I understand completely about needing to set up a difficulty threshold so that players aren't too careless with their stats and skill point distribution, but players having the need to play optimally (i.e. to save every poor sob in a dark alley) is very high, especially in the beginning of a game.
Because that's what the RPGs of the last decade have taught them. The question is should we cater to these people and support the Bioware design? Basically, some people are open to different experiences, others aren't. This openness, it can't be taught or eased into.
I definitely don't want you to cater to Bioware design, but I do believe that "openness" can be taught (to a degree). The key elements that make AoD (and possibly CSG) stand out as something unique should definitely stay the same, but where these elements are placed and how they are presented is very important.
Let's run through a hypothetical example, and see two ways the example can be executed.
PC is with a companion thief after completing a heist, the thief was injured during the escape and collapses as the pursuers approach.
Basic way to implement:
Dialogue mode:
1. Keep running. (No Combat)
2. Stay and fight. (Combat)
[A typical "Be the hero!" scenario. Obviously the right choice is to stay and fight, since only a coward would leave a man behind, but combat is brutally difficult and the player keeps dying. Now you are accused of being a crappy designer. Congratulations!]
Alternate way to implement:
Make returning to your collapsed companion an active action, such as the escape taking place in turn-based mode (stealth or combat) rather than in text.
[A player who believes that the escape is the sole objective will make their way to the exit, and the collapsed companion will simply look like the designed outcome. For bad enough dudes who risk the pursuers spawning onto the map by staying behind are accepting the possibility of dying, and the rare few that survive will realize that they can actually save the thief. Think of the hotel assault level in Deus Ex where the player can exit through the window (unknowingly leaving Paul to die), or exiting through the doorway (facing the soldiers and saving Paul). Many players probably didn't even know that they could leave through the door, since the narrative made going out the window the perceived objective.]
The benefit of emphasizing action by the player is it encourages the player to choose organically, rather than choosing optimally. Plus it's much easier to accept death when the player believes they went off the beaten path, rather than thinking they died by choosing the optimal outcome.
Does it really take that much effort to grasp this scenario though? Is there ANY guarantee that if we move or remove this scenario more people would love the game (and not bitch about the next obstacle that's not to their liking)?
Definitely no guarantees, just educated guesses based on observation. I'm the first to admit that I may be wrong, but I think it's at least worth talking about.
I'd say that as a rule, never chase the audience that doesn't like your game, instead focus on making the game better for people who do like it, which will attract more like-minded people. And never let your concerns about a wider audience affect game design either. Absolutely haram!
I agree completely, but you are projecting this way of thinking to people that should very likely be the target audience. What makes me believe that there is a larger target audience for these types of games is specifically from what you've been doing on the Steam page. Guiding new players who've became frustrated by some element of AoD. You turned their opinions from "unbalanced, poorly designed, and not fun" to "best rpg I've played in a decade" solely on simply explaining the game to them, and guiding them through the initial encounters.
But you shouldn't need to do that, the game should. A person who purchased AoD knew all the feature bullet points, (difficult, text-heavy, C&C, etc.) so in theory they are our target audience, but they still got frustrated by one issue or another (like the hero thing). For me, it's not about changing the design principles, but smoothing out some of the hiccups, and possibly making people who would likely enjoy a game like AoD or CSG have a better chance to.
I'd say the main reason for quitting was challenging combat. That's the main "theme" going through many reviews, both mainstream or on Steam, and comments. It created the following impressions:
- combat is unwinnable
- combat is too random (it is if your skills are low and your THC is 50% or less)
- the game doesn't want you to fight, you were never meant to play a fighter, the game wants you to be a coward and run away
Vardanis, Miltiades, the pickpoket gang, the mine, etc are merely the symptons of the problem, not the problem itself. Thus, the only way to fix the problem is by adding difficulty levels, not tweaking encounters. We would have sold a lot more copies this way, not that I'm complaining that we didn't.
I'm coming at it at the angle that maybe too much was thrown at the player too early, which forced the player to make a lot of adjustments to their expectations. Perhaps if some of the elements were approached a little more orderly(?), players might have had a better chance to become our target audience. You're probably right though, maybe if it wasn't one encounter it would have been the next that pushed the player over the edge, but for me it's hard to know since some players didn't make it too far.
Which will weaken replaybility because it is that knowledge that the game offers a LOT more content that drives it. The goal is to create that "I beat the game once but I barely scratched the surface" experience not "well, I think I got most of it, cool beans, moving on".
I think you are underestimating what you've already done to encourage players to replay the game. For me, it wasn't about what I missed or the stats/skills I wish I had, but having the chance to experience another interesting story. Dangling promises of more content by advertising the missing stats/skills was irrelevant. As long as a good story is provided, people would come back for more.
People who will replay a game will do so without having to see what they missed during the play-through....
Why would they replay a game? Because they are obsessive-compulsive and must play every game 7 times?
But if you don't replay the game 7 times, how would you know if it was good or not?
Why shouldn't choices made during character creation matter or be advertised? Why should we hide Strength checks from a weak character?
Choices in character creation
should matter, I'm not saying otherwise. Hiding the strength check wasn't the point, it was more about hiding the location that
solely relies on a strength check. If it is the only check required for that content, is it really that important to advertise it to a player that absolutely can't have access to it? Will someone replay a game because they remembered that one time they saw a strength check they couldn't pass in order to reach that location?
Again, it's basically about changing the perception of the player to the things they can do, rather than the things they cannot.
But if content is solely hinged on character creation, I think it should be downplayed when a player can't achieve something without having to restart. So it's a bonus for a player who invested in strength, and unnoticed for a player who didn't.
Restart why? Because you found an optional side-quest that requires a stat you don't have?
People either restart (OCD crowd) or replay. Players are a crafty bunch, so if they come across content that they weren't specifically geared for, they'll work their butt off trying to bridge the gap. That's a very empowering feeling for a player to beat the odds, so to speak. A hard block to content is a different beast. When a player uses their cunning and expertise to bridge the gap, but is judged inadequate, it's difficult for them to accept. Which is reasonable to understand from a designers point of view, right?
I'm not suggesting that you open up content to everybody, I'm only describing what players will do to achieve their goal. So my suggestion was why tease them by showing them what they are missing and instead gear their experience towards what they can achieve.
tl:dr
-Optional content feels better when it's something you discovered or strived for, rather than unlocked through meta-knowledge.
-Advertising inaccessible content encourages players to meta for optimal results.
-Deus Ex was a fun game.
