so I can have you locked up for assault.

You didn't threaten violence, but you couldn't resist stepping out in front of the swing.

Nope. I can be a right bastard at times.

Which frankly, means that if I buy Eschalon Book II (Still working out whether I want more or not), what I'm going to do is check off "food and water", "equipment deteriorates", "no save/load", and "random functions".

Instead of Book II, I'd recommend "Fate" or its recent sequel. It sports dumbed down gameplay that requires less skill. It's kind of like a kiddie version of Diablo. Shouldn't offer any challenges when you decide to cheat.

I don't happen to like 'streamlined' games, or 'dumbed down' games, I like games properly balanced so that a player will learn rapidly how to play, can progress rapidly with few or zero interruptions, and will smoothly complete what needs to be completed in order to see all (or most) of the stuff in the game, and finally, the game ending.

[Randomizer]

The best way to change a game so it'll be more to your liking is to become a beta tester. You won't get to make major changes since those are usually set before testing starts, but game designers listen to complaints about the game being too hard when you are an expert and should be able to get through without difficulty in an area a beginner will have problems with playing. I know I've affected some of the Spiderweb games I've tested and the players will probably kill me if we ever meet up for making the games somewhat harder.

That door in the beginning of Book I that destroyed your lock picks was placed there to guard a special (easter egg) that should have been gotten later in the game. Some games have areas in the demo that just aren't meant to be explored too soon, but are there because it makes sense in the designer's mind to have them. Besides you can always bash the door down if you don't mind an execise in tedium.

[Unclever title]

Have you ever played Half-Life 2: Episode 1 and Episode 2? If you've ever listened to the developers pontificate (in great detail) about how they make it a habit to train players to overcome a given task in a non-stressful environment before compelling them to do so under pressure, you will learn a lot about what makes a great game.

Yes. Extensively. Probably the best example for the training players in a non-stressful environment before compelling them to accomplish the same task under pressure would be Portal. All the test chambers where the danger is increased incrementally after the very easy ones in the beginning until the finale. A very enjoyable game yes, extremely even. And a very clever story, but also very easy in my opinion. I was eventually beating the game in under two hours while initially I think it took me about 5 1/2 but I wasn't really counting then. The beauty of that though is after the initial game then one could download user made content for the added challenge.

Another good example would be the gravity gun, a quick explanation in HL2 and then you get sent off into Ravenholm to start cutting zombies in half with projectile sawblades.

And HL2 and and it's episodes certainly did have challenging portions to them, such as wave battles in Nova Prospekt, the Fighting Zombie hoards in almost complete darkness waiting for the slowest dang elevator in the world.

But I don't think these situations with the gravity and portal guns really compare to Eschalon. The closest thing I can think of for Eschalon is having an NPC say "Careful when looting corpses, they've been known to carry diseases." Obviously there's probably a better way to implement that, but... I don't know it seems a little... too Final Fantasy-ish.

It's a great series and all, but I don't think the style matches properly to Eschalon's for that. Perhaps a more elegant method is similar to how it was done in Deus Ex where during the training mode a friendly Doctor man reminds you that you need to put on a hazmat suit in order for it to work and makes a joke about "you'd be surprised how many people just jump in holding it" but that's more or less because of a quirk in the interface that if you don't know about you can easily make that mistake. But really it's not THAT much more elegant.

Now the message "Careful when looting corpses, they've been known to carry diseases." would be great for the hints thing. I have no idea if it's actually there or not.

You do have a point about the portcullis trap, I thought that was pretty cheap too. But then again it's reasonable for it to be there. It's a pretty good trap to have in a citadel! I think something that would be a good compromise in this kind of situation is to have multiple setups of these kinds of portcullis traps, but the first one you come across is tripped by a forgetful enemy.

However... I am kind of fond of the tremendously unfair trap particularly when it's rare to unique. Mainly because it's something to talk about with the game. *Also it's justification for those times in the past where I could just swear that a game was cheating me.

Reminds me a bit of the riddle for that chest in the whistling caverns I solved it the wrong way though that's more do to my inability to calculate simple math, .

A storyline is indeed a huge part of a game, the most important part to be sure especially in an RPG. But... I also think that a game should be more than just it's storyline and part of what I loved about Eschalon are the surprises such as the noximander pit and to a lesser extent the citadel portcullis trap, the massive pit of bones was interesting too especially since I didn't come in through the... I forget the name but Mausoleum #2. And you know my stance on challenges.


*This is more or less of a joke, but it has a hint of truth.

EDIT: I should mention though that I had been anticipating portal's release for a very long time and had already seen many videos so I did already have a pretty good sense of using momentum to my advantage which might explain why I found it a bit too easy.

[CrazyBernie]

Funnily enough, I consider "cheat my character to superheroic levels" to be a valid means of "overcoming obstacle". It's one I don't especially relish resorting to, but if I feel that the resources I've been given are woefully inadequate to the task of making steady, expectant progress in the story, then so be it.

Not according to you:

I'll preface this by saying that I came into this game with no intention of playing 'fair'. I do this with pretty much every non-multiplayer RPG (or indeed, any game) I play.

And as I am wont to say, when you tell me I'm wrong, then I say it is you who are wrong.

Which honestly, in the end proves neither to be correct. That being said, I don't believe I've outright called you wrong (unless you consider disagreeing as such), but feel free to point out where I have and I shall rephrase it.

Diablo doesn't 'reward' you for completing a harder difficulty, it just runs you through the same stuff over again with proportionally better gear. What you're proposing is not the same.

It's a little more involved than that.

1. Players will level up faster than the previous difficulty.

2. Players will have a better chance of getting magic enhanced items. Monsters will also have a slim chance (5% in Nightmare, 10% in Hell) to drop an Exceptional Piece of Armor or Weapon with an increased chance for special Monsters (10% in Nightmare, 20% in Hell).

This falls into the same vein as checking off some boxes to increase difficulty and get 10% more score and 5% increased loot table quality, a la Book II

As previously mentioned, it's not really that hardcore. As I previously said, hardcore gamers are the ones more likely to spend money, so it doesn't hurt for a small development company that doesn't have a bloated budget to cater to them somewhat.

Funnily enough, it damn well can. Despite the act that hardcore gamers are the ones more likely to buy, they are also far in the minority.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my explanation. Assuming we're only talking about US gamers, 76 Million US gamers who play PC games (as of 2006... most recent I could find). Let's say 10% of those play CRPG's (I'm assuming thats far lower than reality). That gives us 7.6 Million theroetical RPGers. Let's say 10% of those consider themselves "hardcore." That's 760,000 hardcore RPGers very likely to buy "hardcore" Rpgs. Now, assume only 10% of them found and bought Eschalon: Book I. So 76,000 gamers bought E:B1 over the past two years. The game was released @ $28 originally. Let's say 50% of those gamers who bought the game paid the initial price in that first year. That's $1,064,000 in gross sales. Then the remaining 50% pay only $20, that's $760,000 in gross sales in the second year. Those numbers would look abysmal for a big time game shop, but for a one man army with a couple of employees, that's just dandy. So as long as BW doesn't incur huge expenses and those hardcore gamers spend their money on his products, he can continue the cycle indefinitely. So minority doesn't necessarily mean squat.

Exactly how was I supposed to know that? My Steams game list didn't give me the "read manual" option when I rightclicked the name of the game. There was no in-game training as regards the quicksave/quickload button, there was never in any options menu I explored (and I explored them all) a key-map.

Don't blame me for failing to learn to play a game that failed to teach me to play it.

Don't fault the game for Steam's failure to include the manual. It's available here in the forums as well.

I thought you were the one who liked a challenge?

I prefer my challenges in-game, which is why in all eventuality you probably win this contest of circles we're currently engaged in.

Of course I knew. I just said it because you used it to cap a huge post largely critical of myself, because I wondered if you'd get self-righteously indignant enough to lambaste me about percieved arrogance.

In which case you're lying to make up for the slip, or you've proved my point in your self-confidence of assuming my indignation. To which I could easily follow up on:

Thanks for the personal dig. I appreciate that - really, I do.

I guess my attitude is so piss-poor that my poorness is why I've had a pair of lesbians masturbating one another in the back seats of my truck every night for the last week while me and our other friend rocked to music in the front - or why we got invited into the fire hall to play pool and drink up their beer (which I did not partake of, as it happens) whilst loud music played from the on-demand video music channels on the large screen and surroundsound.

Note to self: See if we can play infra-red camera hide-and-seak sometime in the firehouse.

I was merely assuming you were waiting for someone to point this out so you could follow up with some reason for affirming your own self-importance.

Funnily enough, what you consider 'reward' may be what most people consider 'things preventing you from getting to the reward'.

The 'reward' I speak of is the reward of a job well done, which you've already expressed disinterest in many times. I shall attempt to refrain from mentioning it any further, since you have no desire to experience it in a video game setting.

I don't happen to like 'streamlined' games, or 'dumbed down' games, I like games properly balanced so that a player will learn rapidly how to play, can progress rapidly with few or zero interruptions, and will smoothly complete what needs to be completed in order to see all (or most) of the stuff in the game, and finally, the game ending.

We can go round and round all day long, but what you keep asking for are games that are Easy. No challenge = Easy. Not Hard = Easy. No thinking = Easy. All you want is Easy Progression With a Story. Eschalon is not Easy. I suspect it never will be. So if you want to play Eschalon, you're going to have to cheat and be happy, cheat and be not happy, or don't play at all. Honestly, it makes me wonder why you even play video games. Books or Movies would better suit someone who's only interested in story. Or television I suppose, but I wouldn't recommend TV to anyone. All those channels and never anything to watch.

[Zeno]

Well, at this point, I think we can safely say that some people in this topic just like to argue. I can relate to that. Arguing is fun.

Like I said, though, we all have varying viewpoints. Let's not get too angry at each other...