I'm new here. I registered specifically because of this thread because of the insane amount of insanity going on here.
Yeah, it's a common tendency about Sawyerites - they don't like YOUR fun, they'd like to force you to play in one specific fashion that they believe it should go. It's borderline acceptable in MMOs (where creative gameplay is usually considered an exploit and is patched ASAP and you might even get punished for discovering it), but I don't see how it applies to purely single player game.
Someone buying Prey expecting a System Shock 2 like experience, only to get an easy to complete RPG with almost no resource management, will be disappointed. Their playstyle is not being validated or catered to. But don't worry, a community member is here to save the day by providing them with a choice to play the game in a new way that was previously unavailable.
Tell me again how this has anything to do with restricting anyone's fun.
You claim to be for more choices, but it seems very obvious - and quite ironic - that you only seem to approve of gameplay styles YOU care for. Everything else is "Sawyerites".
But this "not forcing anyone to play a specific way" argument is bullshit anyway. Should we cater to the people who want to play Dark Souls as a racing game? Would the game somehow be improved if there was a go-kart at the Firelink Shrine? What if it takes development time away from other features? What if every weapon now needs to be designed with regards to how it will handle on a race track?
Games cannot, by their very nature, cater to everybody. And not all playstyles are equal. People like to think there's no way to play a game wrong, but if I go into System Shock 2 looking for a colony simulator, I'm simply playing the game wrong and have no right to complain that the game is not catering to me.
But mods change thing significantly. If a third party wants to add a feature to a game, that's a net positive thing. Like it or not, there are plenty of people (myself included) that found the survival/hardcore options in Prey extremely lacking. Having a mod to fix these problems is important to many people. And for someone like you to swoop in and proclaim that someone is forcing this playstyle on you is both asinine and insulting.
Go play the Vanilla game if it upsets you that much.
As I said - is the alien dildo + adrenaline overproduction + agility buff combo in SS2 balanced in any ways or fashion? Or just replace the dildo with the wrench (and the related OS upgrades), it'd do the same in the first half of the game, especially if you played it already and memorized most of the dangers and monster movesets. How are you supposed to fix it without making the melee worthless for anything else? Also, as a player who is on his first playthrough, you can't really __see__ the balance between things, discovery of what is "overpowered" and what is "underpowered" for your current playstyle / RP limitations is a vital part of the game itself.
There are plenty of ways to fix this issue. Game balance is a standard problem that can be analysed and solved just like any other. You seem to be pretending that game balance is some sort of arcane art, where it all depends on playstyle and RP and we can't possibly know how to fix these problems.
Which is weird because you follow up with this...
What is really unbalanced is the Mooncrash where the game is engaging, challenging and fun until you find the hourglass recipe, then it's just a boring mop up operation.
How do you know this? What if it's just boring for YOUR playstyle? Besides, to quote a balance expert, "discovery of what is "overpowered" and what is "underpowered" for your current playstyle / RP limitations is a vital part of the game itself."
This is what I find so disingenuous about these types of discussions. People always see games they like as perfect, and any balance complaints are always met with this strange argument about how "it's nuanced" and "difficult to understand" and "oh but someone might find it fun anyway"
But then when they see a genuine balance issue in a game they are less invested in, it's always objective. Always matter of fact.
Which is it?
Because fixing the clearly identifiable and well defined balance issues in System Shock 2 and Prey is a matter of problem solving. Nothing more. It's more helpful to suggest genuine solutions to these problems, rather than sitting around ponitificating about "how can we ever solve these?". If you think the shard + Adrenaline Overproduction + Agility Buff combo is overpowered, then suggest a solution. If you don't think it's overpowered, too bad, I can prove objectively that it is.
Or, to put it in a way far better than I could...
It's absurd to treat balance as some unknowable thing that ought not be bothered with because it would ruin the "fun".
---
So basically, let's fuck up every other strategy that relies on any of those components just to make sure that this one particular combination isn't OP? Very balanced indeed
Yes actually. That's sort of the point of balance. You say this like it's a bad thing.
Lets take a hypothetical game. This game has 15 weapons and 2 support skills. By using weapon A and power B, you can completely trivialise the game. Every other weapon combination is balanced.
Now, here's a genuine question. How many playstyles are there?
The answer: 1.
Now before you butt in and say "oh but you can still use the other things". Yes. I can play Doom with fists only. I can complete Dark Souls with a guitar hero controller. That's irrelevant. Games are constructed in a way so as to allow the maximum number of playstyles within a given set of conditions. Any combination that is not viable may as well not exist. If a game clearly offers the player a choice, and one of the options is clearly superior to the others, what was the point of the choice.
As a developer, this gets even worse, because now I have an important decision to make: do I balance the game around the common use case (the balanced weapons), reducing the fun of the overpowered combo because all the challenge is trivialized, or do I balance around the clearly overpowered weapon and make every other combination unviable, reducing the total number of genuine player options?
Now let's say an anonymous third party, let's call him DaRuDe makes a mod. Let's call the mod "sandstorm", and it does many things, including bringing the clearly superior weapon combination in line with the others. Now everything is balanced.
As a developer, we are satisfied. Our choices have depth and value.
As a player, we are satisfied. Our choices have depth and value.
And before you say "but trivializing the challenge can be fun for some people", go play any FPS with godmode for 45 minutes and come back and make that argument with a straight face. I would wager the vast majority of people wouldn't be able to make it through that play session genuinely wanting more. Because they will be bored. Because there's no engagement, no challenge, and no fun to be had.
I understand you may LIKE the overpowered combo. You can always play vanilla. But a balanced game is always, in every case, superior to an unbalanced one, and I can guarantee you will have more fun and find more meaning overall playing a balanced one over and unbalanced one. And you can take that to the bank.
The game is designed to allow you to play it your way. That's one of the biggest assets of the genre. If someone wants to play it like Doom, and play it like Doom on hard, that's their choice. Your idea of balance is to make people play it your way, which many don't want to do. Yes it is tricky to balance for both Doom players and survival players, but that's the goal you opt into when you design a game like this. I think they did a good job overall, personally, but it's cool you can mod it to be more like you want. I think the issue is you present that mod as a balancing and overall improvement, rather than a "more survival mod" or whatever.
Do I have to go back to the Dark Souls Firelink Shrine rally again? The idea that "games are designed to allow you to play your way" is bogus. Games have a predetermined set of mechanics the player is forced to play within. If someone wants to play Prey like Doom, they are simply playing the game wrong. And I can say that objectively, because Arkane themselves have explained what the game is all about and how it's meant to be approached and played (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VeMnngn2UM). If these mechanics are unbalanced, while the player can technically still utilise them, their enjoyment is significantly likely to be hampered, as they will either feel like they are being punished for playing a certain way (by an underpowered mechanic), or the game will not feel compelling as it lacks challenge (by an overpowered mechanic).
When you implement a feature or a mechanic in the game, you are effectively signalling to a player that "yes, it's okay to play this way". If playing that way feels unsatisfied because of balance issues, you have failed in your design. If you have not intended a game to be played a certain way, and given no signal, and the player chooses to do it anyway, that's on them, and an intelligent player will realise that they are likely not getting the intended experience and that's okay. This is why your "Playing PREY like Doom" comparison is flawed. People who play Prey like Doom have no right to expect a balanced experience. But people who play Prey they way it's intended, and they turn on the hardcore options, they should expect the game to be actually hardcore.
Now, if someone was to release a "Prey, but now it's like Doom" mod, then more power to them. But complaining that wanting a balanced game is taking away player choice or enforcing a certain playstyle? I don't buy it for a second.
Absolutely not -- you clearly just don't know the game well enough. Crystal Shard getting too much damage from Smasher is widely acknowledged to be a bug. Most players will have never benefitted from it in the first place, and the wider problem is that investing into Exotic + Research was a waste for other reasons. Buff Exotic and Research and fix the damage bug, Crystal Shard is still amazingly good for melee with or without further investment. As for the Wrench, the Standard skill is widely known to be overpowered already. Removing the free damage bonus for the Wrench means the player isn't wasting their time investing into Energy for the Laser Rapier or Exotic + Research for the Crystal Shard, and the Wrench retains its value as the backup/starter option. Psychogenic Agility and Adrenaline Overproduction remain 2 of the best psi disciplines regardless of minor nerfs. No build or strategy is being significantly harmed in this exchange, while other options have a chance to shine (along with other buffs).
There's really no point trying to determine if a piece of bad design is a bug or not. It doesn't matter. If I accidentally type "2000" instead of "200" for the damage value of a weapon, and as a result it's overpowered, that's functionally identical to if I intentionally made it 2000. I understand that pointing out that it's a bug improves your credibility, but the reality is, it's not something you should have to improve in the first place. The game is clearly broken. Whether the designers failed or the programmers failed doesn't really matter.
Not sure how it is with various mods, but in vanilla SS2 I basically killed everything with one empowered strike not bothering switching to rapier for robots, even the shambler type monster that's ever present in the last levels of the game and is supposed to drain my resources did not do anything that really bothered me. Only reavers presented a mere annoyance as I've saved all the ammo I needed to comfortably get rid of them (by the way, I've maxed out basically everything I needed to be proficient with most weapons, spells and melee without really scrounging and recycling everything). Sorry, I simply don't see anything drastically different system-wise between the games, it's just SS2 had more oppressive atmosphere, better sound design and character acting that might have created an impression of being extra difficult. We all know this is not Arkane's best forte, they were never really into setting the mood or writing a good plot.
"System shock 2 also had major balance issues. Therefore Prey is off the hook"
lol okay.
Maybe a Prey modder should also invest some time into making a System Shock 2 balance mod....maybe improve 2 games rather than leaving them fundamentally broken and using them to justify each others brokenness.
The question was somewhat different - why you even have to do that? It's not a competitive game, no one really forces you to choose the most OP options, but they are available if you need it (and know that they exist). What is the purpose of balance in the single player game? For instance, what is actually the meaning of this:
I thought, when we play some non-competitive game (especially if we re-play it and know __something__ about the balance and relative usefulness of options), we simply __choose__ our way to play, what is the matter if "build A" is better than "build B"? What is the difference in challenge if, for example, a D&D bard would be as versatile as wizards in solving encounters / social challenges and so on? Just look at the Pillars of Extreme Boredom where this approach leads.
The purpose of balance in a single player game is identical to the purpose of balance in a multiplayer game.
The point of competing in a game is to be engaged and challenged.
And multiplayer developers know this. This is why so many games now use matchmaking to match you against people of your own skill level, even in unranked modes. Because what's the point of playing if you're crushing the opposition to the point where they aren't a challenge? And what's the point of playing if you're being crushed by the opposition to the point where there's no way to beat the challenge?
Why would any of this suddenly change when the enemy team (or your team) are AI's instead of enemy players? Sure, there might not be an end score anymore but to think people aren't going to move towards the best strategy is frankly silly.
I have played through the entirety of Dark Souls using cheese strats. Kapra Demon stair hugging. Taurus Demon bridge fall. And you know what? It's not fun.
Do you know why that is? Because the entire point of playing Dark Souls is to be challenged and have fun overcoming obstacles, engaging your brain, and fulfilling an epic quest. And getting a lot of "deep lore lol" along the way.
Dark Souls is not a competitive game. And don't think for a second that just because it has PVP that it's competitive. Dark Souls has some of the most broken PVP in the industry and if anyone genuinely thinks it's stable enough or well made enough to even be remotely fair, then they are fooling themselves.
This is why, despite almost all singleplayer games incorporating cheats, the vast majority of players don't use them. Because they aren't fun. They were never fun.
This balance sperging is fine and all but pretty much all of my favorite RPGs have "customize your difficulty" balance between various upgrades in them. I'm just used to that. When I like the game enough I will replay it with harder underpowered styles.
Perhaps I will give Rosodude's mod another try sometime with weapon degradation disabled, that thing was annoying me too much with his mod so I didn't get far. Or maybe I sucked at handling it. Anyway, I found myself preferring unbalanced vanilla to that tedium.
I'm definitely a lot more forgiving when it comes to balance in single player games. When I play Starcraft II ladder then I am happy to have balance.
"Do you want to enable hardcore mode" is exactly the kind of "customize your difficulty" balance you're talking about. It's just a shame that the hardcore mode stuff is total weaksauce.
And I know I told you before that it's cool you made some of it modular. Like I said above, I'm well aware we had this debate a few pages ago. My point is more about the overall concept of adding "balance" to a game where you're supposed to be able to play it a zillion different ways. Whatever you change from Arkane's settled on compromises will have its own compromises, and it's patently obvious which playstyle you prefer. Weapon degradation for example is a batshit thing to include in a Doom style game, which this is supposed to be able to be, which is probably why it was taken out in the first place. Again though it's cool its modular, and I am glad you worked hard to offer changes many might prefer, I just kinda bristle at the idea of a "Prey balance mod" in total.
DalekFlay You’re ignoring the fact that Colantonio basically came out and said “Yeah. The game was taken away from us by marketing suits during play testing. They dictated various changes to game systems, all of which reduced difficulty and/or complexity, and the final product was not indicative of our original vision regarding balance”.
Keep in mind that while standard weapons or adrenaline overproduction are a bit OP in SS2, Prey is explicitly designed to be completable with no upgrades
I mean if Bethesda forced them to remove weapon degradation then good on you Bethesda. Not every note from on high is a wrong one.
To be fair I'm not really a fan of balance mods in general usually, because as
Multidirectional just said they tend to add tedium rather than interesting challenges.
1. Balance and Choice are not mutually exclusive. In fact they serve each other as I have explained above. Please drop this argument because it's wrong.
2. Your position has changed from "why do you have to force this on us" to "I know it's modular but I hate balance mods because it's unintended" to "I don't care if Bethesda forced them and it literally is unintended, it's still a good thing they did". Do you actually have a position, or are you simply arguing in bad faith?
3. What makes you say weapon degredation is batshit in a Doom style game? What if I want to play it a zillion different ways? More playstyles is good, you said so yourself. The fact that this last sentence exists makes me think even you believe your argument is bullshit.
Maybe they need to add some achievements for that so that your personal victory against the AI, this incredible feat of strength, would be seen by all and eternally remembered. (There is such a thing, actually, no mods achievo, 1.1% of game owners have it)
It's very amusing how people who probably haven't played real competitive multiplayer games in a serious fashion try to educate us peasants here why challenge is important. 
You guys do realize the vast majority of design decisions in nearly every game ever is heavily dictated by challenge and balance, right? There are exceptions, like adventure games, but they're more interactive stories than games.
