XCOM Patch Making Easy Mode Easier

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Ultratwinkie:
snip

So you seem to be really scared about this "bar of entry" thing for some reason, you do realize it doesn't make general games easier at all right?
First because there aren't many games in this genre in the first place (and barely any new ones), you can't alter a FPS based on this game, or even a RTS.
Second because this bar of entry you are talking about doesn't exist. It can't be measured how much easier people want their games, which means they won't change how easy the easier difficulties are in other games, and even if it did, if they followed after this model, they'd only alter their easiest setting.

For crying out loud people. I see the same people saying the same things as in my thread. Leave it alone. It already had an "easy" mode, they just decided that the "easy" mode wasn't easy enough. Moan and Groan all you want that they are going to dumb down the rest of the game, or change the mechanics, the fact is they are doing it.

OT: I am glad they are fixing some of the major bugs as well. I was getting a bit miffed at the game lock ups.

SonOfMethuselah:

I could agree with that, but the thing is, I'm not seeing anyone saying that they're comfortable with easy and don't want it changed. I didn't read every comment, but the ones I did read are just complaining that there's an easy mode in the first place, which is the wrong attitude to take, I think.

There was one person (in addition to you) who suggested adding "Very Easy." I think this is good as it is less condescending than "n00b mode" but doesn't get in the way of people who enjoy easy's current difficulty. Very Easy used to be pretty common, but they have been going away more and more as time goes on. Its a shame, they are good for people new to the genre or gaming in general (I see nothing wrong with being bad at a game. The term "Newb" always annoyed me. There is nothing wrong with being new or bad.)

BreakfastMan:

The reason I am dismissive of this possibility is that the publisher would have to be freaking blind in order to not get that most of the people who have played the game like the difficulty. Lowering the barrier of entry does not mean lowering the challenge ceiling. It might be different if the majority of people were complaining that the game is too hard, but that is obviously not the case. And since devs and pubs are not in the business of removing things from games that most customers have expressively stated they like, the notion that they would remove something that most people like is absurd.

I disagree with you on this. How much do you know about game design? My friends and I do some amateur game design in our spare time. Difficulty is the hardest part of making a game as it runs contrary to a lot of game design theory. You want to make a game as smooth, intuitive, and user friendly as possible but this directly clashes with difficulty. Its a delicate balancing act to keep a challenge but not resort to cheap difficulty.

There are two kinds of difficulty. I'll call them "Cheap" and "Fair". Cheap difficulty is when an enemy can one shot you but takes a huge amount of damage to kill (Hard Difficulty on EDF: Insect Armageddon takes at least 10 clips, probably much more, with the starting weapon to kill the easiest enemy). Fair difficulty is the Dark Souls style. You need to analyze the enemy, find its weakness, be on your gaurd, and take it down using tactis. Cheap enemies scale easily with health and damage changes, fair enemies do not. Thats why AI rarely improves on higher difficulties.

As someone has already stated, when designing difficulty you must start from the easiest difficulty. Giving something less health or less damage does not always make it significantly easier. If something requires a specific tactic to fight, changes to its health will likely not have a major influence. Take something like the Hunter from Halo. Its not a cheap enemy, its a fair enemy. Its tactics focused rather than simply being an elite with a lot more health. You need to get behind it and dodge its explosives. In my opinion, they seem to scale the least with difficulty. Sure it chews through your ammo like crazy on hard, but its just as lethal on easy.

Now take a game thats major focus is tactics (Like XCOM). Changes to health or damage will make the game easier, but some fair enemies would still be difficult to fight if you don't learn the tactics (I'm assuming, haven't played the new one). These would be hard on easy as they require a certain method to defeat them. Perhaps the difficulty of other enemies build you to this strategy on harder modes or perhaps you are just thinking tactics more at a higher difficulty or maybe its just as hard on hard, but people expect it more on hard. Say playtesters call this enemy too hard because of the sudden difficulty spike it causes on easy due to lack of using the tactics. The way I see it this can lead to 3 possible outcomes.

1. The enemy is removed. The designers feel the enemy's tactics are too hard to figure out and keep the game too difficult.
2. The enemy is changed. They like the look of the enemy and want to show it off to everyone, even the easy players, but they fear the tactical nature of it will cause too much trouble. As such, they just make it a higher damage/health version of a previous enemy.
3. The enemy is removed, but only from easy. The designers saw it was too difficult for easy, but they felt it still had a place in the higher difficulties.

Options 1 and 2 hurt everyone, not just the easy players. This means that if a future XCOM game attempts to attract a crowd who wants an easier game, the easyness trickles into other difficulties. Will this do anything to the current XCOM? No. Will it effect future games? Possibly.

Winthrop:

snip...

That just basically strikes me as... I dunno, slightly elitist? You seem to basically be saying we can never have interesting enemies or encounters if we have an easy difficulty (because we have to remove those encounters for that difficulty), and I don't believe that, especially since it puts a lot of blame for making games "worse" on those who are less skilled than us and just want a mode for themselves. I mean, that was what I thought the easy mode in XCOM was for: beginners to the franchise who just wanted to learn the ropes. :\

It took me 23 restarts to beat classic ironman. I'm currently at 40+ for impossible ironman and so far haven't gotten any games past mission 4 (the first council mission). Thin men when you don't have laser rifles is really hard. Its luck based in that if you have an assault things get much easier.

Fixing the UFO ceiling is a big deal. I suspect they will do something cheezy like change the mesh to have an open roof rather than fixing the raycasting that determines where the move cursor goes.

Last mind controlled enemy will still be unresolved problem?
Either add "Suicide" ability to mind controlled units or make it to be treated as captured alien.

I think it's nice, because people who are completely new to games like this will have some problems. I started with normal and I was doing fine, well I had to reload some missions because half of my teame got killed but otherwise I was doing fine, but the panic level just went fucking nuts and if you have lost 4 countries , you might as well start all over. Now I am on my 3rd game on easy and only now am I doing good allover.

Warachia:

Ultratwinkie:
snip

So you seem to be really scared about this "bar of entry" thing for some reason, you do realize it doesn't make general games easier at all right?
First because there aren't many games in this genre in the first place (and barely any new ones), you can't alter a FPS based on this game, or even a RTS.
Second because this bar of entry you are talking about doesn't exist. It can't be measured how much easier people want their games, which means they won't change how easy the easier difficulties are in other games, and even if it did, if they followed after this model, they'd only alter their easiest setting.

Strange, since winthrop just kicked your argument's ass.

If it was up to me, I'd just add a new difficulty lelvel. One that's easier than easy mode! I'd call it 'Sarkeesian Mode'!

Oh, and another below that. One where you can skip the battles altogether. I'd call it 'Hepler Mode'

Ultratwinkie:

Warachia:

Ultratwinkie:
snip

So you seem to be really scared about this "bar of entry" thing for some reason, you do realize it doesn't make general games easier at all right?
First because there aren't many games in this genre in the first place (and barely any new ones), you can't alter a FPS based on this game, or even a RTS.
Second because this bar of entry you are talking about doesn't exist. It can't be measured how much easier people want their games, which means they won't change how easy the easier difficulties are in other games, and even if it did, if they followed after this model, they'd only alter their easiest setting.

Strange, since winthrop just kicked your argument's ass.

Winthrop made a completely different argument, I'm arguing that whatever they choose to do to the difficulty of X-COM it will not affect other games, as you seem to be paranoid that it will.
Winthrop was explaining game design and talking about how/why the different difficulties were created.

By the way, great comment, when you don't have a reply just point to somebody else who also argued against your ridiculous idea.

BreakfastMan:

Winthrop:

snip...

That just basically strikes me as... I dunno, slightly elitist? You seem to basically be saying we can never have interesting enemies or encounters if we have an easy difficulty (because we have to remove those encounters for that difficulty), and I don't believe that, especially since it puts a lot of blame for making games "worse" on those who are less skilled than us and just want a mode for themselves. I mean, that was what I thought the easy mode in XCOM was for: beginners to the franchise who just wanted to learn the ropes. :\

There is a slight difference in what I am saying, but I think its worth noting. I'm blaming developers more than the players. Its hard to do difficulty well, and conventional methods do impact other difficulty settings. Upping the AI is the optimal way to increase difficulty in a game like this, but that is an incredibly difficult thing to do. It takes a lot of time and money to make many different AI's. I'm not saying don't have an easy mode, but making easy mode TOO easy is bad for the rest of the game. I apologize if I came off as an elitist, but I stand by my argument. If difficulty comes from tactics the easiest way to remove the difficulty is to remove the tactics. I feel like in these situations an easier beginning is necessary rather than an easy mode. Its wrong to thrust new players into a difficult situation that requires knowledge of the game, but the game should build crescendo to avoid this rather than have an easy mode. If people die or lose or what ever, I think thats good. Failure is part of the formula. Its a game about people against an overwhelming enemy who they know nothing about. Permadeath is in the game to make losses matter and give that feeling of gambling. Losing and learning are some of the most important parts of XCOM. If losing doesn't appeal to people, maybe XCOM isn't the game for them. Not every game needs every person to like it. Take for instance slasher films. I don't like watching people have there fingers cut off or whatever, so I don't watch them. Its not something I enjoy. It would be silly to start taking out all the gore to get me and people like me to watch it. Maybe some of us will, but it takes away the point of the film. Taking the loss out of XCOM is similar. You NEED to lose. Its part of the story and part of the atmosphere. It isn't the same without the difficulty. Its a shame some people won't experience the game because that drives them off, but its part of the core of the experience. Again I'm not saying don't have an easy mode, but easy mode still needs to be difficult, just less difficult.

Winthrop:

BreakfastMan:

Winthrop:

snip...

That just basically strikes me as... I dunno, slightly elitist? You seem to basically be saying we can never have interesting enemies or encounters if we have an easy difficulty (because we have to remove those encounters for that difficulty), and I don't believe that, especially since it puts a lot of blame for making games "worse" on those who are less skilled than us and just want a mode for themselves. I mean, that was what I thought the easy mode in XCOM was for: beginners to the franchise who just wanted to learn the ropes. :\

There is a slight difference in what I am saying, but I think its worth noting. I'm blaming developers more than the players. Its hard to do difficulty well, and conventional methods do impact other difficulty settings. Upping the AI is the optimal way to increase difficulty in a game like this, but that is an incredibly difficult thing to do. It takes a lot of time and money to make many different AI's. I'm not saying don't have an easy mode, but making easy mode TOO easy is bad for the rest of the game. I apologize if I came off as an elitist, but I stand by my argument. If difficulty comes from tactics the easiest way to remove the difficulty is to remove the tactics. I feel like in these situations an easier beginning is necessary rather than an easy mode. Its wrong to thrust new players into a difficult situation that requires knowledge of the game, but the game should build crescendo to avoid this rather than have an easy mode. If people die or lose or what ever, I think thats good. Failure is part of the formula. Its a game about people against an overwhelming enemy who they know nothing about. Permadeath is in the game to make losses matter and give that feeling of gambling. Losing and learning are some of the most important parts of XCOM. If losing doesn't appeal to people, maybe XCOM isn't the game for them. Not every game needs every person to like it. Take for instance slasher films. I don't like watching people have there fingers cut off or whatever, so I don't watch them. Its not something I enjoy. It would be silly to start taking out all the gore to get me and people like me to watch it. Maybe some of us will, but it takes away the point of the film. Taking the loss out of XCOM is similar. You NEED to lose. Its part of the story and part of the atmosphere. It isn't the same without the difficulty. Its a shame some people won't experience the game because that drives them off, but its part of the core of the experience. Again I'm not saying don't have an easy mode, but easy mode still needs to be difficult, just less difficult.

No one is saying that making easy mode easier removes the chance of failure. I mean, there is such a thing as TOO hard, and since the people playing on easy mode are, by and large, not really used to this sort of game, easy mode might be too hard for them. I mean, I am not used to this type of game, so I picked easy, and I currently have 3 countries who left the XCOM project and multiple countries at 3 bars or higher. Yet, a good chunk of the people who are used to this game and are playing on normal are doing far better than I am on easy. That seems to say, to me at least, that easy mode might be a bit harder than it needs to be. Hell, I once had to lose an hour and a halfs worth of progress because I was not really able to continue. If easy difficulty is supposed to be for people like me, and I am having a harder time on it than others are on the modes for them... What does that say about the current difficulty of easy, eh? I still want to try out the tactics and learn the game's intricacies and I do not want them removed...

BreakfastMan:

Winthrop:

BreakfastMan:

That just basically strikes me as... I dunno, slightly elitist? You seem to basically be saying we can never have interesting enemies or encounters if we have an easy difficulty (because we have to remove those encounters for that difficulty), and I don't believe that, especially since it puts a lot of blame for making games "worse" on those who are less skilled than us and just want a mode for themselves. I mean, that was what I thought the easy mode in XCOM was for: beginners to the franchise who just wanted to learn the ropes. :\

There is a slight difference in what I am saying, but I think its worth noting. I'm blaming developers more than the players. Its hard to do difficulty well, and conventional methods do impact other difficulty settings. Upping the AI is the optimal way to increase difficulty in a game like this, but that is an incredibly difficult thing to do. It takes a lot of time and money to make many different AI's. I'm not saying don't have an easy mode, but making easy mode TOO easy is bad for the rest of the game. I apologize if I came off as an elitist, but I stand by my argument. If difficulty comes from tactics the easiest way to remove the difficulty is to remove the tactics. I feel like in these situations an easier beginning is necessary rather than an easy mode. Its wrong to thrust new players into a difficult situation that requires knowledge of the game, but the game should build crescendo to avoid this rather than have an easy mode. If people die or lose or what ever, I think thats good. Failure is part of the formula. Its a game about people against an overwhelming enemy who they know nothing about. Permadeath is in the game to make losses matter and give that feeling of gambling. Losing and learning are some of the most important parts of XCOM. If losing doesn't appeal to people, maybe XCOM isn't the game for them. Not every game needs every person to like it. Take for instance slasher films. I don't like watching people have there fingers cut off or whatever, so I don't watch them. Its not something I enjoy. It would be silly to start taking out all the gore to get me and people like me to watch it. Maybe some of us will, but it takes away the point of the film. Taking the loss out of XCOM is similar. You NEED to lose. Its part of the story and part of the atmosphere. It isn't the same without the difficulty. Its a shame some people won't experience the game because that drives them off, but its part of the core of the experience. Again I'm not saying don't have an easy mode, but easy mode still needs to be difficult, just less difficult.

No one is saying that making easy mode easier removes the chance of failure. I mean, there is such a thing as TOO hard, and since the people playing on easy mode are, by and large, not really used to this sort of game, easy mode might be too hard for them. I mean, I am not used to this type of game, so I picked easy, and I currently have 3 countries who left the XCOM project and multiple countries at 3 bars or higher. Yet, a good chunk of the people who are used to this game and are playing on normal are doing far better than I am on easy. That seems to say, to me at least, that easy mode might be a bit harder than it needs to be. Hell, I once had to lose an hour and a halfs worth of progress because I was not really able to continue. If easy difficulty is supposed to be for people like me, and I am having a harder time on it than others are on the modes for them... What does that say about the current difficulty of easy, eh? I still want to try out the tactics and learn the game's intricacies and I do not want them removed...

As I said I haven't played the new XCOM yet, and I am glad easy is appropriate for you difficulty wise. I was tending towards the extremes rather than being realistic (Its my nature sorry). I was going more off what others had stated in terms of difficulty. I know some people who play easy modes in some games because they do not want to die at all. This is fine with me, but in a game like xcom, you need to fail occasionally. I did not intend to offend you or insult your abilities, the original xcoms still beat me horribly as does Dark Souls. I hope the changes to difficulty keep it at an enjoyable level for you!

Winthrop:
As I said I haven't played the new XCOM yet, and I am glad easy is appropriate for you difficulty wise. I was tending towards the extremes rather than being realistic (Its my nature sorry). I was going more off what others had stated in terms of difficulty. I know some people who play easy modes in some games because they do not want to die at all. This is fine with me, but in a game like xcom, you need to fail occasionally. I did not intend to offend you or insult your abilities, the original xcoms still beat me horribly as does Dark Souls. I hope the changes to difficulty keep it at an enjoyable level for you!

I hope so. Those damn muttons, berserkers, chrysallids, and advanced floaters are fairly consistently wrecking my crew! D:

Warachia:

Ultratwinkie:

Warachia:

So you seem to be really scared about this "bar of entry" thing for some reason, you do realize it doesn't make general games easier at all right?
First because there aren't many games in this genre in the first place (and barely any new ones), you can't alter a FPS based on this game, or even a RTS.
Second because this bar of entry you are talking about doesn't exist. It can't be measured how much easier people want their games, which means they won't change how easy the easier difficulties are in other games, and even if it did, if they followed after this model, they'd only alter their easiest setting.

Strange, since winthrop just kicked your argument's ass.

Winthrop made a completely different argument, I'm arguing that whatever they choose to do to the difficulty of X-COM it will not affect other games, as you seem to be paranoid that it will.
Winthrop was explaining game design and talking about how/why the different difficulties were created.

By the way, great comment, when you don't have a reply just point to somebody else who also argued against your ridiculous idea.

When Easy already gives you all the advantage plus some hefty accuracy bonuses, you are practically unstoppable.

They made it piss easy as it is, yet gamers somehow cannot win at it?

And when 2K, a company who already thinks gamers are brain dead 10 year olds, see this you won't think it will just validate their stance on us?

When they have been proven time and time again to use their personal biases in their funding decisions? Regardless if they have been proven wrong? Its very possible.

These are the same people who said strategy games don't sell when they sell strategy games. These execs are so disconnected to what they are doing and who they are selling to that they forgot where their money comes from.

Its not a long shot to see that 2K could see this as a moment to "broaden the audience" much like Dead Space. Since their biases seem to be quite strong, its also possible they can apply what they learned here to other IPs.

Keep in mind the entire argument started over why one should care that 2K is doing this. I just gave a realistic scenario.

Winthrop:
*snip*

The lead game designer for Xcom (the new one) has repeatedly said that he designed the game around Classic difficulty and just lowered the numbers for Normal and Easy. So... there you go. You're simply wrong.

In my experience with reading interviews with game designers, that's usually how it works. They start by making a game they want to play, and therefore balanced around their own skill level, and then just remove things from easier difficulties. Sometimes this doesn't work out as planned (ie: Easy mode is too easy, or too difficult), but that's because they didn't start from Easy. They started from Classic, or Lunatic, or Normal, remove game mechanics to make the easier modes, and tune up the numbers to Impossible for the harder modes.

Ultratwinkie:

Warachia:

Ultratwinkie:

Strange, since winthrop just kicked your argument's ass.

Winthrop made a completely different argument, I'm arguing that whatever they choose to do to the difficulty of X-COM it will not affect other games, as you seem to be paranoid that it will.
Winthrop was explaining game design and talking about how/why the different difficulties were created.

By the way, great comment, when you don't have a reply just point to somebody else who also argued against your ridiculous idea.

When Easy already gives you all the advantage plus some hefty accuracy bonuses, you are practically unstoppable.

They made it piss easy as it is, yet gamers somehow cannot win at it?

And when 2K, a company who already thinks gamers are brain dead 10 year olds, see this you won't think it will just validate their stance on us?

When they have been proven time and time again to use their personal biases in their funding decisions? Regardless if they have been proven wrong? Its very possible.

These are the same people who said strategy games don't sell when they sell strategy games. These execs are so disconnected to what they are doing and who they are selling to that they forgot where their money comes from.

Its not a long shot to see that 2K could see this as a moment to "broaden the audience" much like Dead Space. Since their biases seem to be quite strong, its also possible they can apply what they learned here to other IPs.

Keep in mind the entire argument started over why one should care that 2K is doing this. I just gave a realistic scenario.

So you are making up a scenario that you think might happen, without any facts to support it.
If you are going that way, then the exact opposite is true, what if some designers are filled with contempt at this move, and decide to make their games harder as a result?
So long as you are only talking about what could possibly happen I can't take you seriously, as you come off as a little paranoid thinking what could possibly happen is what will happen.
Incidentally, your possible scenario could have happened just as easily without them looking at this patch.

Clarste:

Winthrop:
*snip*

The lead game designer for Xcom (the new one) has repeatedly said that he designed the game around Classic difficulty and just lowered the numbers for Normal and Easy. So... there you go. You're simply wrong.

In my experience with reading interviews with game designers, that's usually how it works. They start by making a game they want to play, and therefore balanced around their own skill level, and then just remove things from easier difficulties. Sometimes this doesn't work out as planned (ie: Easy mode is too easy, or too difficult), but that's because they didn't start from Easy. They started from Classic, or Lunatic, or Normal, remove game mechanics to make the easier modes, and tune up the numbers to Impossible for the harder modes.

I do not know a lot about XCOM's Development, but nearly every game has a boatload of features removed during playtests to appease people who find it too dificult. For instance, Left 4 Dead was open world with many paths initially but was changed during play testing because playtesters got confused. The narrative was also cut down to virtually nonexistent if not entirely nonexistent. I admit Left 4 Dead underwent a crazy amount of change compared to most games (It arguably changed from survival horror to Run and Gun, opposite ends of the shooter spectrum) but nearly all lose features in the name of easiness or mass appeal.

Warachia:

Ultratwinkie:

Warachia:

Winthrop made a completely different argument, I'm arguing that whatever they choose to do to the difficulty of X-COM it will not affect other games, as you seem to be paranoid that it will.
Winthrop was explaining game design and talking about how/why the different difficulties were created.

By the way, great comment, when you don't have a reply just point to somebody else who also argued against your ridiculous idea.

When Easy already gives you all the advantage plus some hefty accuracy bonuses, you are practically unstoppable.

They made it piss easy as it is, yet gamers somehow cannot win at it?

And when 2K, a company who already thinks gamers are brain dead 10 year olds, see this you won't think it will just validate their stance on us?

When they have been proven time and time again to use their personal biases in their funding decisions? Regardless if they have been proven wrong? Its very possible.

These are the same people who said strategy games don't sell when they sell strategy games. These execs are so disconnected to what they are doing and who they are selling to that they forgot where their money comes from.

Its not a long shot to see that 2K could see this as a moment to "broaden the audience" much like Dead Space. Since their biases seem to be quite strong, its also possible they can apply what they learned here to other IPs.

Keep in mind the entire argument started over why one should care that 2K is doing this. I just gave a realistic scenario.

So you are making up a scenario that you think might happen, without any facts to support it.
If you are going that way, then the exact opposite is true, what if some designers are filled with contempt at this move, and decide to make their games harder as a result?
So long as you are only talking about what could possibly happen I can't take you seriously, as you come off as a little paranoid thinking what could possibly happen is what will happen.
Incidentally, your possible scenario could have happened just as easily without them looking at this patch.

No facts?

just look up what 2K has said and done. Its evident they are far to disconnected to what they are doing.

They say strategy games don't sell because they are not contemporary, and yet they just released civilization V.

Their attitude past that wasn't any better.

Ultratwinkie:

Warachia:

Ultratwinkie:

When Easy already gives you all the advantage plus some hefty accuracy bonuses, you are practically unstoppable.

They made it piss easy as it is, yet gamers somehow cannot win at it?

And when 2K, a company who already thinks gamers are brain dead 10 year olds, see this you won't think it will just validate their stance on us?

When they have been proven time and time again to use their personal biases in their funding decisions? Regardless if they have been proven wrong? Its very possible.

These are the same people who said strategy games don't sell when they sell strategy games. These execs are so disconnected to what they are doing and who they are selling to that they forgot where their money comes from.

Its not a long shot to see that 2K could see this as a moment to "broaden the audience" much like Dead Space. Since their biases seem to be quite strong, its also possible they can apply what they learned here to other IPs.

Keep in mind the entire argument started over why one should care that 2K is doing this. I just gave a realistic scenario.

So you are making up a scenario that you think might happen, without any facts to support it.
If you are going that way, then the exact opposite is true, what if some designers are filled with contempt at this move, and decide to make their games harder as a result?
So long as you are only talking about what could possibly happen I can't take you seriously, as you come off as a little paranoid thinking what could possibly happen is what will happen.
Incidentally, your possible scenario could have happened just as easily without them looking at this patch.

No facts?

just look up what 2K has said and done. Its evident they are far to disconnected to what they are doing.

They say strategy games don't sell because they are not contemporary, and yet they just released civilization V.

Their attitude past that wasn't any better.

Saying for me to look at what they've done and to look at their attitude is not providing any facts, if you have anything to back up your argument please show it to me, and why are you bringing up civilization V? It has no relation to this argument, and I'm willing to bet the person who said strategy games don't sell didn't work on the game.

Warachia:

Ultratwinkie:

Warachia:

So you are making up a scenario that you think might happen, without any facts to support it.
If you are going that way, then the exact opposite is true, what if some designers are filled with contempt at this move, and decide to make their games harder as a result?
So long as you are only talking about what could possibly happen I can't take you seriously, as you come off as a little paranoid thinking what could possibly happen is what will happen.
Incidentally, your possible scenario could have happened just as easily without them looking at this patch.

No facts?

just look up what 2K has said and done. Its evident they are far to disconnected to what they are doing.

They say strategy games don't sell because they are not contemporary, and yet they just released civilization V.

Their attitude past that wasn't any better.

Saying for me to look at what they've done and to look at their attitude is not providing any facts, if you have anything to back up your argument please show it to me, and why are you bringing up civilization V? It has no relation to this argument, and I'm willing to bet the person who said strategy games don't sell didn't work on the game.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/07/13/2k-strategy-games-not-contemporary/

I mean really, is it that hard to remember what came out of 2K? Its on this site. In fact, it started a giant flame war. This isn't the only view he has either.

"didn't work on the game?" That is irrelevant because of who he is.

He is the president of 2K. The rest of the board isn't much better. Firaxis can't do shit without 2K because Firaxis is owned by 2K. A game without a publisher is nothing but vaporware. The publisher decides what games are made and what is not. 2K holds all the cards.

Ultratwinkie:

Warachia:

Ultratwinkie:

No facts?

just look up what 2K has said and done. Its evident they are far to disconnected to what they are doing.

They say strategy games don't sell because they are not contemporary, and yet they just released civilization V.

Their attitude past that wasn't any better.

Saying for me to look at what they've done and to look at their attitude is not providing any facts, if you have anything to back up your argument please show it to me, and why are you bringing up civilization V? It has no relation to this argument, and I'm willing to bet the person who said strategy games don't sell didn't work on the game.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/07/13/2k-strategy-games-not-contemporary/

I mean really, is it that hard to remember what came out of 2K? Its on this site. In fact, it started a giant flame war. This isn't the only view he has either.

"didn't work on the game?" That is irrelevant because of who he is.

He is the president of 2K. The rest of the board isn't much better. Firaxis can't do shit without 2K because Firaxis is owned by 2K. A game without a publisher is nothing but vaporware. The publisher decides what games are made and what is not. 2K holds all the cards.

"But the problem was that turn-based strategy games were no longer the hottest thing on planet Earth. But this is not just a commercial thing - strategy games are just not contemporary."

Except he's right, they aren't the best selling games (this was before Civ 5 came out so he was right at the time) and they aren't contemporary, he never said that they wouldn't sell, or that they wouldn't make them, he just made an (accurate) observation that they don't sell as well as other games. I fail to see why you'd get upset over this, it's as much of an observation as "most RPG's aren't contemporary."

Warachia:

Ultratwinkie:

Warachia:

Saying for me to look at what they've done and to look at their attitude is not providing any facts, if you have anything to back up your argument please show it to me, and why are you bringing up civilization V? It has no relation to this argument, and I'm willing to bet the person who said strategy games don't sell didn't work on the game.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/07/13/2k-strategy-games-not-contemporary/

I mean really, is it that hard to remember what came out of 2K? Its on this site. In fact, it started a giant flame war. This isn't the only view he has either.

"didn't work on the game?" That is irrelevant because of who he is.

He is the president of 2K. The rest of the board isn't much better. Firaxis can't do shit without 2K because Firaxis is owned by 2K. A game without a publisher is nothing but vaporware. The publisher decides what games are made and what is not. 2K holds all the cards.

"But the problem was that turn-based strategy games were no longer the hottest thing on planet Earth. But this is not just a commercial thing - strategy games are just not contemporary."

Except he's right, they aren't the best selling games (this was before Civ 5 came out so he was right at the time) and they aren't contemporary, he never said that they wouldn't sell, or that they wouldn't make them, he just made an (accurate) observation that they don't sell as well as other games. I fail to see why you'd get upset over this, it's as much of an observation as "most RPG's aren't contemporary."

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/interview-christophhartmann-2kgames/082216

Except he used that as a justification to turn a strategy game into a shooter. He didn't say it out of the blue or for an observation. He thought that turning a strategy game into another shooter was a good idea because it would sell more.

It would be like him saying Halo should be more like Call of Duty.

He chases after whats "hot." The same mentality that makes EA try to force its IPs into shooters to challenge Call of Duty. Hell, firaxis has extensively said that they had to make MANY compromises so they wouldn't can the project like forcing multiplayer onto it.

Why? Because "multiplayer is where its at."

That and Civ V came out in 2010. He said that in 2011. A year after Civ V was released and 2K got all of its money.

Ultratwinkie:

Warachia:

Ultratwinkie:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/07/13/2k-strategy-games-not-contemporary/

I mean really, is it that hard to remember what came out of 2K? Its on this site. In fact, it started a giant flame war. This isn't the only view he has either.

"didn't work on the game?" That is irrelevant because of who he is.

He is the president of 2K. The rest of the board isn't much better. Firaxis can't do shit without 2K because Firaxis is owned by 2K. A game without a publisher is nothing but vaporware. The publisher decides what games are made and what is not. 2K holds all the cards.

"But the problem was that turn-based strategy games were no longer the hottest thing on planet Earth. But this is not just a commercial thing - strategy games are just not contemporary."

Except he's right, they aren't the best selling games (this was before Civ 5 came out so he was right at the time) and they aren't contemporary, he never said that they wouldn't sell, or that they wouldn't make them, he just made an (accurate) observation that they don't sell as well as other games. I fail to see why you'd get upset over this, it's as much of an observation as "most RPG's aren't contemporary."

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/interview-christophhartmann-2kgames/082216

Except he used that as a justification to turn a strategy game into a shooter. He didn't say it out of the blue or for an observation. He thought that turning a strategy game into another shooter was a good idea because it would sell more.

It would be like him saying Halo should be more like Call of Duty.

He chases after whats "hot." The same mentality that makes EA try to force its IPs into shooters to challenge Call of Duty. Hell, firaxis has extensively said that they had to make MANY compromises so they wouldn't can the project like forcing multiplayer onto it.

Why? Because "multiplayer is where its at."

That and Civ V came out in 2010. He said that in 2011. A year after Civ V was released and 2K got all of its money.

My mistake, I misread the release date, but it isn't an inherently bad thing to give people what they want, that's why they made a turn based shooter (and from what I've heard the FPS is still being worked on). How he phrases it in the interview was he wanted to turn X-COM into a shooter because he thought more people would enjoy it that way.

Sorry to tell you the but everybody in the business world chases after what is "hot", it would be great if everyone could just work on whatever they wanted and polish it into a shiny gem, but they can't, they are limited by time and budget constraints, when you start making a game, you have to ask yourself if it will be popular years from now, adding multiplayer extends the life of your game, and if it is popular, it's obvious why they'd include it.

Incidentally, while he does have a high position, he wouldn't be in charge of the development of these games, that would be left to the team they chose to work on the project, pretty much everything he says can reflect on the company, but not the individual teams like Fireaxis.

Now to get back to the original point of all of this, even if the head of the company wanted to make a game easier, it would be up to the developers to find a way to do it, and because they are in smaller teams this wouldn't carry over to any other game the company is making.

Warachia:

Ultratwinkie:

Warachia:

"But the problem was that turn-based strategy games were no longer the hottest thing on planet Earth. But this is not just a commercial thing - strategy games are just not contemporary."

Except he's right, they aren't the best selling games (this was before Civ 5 came out so he was right at the time) and they aren't contemporary, he never said that they wouldn't sell, or that they wouldn't make them, he just made an (accurate) observation that they don't sell as well as other games. I fail to see why you'd get upset over this, it's as much of an observation as "most RPG's aren't contemporary."

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/interview-christophhartmann-2kgames/082216

Except he used that as a justification to turn a strategy game into a shooter. He didn't say it out of the blue or for an observation. He thought that turning a strategy game into another shooter was a good idea because it would sell more.

It would be like him saying Halo should be more like Call of Duty.

He chases after whats "hot." The same mentality that makes EA try to force its IPs into shooters to challenge Call of Duty. Hell, firaxis has extensively said that they had to make MANY compromises so they wouldn't can the project like forcing multiplayer onto it.

Why? Because "multiplayer is where its at."

That and Civ V came out in 2010. He said that in 2011. A year after Civ V was released and 2K got all of its money.

My mistake, I misread the release date, but it isn't an inherently bad thing to give people what they want, that's why they made a turn based shooter (and from what I've heard the FPS is still being worked on). How he phrases it in the interview was he wanted to turn X-COM into a shooter because he thought more people would enjoy it that way.

Sorry to tell you the but everybody in the business world chases after what is "hot", it would be great if everyone could just work on whatever they wanted and polish it into a shiny gem, but they can't, they are limited by time and budget constraints, when you start making a game, you have to ask yourself if it will be popular years from now, adding multiplayer extends the life of your game, and if it is popular, it's obvious why they'd include it.

Incidentally, while he does have a high position, he wouldn't be in charge of the development of these games, that would be left to the team they chose to work on the project, pretty much everything he says can reflect on the company, but not the individual teams like Fireaxis.

Now to get back to the original point of all of this, even if the head of the company wanted to make a game easier, it would be up to the developers to find a way to do it, and because they are in smaller teams this wouldn't carry over to any other game the company is making.

Actually he would. Publishers can and will set demands for the development team. Some specific, some vague. After all, all of Firaxis is owned and operated by 2K. Same for irrational games.

Secondly, he didn't say he wanted XCOM to be a shooter because it would be a better game. He wanted it to be a shooter because its easier to sell to people. Not because it would be good.

Why do you think he brought up Kanye West? Because he is good? Hell no, because he is easier to sell.

Publishers are not there to make good games. They are there to make money. The only reason the XCOM shooter is in development hell is because the shooter had so much bad press the only way to make it worse would be to make it a game about rape.

And the original point of mine was that if 2K is run by idiots who try to apply "EA logic" to their business practices, its still possible for them to pull an EA games moment. This can happen because 2K has the ability to make demands of its development team because 2K owns those teams entirely.

i can see why they would need an easier difficulty. tacical strategy is a brand new genre for alot of games who probably not only havent played one in the past but also probably havnt even seen or heard of one.

give them their easyier mode, hook them.. muhahaha its the gate way drug to turn based strategy..welcome my pretties let me show you jagged alliance and EU3

Snapshot penalty should no longer apply when Overwatching without first moving.

Wait, that was a bug!?
I gave up on that ability and a sniper because of that!
RIP Zeus.

Ultratwinkie:

Warachia:

Ultratwinkie:

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/interview-christophhartmann-2kgames/082216

Except he used that as a justification to turn a strategy game into a shooter. He didn't say it out of the blue or for an observation. He thought that turning a strategy game into another shooter was a good idea because it would sell more.

It would be like him saying Halo should be more like Call of Duty.

He chases after whats "hot." The same mentality that makes EA try to force its IPs into shooters to challenge Call of Duty. Hell, firaxis has extensively said that they had to make MANY compromises so they wouldn't can the project like forcing multiplayer onto it.

Why? Because "multiplayer is where its at."

That and Civ V came out in 2010. He said that in 2011. A year after Civ V was released and 2K got all of its money.

My mistake, I misread the release date, but it isn't an inherently bad thing to give people what they want, that's why they made a turn based shooter (and from what I've heard the FPS is still being worked on). How he phrases it in the interview was he wanted to turn X-COM into a shooter because he thought more people would enjoy it that way.

Sorry to tell you the but everybody in the business world chases after what is "hot", it would be great if everyone could just work on whatever they wanted and polish it into a shiny gem, but they can't, they are limited by time and budget constraints, when you start making a game, you have to ask yourself if it will be popular years from now, adding multiplayer extends the life of your game, and if it is popular, it's obvious why they'd include it.

Incidentally, while he does have a high position, he wouldn't be in charge of the development of these games, that would be left to the team they chose to work on the project, pretty much everything he says can reflect on the company, but not the individual teams like Fireaxis.

Now to get back to the original point of all of this, even if the head of the company wanted to make a game easier, it would be up to the developers to find a way to do it, and because they are in smaller teams this wouldn't carry over to any other game the company is making.

Actually he would. Publishers can and will set demands for the development team. Some specific, some vague. After all, all of Firaxis is owned and operated by 2K. Same for irrational games.

Secondly, he didn't say he wanted XCOM to be a shooter because it would be a better game. He wanted it to be a shooter because its easier to sell to people. Not because it would be good.

Why do you think he brought up Kanye West? Because he is good? Hell no, because he is easier to sell.

Publishers are not there to make good games. They are there to make money. The only reason the XCOM shooter is in development hell is because the shooter had so much bad press the only way to make it worse would be to make it a game about rape.

And the original point of mine was that if 2K is run by idiots who try to apply "EA logic" to their business practices, its still possible for them to pull an EA games moment. This can happen because 2K has the ability to make demands of its development team because 2K owns those teams entirely.

I think you mean to say he could, even if he told them to make it easier it would be up to them to implement it.
He said he wanted it to be a shooter because that's what he thought people enjoy more today, obviously he's doing it because he thinks it will sell well but he never said that he was making a cash grab, in fact he said the exact opposite.

Of course publishers are there to make money, without publishers, good game companies would have died before they could show off what they could do.

The original point of yours was you made up some "bar of entry" and assumed a small change would affect every game around it, it's possible for everyone to do something really stupid, regardless of who they are or what they run.

Incidentally, even if 2K has the ability to make demands I don't ever remember reading a story where they did. In this case, they handed X-COM to different people and asked them what they wanted to do with it, the shooter and strategy game are what came of that.

Warachia:

Ultratwinkie:

Warachia:

My mistake, I misread the release date, but it isn't an inherently bad thing to give people what they want, that's why they made a turn based shooter (and from what I've heard the FPS is still being worked on). How he phrases it in the interview was he wanted to turn X-COM into a shooter because he thought more people would enjoy it that way.

Sorry to tell you the but everybody in the business world chases after what is "hot", it would be great if everyone could just work on whatever they wanted and polish it into a shiny gem, but they can't, they are limited by time and budget constraints, when you start making a game, you have to ask yourself if it will be popular years from now, adding multiplayer extends the life of your game, and if it is popular, it's obvious why they'd include it.

Incidentally, while he does have a high position, he wouldn't be in charge of the development of these games, that would be left to the team they chose to work on the project, pretty much everything he says can reflect on the company, but not the individual teams like Fireaxis.

Now to get back to the original point of all of this, even if the head of the company wanted to make a game easier, it would be up to the developers to find a way to do it, and because they are in smaller teams this wouldn't carry over to any other game the company is making.

Actually he would. Publishers can and will set demands for the development team. Some specific, some vague. After all, all of Firaxis is owned and operated by 2K. Same for irrational games.

Secondly, he didn't say he wanted XCOM to be a shooter because it would be a better game. He wanted it to be a shooter because its easier to sell to people. Not because it would be good.

Why do you think he brought up Kanye West? Because he is good? Hell no, because he is easier to sell.

Publishers are not there to make good games. They are there to make money. The only reason the XCOM shooter is in development hell is because the shooter had so much bad press the only way to make it worse would be to make it a game about rape.

And the original point of mine was that if 2K is run by idiots who try to apply "EA logic" to their business practices, its still possible for them to pull an EA games moment. This can happen because 2K has the ability to make demands of its development team because 2K owns those teams entirely.

I think you mean to say he could, even if he told them to make it easier it would be up to them to implement it.
He said he wanted it to be a shooter because that's what he thought people enjoy more today, obviously he's doing it because he thinks it will sell well but he never said that he was making a cash grab, in fact he said the exact opposite.

Of course publishers are there to make money, without publishers, good game companies would have died before they could show off what they could do.

The original point of yours was you made up some "bar of entry" and assumed a small change would affect every game around it, it's possible for everyone to do something really stupid, regardless of who they are or what they run.

Incidentally, even if 2K has the ability to make demands I don't ever remember reading a story where they did. In this case, they handed X-COM to different people and asked them what they wanted to do with it, the shooter and strategy game are what came of that.

Yes, 2K did make demands. Multiplayer was their demand. In fact, firaxis made a very basic multiplayer component so 2K wouldn't cancel the project or lose faith. They already had low expectations on it. Very little effort was put into it for a reason. This has been all over the 2K forums for months before XCOM's launch. XCOM was never a multiplayer game, all the tension was gone in a multiplayer space.

the company that is making the XCOM shooter all conflict each other. On the 2K forum itself developers say XCOM was a forced thing, others say it was a stupid experiment to blend every other franchise and genre into a single FPS game, which is stupid game design no matter how you put it because they were grabbing game mechanics left and right throughout the development. It was scattered on day one and the game had off and on development for 5 years.

Ultratwinkie:

Warachia:

Ultratwinkie:

Actually he would. Publishers can and will set demands for the development team. Some specific, some vague. After all, all of Firaxis is owned and operated by 2K. Same for irrational games.

Secondly, he didn't say he wanted XCOM to be a shooter because it would be a better game. He wanted it to be a shooter because its easier to sell to people. Not because it would be good.

Why do you think he brought up Kanye West? Because he is good? Hell no, because he is easier to sell.

Publishers are not there to make good games. They are there to make money. The only reason the XCOM shooter is in development hell is because the shooter had so much bad press the only way to make it worse would be to make it a game about rape.

And the original point of mine was that if 2K is run by idiots who try to apply "EA logic" to their business practices, its still possible for them to pull an EA games moment. This can happen because 2K has the ability to make demands of its development team because 2K owns those teams entirely.

I think you mean to say he could, even if he told them to make it easier it would be up to them to implement it.
He said he wanted it to be a shooter because that's what he thought people enjoy more today, obviously he's doing it because he thinks it will sell well but he never said that he was making a cash grab, in fact he said the exact opposite.

Of course publishers are there to make money, without publishers, good game companies would have died before they could show off what they could do.

The original point of yours was you made up some "bar of entry" and assumed a small change would affect every game around it, it's possible for everyone to do something really stupid, regardless of who they are or what they run.

Incidentally, even if 2K has the ability to make demands I don't ever remember reading a story where they did. In this case, they handed X-COM to different people and asked them what they wanted to do with it, the shooter and strategy game are what came of that.

Yes, 2K did make demands. Multiplayer was their demand. In fact, firaxis made a very basic multiplayer component so 2K wouldn't cancel the project or lose faith. They already had low expectations on it. Very little effort was put into it for a reason. This has been all over the 2K forums for months before XCOM's launch. XCOM was never a multiplayer game, all the tension was gone in a multiplayer space.

the company that is making the XCOM shooter all conflict each other. On the 2K forum itself developers say XCOM was a forced thing, others say it was a stupid experiment to blend every other franchise and genre into a single FPS game, which is stupid game design no matter how you put it because they were grabbing game mechanics left and right throughout the development. It was scattered on day one and the game had off and on development for 5 years.

Could you provide a source, after I looked it up that seemed to be a decision Firaxis made, not 2K. Not quite sure I get what you mean when you say the tension is gone in a multiplayer space.

You're going to have to clarify when you say "the company that is making the XCOM shooter all conflict each other." So far I haven't seen developers talk about it being stupid, just that they didn't want to make it a bad game, I've also never seen it described as that experiment you mentioned.

Warachia:

Ultratwinkie:

Warachia:

I think you mean to say he could, even if he told them to make it easier it would be up to them to implement it.
He said he wanted it to be a shooter because that's what he thought people enjoy more today, obviously he's doing it because he thinks it will sell well but he never said that he was making a cash grab, in fact he said the exact opposite.

Of course publishers are there to make money, without publishers, good game companies would have died before they could show off what they could do.

The original point of yours was you made up some "bar of entry" and assumed a small change would affect every game around it, it's possible for everyone to do something really stupid, regardless of who they are or what they run.

Incidentally, even if 2K has the ability to make demands I don't ever remember reading a story where they did. In this case, they handed X-COM to different people and asked them what they wanted to do with it, the shooter and strategy game are what came of that.

Yes, 2K did make demands. Multiplayer was their demand. In fact, firaxis made a very basic multiplayer component so 2K wouldn't cancel the project or lose faith. They already had low expectations on it. Very little effort was put into it for a reason. This has been all over the 2K forums for months before XCOM's launch. XCOM was never a multiplayer game, all the tension was gone in a multiplayer space.

the company that is making the XCOM shooter all conflict each other. On the 2K forum itself developers say XCOM was a forced thing, others say it was a stupid experiment to blend every other franchise and genre into a single FPS game, which is stupid game design no matter how you put it because they were grabbing game mechanics left and right throughout the development. It was scattered on day one and the game had off and on development for 5 years.

Could you provide a source, after I looked it up that seemed to be a decision Firaxis made, not 2K. Not quite sure I get what you mean when you say the tension is gone in a multiplayer space.

You're going to have to clarify when you say "the company that is making the XCOM shooter all conflict each other." So far I haven't seen developers talk about it being stupid, just that they didn't want to make it a bad game, I've also never seen it described as that experiment you mentioned.

When you play singleplayer, a loss can follow you for the rest of your game and sink your entire grand strategy. A loss can have far reaching consequences. A loss in multiplayer doesn't have the same gravity. Its a one shot.

http://kotaku.com/5613458/what-came-first-the-xcom-or-the-game?skyline=true&s=i

"We've been working on this game on and off for around five years now", Jonathan Pelling, creative director at the studio, tells us. "Before BioShock 2, before BioShock."

"It gave us a chance to implement a lot of ideas in the first-person shooter space we've wanted to introduce for some time now. Make this game a new kind of FPS, something that's never been tried in the genre before."

"So when the chance came to use the XCOM license, it was a great opportunity to take some of those game ideas and blend everything together."

As for the shooter, on forum posts (now long gone) they said it was forced. However in Kotaku they say it was an experiment to blend every single game mechanic into a single game. Which is bad game design by the way.

The XCOM shooter board has gone dark. Developers have been silent for 2 years now. The board was cleaned out so there is practically nothing left there.

Of course the XCOM name was a moot point since they scrapped it and started from scratch. The XCOM shooter is dead. Technically it never was alive since it was always in development hell well before it was announced.

Ultratwinkie:

Warachia:

Ultratwinkie:

Yes, 2K did make demands. Multiplayer was their demand. In fact, firaxis made a very basic multiplayer component so 2K wouldn't cancel the project or lose faith. They already had low expectations on it. Very little effort was put into it for a reason. This has been all over the 2K forums for months before XCOM's launch. XCOM was never a multiplayer game, all the tension was gone in a multiplayer space.

the company that is making the XCOM shooter all conflict each other. On the 2K forum itself developers say XCOM was a forced thing, others say it was a stupid experiment to blend every other franchise and genre into a single FPS game, which is stupid game design no matter how you put it because they were grabbing game mechanics left and right throughout the development. It was scattered on day one and the game had off and on development for 5 years.

Could you provide a source, after I looked it up that seemed to be a decision Firaxis made, not 2K. Not quite sure I get what you mean when you say the tension is gone in a multiplayer space.

You're going to have to clarify when you say "the company that is making the XCOM shooter all conflict each other." So far I haven't seen developers talk about it being stupid, just that they didn't want to make it a bad game, I've also never seen it described as that experiment you mentioned.

When you play singleplayer, a loss can follow you for the rest of your game and sink your entire grand strategy. A loss can have far reaching consequences. A loss in multiplayer doesn't have the same gravity. Its a one shot.

http://kotaku.com/5613458/what-came-first-the-xcom-or-the-game?skyline=true&s=i

"We've been working on this game on and off for around five years now", Jonathan Pelling, creative director at the studio, tells us. "Before BioShock 2, before BioShock."

"It gave us a chance to implement a lot of ideas in the first-person shooter space we've wanted to introduce for some time now. Make this game a new kind of FPS, something that's never been tried in the genre before."

"So when the chance came to use the XCOM license, it was a great opportunity to take some of those game ideas and blend everything together."

As for the shooter, on forum posts (now long gone) they said it was forced. However in Kotaku they say it was an experiment to blend every single game mechanic into a single game. Which is bad game design by the way.

The XCOM shooter board has gone dark. Developers have been silent for 2 years now. The board was cleaned out so there is practically nothing left there.

Of course the XCOM name was a moot point since they scrapped it and started from scratch. The XCOM shooter is dead. Technically it never was alive since it was always in development hell well before it was announced.

Personally I think that's a major problem with the series, that one fuck up can cripple your entire playthrough.
That source doesn't answer the question I asked when I asked for a source, and while they mentioned trying new things with a FPS it doesn't say they wanted to combine every genre/mechanic into a single game, you misread that, they wanted to combine SOME of the ideas they had into one game.

Finally, did they say the shooter or the Strategy game had forced multiplayer? Because the sources I found said it was firaxis who decided to add multiplayer.

n00b mode:

Alien uses Space Ray. It was very effective. Space Marine has fainted.

Return to the next Space Marine center to revive him.

I think it's funny that folks who never play on easy mode spend so much time whining about how players who just want to play games on easy mode for the story should get used to a challenge.

No. Easy mode should be easy. Anyone should be able to breeze through it - that's why it's called 'easy'. If you want medium, hard or even impossible ironman mode difficulty, it's there for you. Easy isn't easy. If it was, I wouldn't be consigning this game to the trash heap.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here