Its a fricken option! You guys are coming across a bit wacko here; its not like there is a mandatory Big Head setting that turns on at random. Just. Don't. Use it.
Why not whine about the cheat console being included as an option??
I get it, it's an option for the people that don't like a challenge and just want to breeze through it.
But it's practically the same argument as having a +20 vorpal weapon in a barrel in Candlekeep. Of course it's an option not to take it and use it but if there's an option to make the game a breeze many people new to the game will take the option and then say "lol the game was easy, I just turned Story-Mode on/used the +20 Vorpal weapon".
At least with cheat-codes you need to do some research on how to enable the console, then put in the correct input or unlock them somehow and then you breeze through the game.
That's the point of a game. To learn how to play and overcome challenges. Even with Very Easy options, there's still a challenge if you're not careful but plain out God-Mode as a vanilla option is not a good philosophy to making games.
If people disagree with putting +20 Vorpal weapons in plain sight in the beginning of the games, then they shouldn't agree with a much easier to find option that makes the game much much easier.
Both are optional, both are by design, both destroy the challenge of a game to cater to new people.
It's not mandatory but it's a bad design decision in my opinion. There's a reason other games don't have a "Story-Mode/God-mode" option by default.
At least in Mass Effect 3 Story Mode (where I guess the idea came from) makes the enemies very easy, it doesn't make the player invincible.
"The story mode is actually just a difficulty setting." "It's still possible to die in story mode, it's just quicker and easier to blow through the combat"
Even making the enemies die in one hit would be a better option than flat-out invincibility.
While I agree that the basic design of story mode isn't my ideal way they could have done it, I still don't see the problem. (Although using Spoony as an argument is INCREDIBLY persuasive. Da** his charm...)
I think that we should just quit whining, frankly. If you disagree then that's well and good, but between the design team believing it's the right decision, and the majority of us believing that it is, at the very least, an okay decision, then there's not much point to complaining is there? At this point we just add to the cacophony of angry nerds typing furiously, which has been proven time and again to be soooo effective.
Why not whine about the cheat console being included as an option??
The console is a debug tool for the developers, the testers and the modders. It is in invaluable tool for testing the game. It can also be used to cheat, but this is not its main purpose, more like a side effect.
@Archaos I must disagree between the analogy of having a superweapon that 1 shots everything in Candlekeep and an optional godmode game mode.
If you place superweapon easter eggs ingame, it is part of the game, and takes some self-control to avoid using them. For example in my first playthrough of BG1, I couldn't resist using Evermemory and "acquiring" Drizzt's scimitars, but I made a decision to pretend that I don't know about them in my new playthrough.
However an optional game mode exists outside of my actual gaming experience if I don't use it! If I am a casual player who just wants to experience the basics of the mechanics and focus on the story, and then find storymode too easy/boring, I can switch it off! I can't have a legitimate complaint about the game being "too faceroll" when it is made abundantly clear that storymode is not meant to provide a challenge, and that there are obviously more challenging game modes available.
Frankly I am baffled by the "controversy" of giving new/casual players an option to play in a different mode. It's like some of you don't want new people to experience these games in their own preferred ways. At the end of the day, we are talking about games, it can only be a good thing that these games are made to appeal to the widest possible audience, and we respect each other's methods of enjoying ourselves with these games that we are clearly passionate about. I don't hate on powergamers, so don't try to impose some concept of a "correct" way to play on casuals, roleplayers etc...
It's like some of you don't want new people to experience these games in their own preferred ways.
Actually I don't think such people really exists, and by that I mean people that don't like those games because they are too difficult, but would surely start to enjoy them if there was a "Story Mode".
Those people IMO should only exists in the minds of evil distributors, but it looks like the idea can sneak in the minds of few developers, if they listen to the wrong feedback, and from there is an easy step to reach and convince most of the userbase, because, you know, devs can never be wrong, amirite?
This "Story Mode" in particular can only make the game more boring for everyone, because it doesn't reduce the challenge, it eliminates it completely.
The fact that's optional is irrelevant, it remains an awful idea that doesn't really benefit anyone.
Whether this mode makes the game more boring, easier, less interesting or not and whether this option does benifite anyone or not are quite debatable things.
The fact they are not stone-walles at least is confirmed by the different opinions in this very thread so I think it's wrong to generalize the topic to only one point of view.
This discussion dangerously goes in circles and I'm afraid that it reaches the stage when the border is crossed.
So, it would be positive if we all refrain from arguing that only one point of view is right.
So, it would be positive if we all refrain from arguing that only one point of view is right.
No one is arguing this here.
I'm not for sure.
I'm explaining my point of view and arguing on the topic "Story Mode", and that's all. If you want to close the discussion just because I'm speaking my mind, please go ahead
Actually I don't think such people really exists, and by that I mean people that don't like those games because they are too difficult, but would surely start to enjoy them if there was a "Story Mode".
Those people IMO should only exists in the minds of evil distributors, but it looks like the idea can sneak in the minds of few developers, if they listen to the wrong feedback, and from there is an easy step to reach and convince most of the userbase, because, you know, devs can never be wrong, amirite?
This "Story Mode" in particular can only make the game more boring for everyone, because it doesn't reduce the challenge, it eliminates it completely.
The fact that's optional is irrelevant, it remains an awful idea that doesn't really benefit anyone.
While you can't imagine anyone having a use for this game mode, that doesn't necessarily mean no one actually has a use for it. It's more likely your imagination is limited. Which is totally fine, we all have our shortcomings, but stating your opinions as facts doesn't benefit anyone (wait! that might be a limitation of my own imagination ).
As a side-note, personally I don't care if this option appears in the game or not.
I find the resistance to any sort of criticism to this idea pretty disturbing. Anybody that mentions that the story mode may not end up benefiting anyone gets shot down and everyone that adds to the myriad praises of all the supposed other gamers that will enjoy this mode gets praises loaded upon them. This is a forum guys, dissenting opinions and discussion is sort of the point, right?
I completely disagree with @Erg's comment that @AndrewFoley should be fired, that seems ridiculous to me. Just for the record, I think you're awesome Andrew Also, I don't care what other people do in their game. Not all people criticizing the story mode are doing so for the same reasons, yet none of the points get seriously considered or discussed if they're critical, this is not an open discourse when everyone rushes to shoot down any opposing opinions.
It just says something to me that not a single person here seems to even be willing to agree that the easiest game mode being too hard for some people would have been better answered with easier difficulties rather than a simple god-mode that requires a lot less work to include yet will likely solve the problem in a much less satisfactory manner.
I love Beamdog and the whole team, and I'm not one to draw a line between appeasing "hardcore" gamers and other gamers, I think that all the gamers should be pleased; but the unwillingness to accept or even discuss that this stated problem would have been better dealt with in another way that would have taken more work is a bit unsettling.
Over the past couple of pages here I saw only one post from someone saying that they are looking forward to this mode themselves (which I was glad to see), but all the rest of the posts praising the inclusion of the story mode have just been defenses for the sake of defending Beamdog as far as I can tell. Varying levels of difficulty to accommodate varying levels of challenge enjoyed by different gamers is a tried and true method, which is why games aren't made with simply a "normal mode" and a "god mode" where you're invulnerable. Those finding the normal mode too easy would be out of luck, and those finding it too hard may end up being bored to tears by the challenge being removed entirely. If the stated problem to solve was that there were a bunch of gamers that wanted to play the game without any challenge, then the inclusion of a story mode would make sense; but they said that the problem was some gamers (particularly those new to the IE games) finding the easiest difficulty setting to still be too hard for them.
I haven't seen the hordes of gamers claiming that they're looking forward to playing through IWD with an invulnerable party, I've simply seen people claiming that they exist and somehow getting offended on their behalf by those of us who are supposedly concerned with how they play or want to play the game (I know I'm certainly not). Are you all really saying that an invulnerable mode is a better solution to the problem of some people finding easy mode too hard than a couple of easier difficulty settings would have been? Please tell me why without accusing me of caring too much about how others play the game or by saying something along the lines of "well, we don't know which solution is better, why does it concern you?"
Maybe I'm beating a dead horse or overstaying my welcome in this thread, but we're all (or, most of us anyway) here for the same reason: because we care about Beamdog, the IE games, and we enjoy discussing RPG design. I'm pretty sure that Trent and company appreciate the constructive criticism of their fans and refusing to consider the ideas of those that dislike some particular decision made by the company discourages people from mentioning their constructive criticisms.
But it's practically the same argument as having a +20 vorpal weapon in a barrel in Candlekeep.
No, it's a fundamentally different argument. Finding an overpowered weapon in Candlekeep can't be avoided and, far more importantly, breaks immersion. When I go to game options, I'm going outside of the game on my own volition; finding such equipment forces me out during game play itself. It's why 'just ignore it' isn't a viable alternative--the damage has already been done by forcing the choice.
I haven't seen the hordes of gamers claiming that they're looking forward to playing through IWD with an invulnerable party, I've simply seen people claiming that they exist and somehow getting offended on their behalf by those of us who are supposedly concerned with how they play or want to play the game (I know I'm certainly not). Are you all really saying that an invulnerable mode is a better solution to the problem of some people finding easy mode too hard than a couple of easier difficulty settings would have been? Please tell me why without accusing me of caring too much about how others play the game or by saying something along the lines of "well, we don't know which solution is better, why does it concern you?"
I didn't said that it better and I didn't said that I like the option, I said that and I quote myself :
While I don't really think an invulnerable mode is a good idea, who am I to say what good or bad for someone else, if it can help others to play the game and enjoy it, good for them, and if it not helping or make the game unenjoyable for other then just don't use it, that all.
It an option to the good or bad that is only up to the person who play to decide it.
That only my opinion ofc, and yeah maybe an easier difficulty then the easy mod but not invulnerable mod would have being better. But again who am I to say if it good or bad for someone else, I do not judge how other people like to play their games, if they find it enjoyable then why not ? if it easier for them to play the game like that hey that good for them.
I think games should be enjoyable not a frustration thing that one always lose and die, each one of us have his own lvl of enjoyment and preferences of what lvl one wanna play the game.
Spoony made a video some time ago about challenge in RPGs or games in general and he brings an example from an ADnD campaign he run as a DM.
Basically he said, "a game where you cannot lose is not a game but it's basically masturbation". And I agree, if you cannot lose in a game, it's not a game, it's a boring chore.
Never heard self abuse described as a "boring chore" by anyone before. First time for everything I suppose.
Another way to think about this might be to think of it as a trainer for new people who may find the combat overwhelming at first. I know I want to bring as many people as possible into the infinity games. If they get discouraged and give up, that won’t happen.
You would be hard pressed to find a more die hard fan of the BG games then I am, but the first time I stepped into Irenicus’s dudgeon I certainly found the combat system overwhelming. I had no idea what cheats were, but thankfully the one who introduced me to the game did, and “fixed” my character for me so I wasn’t dyeing every 5 minutes while I learned how to play. If he hadn’t done that I may have just given up and never found out just what a wonderfully deep experience the game was.
Once I got a handle on the combat system I no longer needed or wanted him to “fix” my character for me, but I’m so glad that option was available to me as a beginner. I might have given up and never known what I was missing otherwise.
I do agree that an “easier” option would have been nice as well. Perhaps they might consider adding that as well at some point, if there is enough interest in it.
I still think God-Mode as a gameplay option by design is a bad idea.
Like I said, even in Mass Effect 3 it makes battles very easy, not impossible to lose. I would much prefer Story-Mode to be One-Hit-Kills instead of invincibility.
I wish there was a vote or something that actually showed roughly, how many people want to play a game they cannot lose. Except children or toddlers.
I am not even talking about the challenge of the Infinity Engine games anymore. I'm speaking about any kind of game from any time-period. Even kindergarten's games have basic rules where you can fail, Hide and Seek for example.
About videogames, sure there's the story but there's no motivation or sense of accomplishment to play such a game. It's going from place A to place B if you cannot die. And really, if someone needs to turn Story Mode on they are not going to enjoy a party-based, tactical, ADnD game, they're going to play Candy Crush.
In short, I doubt people will go: "Wow this is so much fun! I cannot die in this party-based, tactical DnD game! It's so much fun having no challenge at all!"
Part of the experience of the Infinity Engine games is having some kind of challenge, even on the easiest difficulty. It's one thing they are praised for.
Would you really want to play in a PnP campaign where the DM makes you invincible on demand and you play "for the story"?
-"Oh damn this dragon is going to kill us, hey dude (DM) can you make us invincible?" -"Sure" -*Dragon dies* -"Yeah! We defeated a dragon! lol"
I wish there was a vote or something that actually showed roughly, how many people want to play a game they cannot lose.
This.
Also I wonder if there has been 100% consensus about this feature among the blues (I mean the people with blue background on this board) or if some of them were sceptical or even against it, either the whole feature or the proposed implementation.
How did it go? The majority did rule? The boss had the final word on it? Or there was indeed consensus?
*sigh*... I honestly fail to understand how @Erg and @Archaos can feel so strongly about the addition of a feature that you can totally ignore if you wished.
It doesn't matter if only one person found story mode useful, if he/she did (and he/she is unlikely to be hanging out in these forums), then the game has been improved by the inclusion of the feature. Of course working on a feature that is only appreciated by one individual would not be cost-efficient, but without any statistical proof one way or another, it is absurd to claim such people don't exist. And I reiterate, regardless of how many people use Story Mode, the game has been improved overall by its inclusion, and that can only be a good thing.
Also Story Mode is only one of many little things the dev team will have had to make a decision on. Do you seriously expect every decision to achieve 100% consensus before it can be implemented? If not, what is point of asking about the internal politics of decisions taken?
@Erg Even though that would be nice as well but I was talking about some major site making a poll about it.
"Would you like to play a game where there's an option to make you invincible without cheat-codes? Yes or No?"
And see how many people from all kinds of consoles, platforms, ages, preferences on genres etc, voted with Yes.
Assume that we made a poll and the response was that only 10% of people on this forum (not a fair reflection of IWD:EE players overall) wanted the option for Story Mode to be included, then surely it is not a bad thing for it to be included?! There is zero (0!) negatives for the 90% of players who don't want or care about the feature.
It doesn't matter if only one person found story mode useful, if he/she did (and he/she is unlikely to be hanging out in these forums), then the game has been improved by the inclusion of the feature.
It's not so simple, because
1) the feature could be implemented in a different, and arguably better, way than what it's basically a god mode. 2) alternatively, by discarding the feature entirely, resources could have been better spent on something else, maybe something arguably more worthy. etc.
In short, I doubt people will go: "Wow this is so much fun! I cannot die in this party-based, tactical DnD game! It's so much fun having no challenge at all!"
One of the many reasons is because you would have no respect for the game if it allows you to destroy everything in your path and have zero challenge.
Would you feel the same sense of accomplishment or have respect for Dark Souls or Ninja Gaiden if they had a God-Mode in the options by default?
Do you believe Baldur's Gate would be considered a classic if there was an option to turn God-Mode on so easily back when it was released?
Like I said, some of the challenge is part of the experience. Giving you an option to skip the challenge is bypassing a good portion of the experience.
I have given suggestions to replace God-Mode. Which I still don't like but they're far better than eliminating all challenge on your first play-through with a click on an option.
I haven't seen the hordes of gamers claiming that they're looking forward to playing through IWD with an invulnerable party, I've simply seen people claiming that they exist and somehow getting offended on their behalf by those of us who are supposedly concerned with how they play or want to play the game (I know I'm certainly not).
I just wanted to point out that many of the people who would find such a mode helpful (e.g. first time players who have never touched an IE game before) are not likely to be viewing/participating in this forum. Just because they are not on this forum does not mean they do not exist.
Personally, I will find this mode useful when I replay the game and I just want to skip over the small fries and get right to the big battles (when I will switch the difficulty back to normal).
Assume that we made a poll and the response was that only 10% of people on this forum (not a fair reflection of IWD:EE players overall) wanted the option for Story Mode to be included, then surely it is not a bad thing for it to be included?! There is zero (0!) negatives for the 90% of players who don't want or care about the feature.
The negative is that you're giving people an effortless option to bypass a huge part of the experience of a game on their first time.
Infinity Engine games without the challenge are not the same, I firmly believe. And others on the forum, reviews etc feel the same. The challenge is a major factor they're special, because they make you think and find solutions.
They're tactical, party-based, (A)DnD games after all.
And how he hell do you guus know how Story Mode will be implemented precisely??
There is no reason to not includemit as an option. Quit being butthurt babies and move on. Making the game capable of reaching the broadest audience possible is a good thing, and this lets inexperienced players try the game wihout being brutally destroyed by everything their first playthrough. Appreciating the art, music and STORY are all worthy challenges, even if your characters do the troll thing.
Comments
Why not whine about the cheat console being included as an option??
But it's practically the same argument as having a +20 vorpal weapon in a barrel in Candlekeep.
Of course it's an option not to take it and use it but if there's an option to make the game a breeze many people new to the game will take the option and then say "lol the game was easy, I just turned Story-Mode on/used the +20 Vorpal weapon".
At least with cheat-codes you need to do some research on how to enable the console, then put in the correct input or unlock them somehow and then you breeze through the game.
That's the point of a game. To learn how to play and overcome challenges. Even with Very Easy options, there's still a challenge if you're not careful but plain out God-Mode as a vanilla option is not a good philosophy to making games.
If people disagree with putting +20 Vorpal weapons in plain sight in the beginning of the games, then they shouldn't agree with a much easier to find option that makes the game much much easier.
Both are optional, both are by design, both destroy the challenge of a game to cater to new people.
It's not mandatory but it's a bad design decision in my opinion.
There's a reason other games don't have a "Story-Mode/God-mode" option by default.
At least in Mass Effect 3 Story Mode (where I guess the idea came from) makes the enemies very easy, it doesn't make the player invincible.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/115186-BioWare-Breaks-Down-Mass-Effect-3-Game-Modes
"The story mode is actually just a difficulty setting." "It's still possible to die in story mode, it's just quicker and easier to blow through the combat"
Even making the enemies die in one hit would be a better option than flat-out invincibility.
I think that we should just quit whining, frankly. If you disagree then that's well and good, but between the design team believing it's the right decision, and the majority of us believing that it is, at the very least, an okay decision, then there's not much point to complaining is there? At this point we just add to the cacophony of angry nerds typing furiously, which has been proven time and again to be soooo effective.
I must disagree between the analogy of having a superweapon that 1 shots everything in Candlekeep and an optional godmode game mode.
If you place superweapon easter eggs ingame, it is part of the game, and takes some self-control to avoid using them. For example in my first playthrough of BG1, I couldn't resist using Evermemory and "acquiring" Drizzt's scimitars, but I made a decision to pretend that I don't know about them in my new playthrough.
However an optional game mode exists outside of my actual gaming experience if I don't use it! If I am a casual player who just wants to experience the basics of the mechanics and focus on the story, and then find storymode too easy/boring, I can switch it off! I can't have a legitimate complaint about the game being "too faceroll" when it is made abundantly clear that storymode is not meant to provide a challenge, and that there are obviously more challenging game modes available.
Frankly I am baffled by the "controversy" of giving new/casual players an option to play in a different mode. It's like some of you don't want new people to experience these games in their own preferred ways. At the end of the day, we are talking about games, it can only be a good thing that these games are made to appeal to the widest possible audience, and we respect each other's methods of enjoying ourselves with these games that we are clearly passionate about. I don't hate on powergamers, so don't try to impose some concept of a "correct" way to play on casuals, roleplayers etc...
Those people IMO should only exists in the minds of evil distributors, but it looks like the idea can sneak in the minds of few developers, if they listen to the wrong feedback, and from there is an easy step to reach and convince most of the userbase, because, you know, devs can never be wrong, amirite?
This "Story Mode" in particular can only make the game more boring for everyone, because it doesn't reduce the challenge, it eliminates it completely.
The fact that's optional is irrelevant, it remains an awful idea that doesn't really benefit anyone.
The fact they are not stone-walles at least is confirmed by the different opinions in this very thread so I think it's wrong to generalize the topic to only one point of view.
This discussion dangerously goes in circles and I'm afraid that it reaches the stage when the border is crossed.
So, it would be positive if we all refrain from arguing that only one point of view is right.
I'm not for sure.
I'm explaining my point of view and arguing on the topic "Story Mode", and that's all. If you want to close the discussion just because I'm speaking my mind, please go ahead
As a side-note, personally I don't care if this option appears in the game or not.
I completely disagree with @Erg's comment that @AndrewFoley should be fired, that seems ridiculous to me. Just for the record, I think you're awesome Andrew
It just says something to me that not a single person here seems to even be willing to agree that the easiest game mode being too hard for some people would have been better answered with easier difficulties rather than a simple god-mode that requires a lot less work to include yet will likely solve the problem in a much less satisfactory manner.
I love Beamdog and the whole team, and I'm not one to draw a line between appeasing "hardcore" gamers and other gamers, I think that all the gamers should be pleased; but the unwillingness to accept or even discuss that this stated problem would have been better dealt with in another way that would have taken more work is a bit unsettling.
Over the past couple of pages here I saw only one post from someone saying that they are looking forward to this mode themselves (which I was glad to see), but all the rest of the posts praising the inclusion of the story mode have just been defenses for the sake of defending Beamdog as far as I can tell. Varying levels of difficulty to accommodate varying levels of challenge enjoyed by different gamers is a tried and true method, which is why games aren't made with simply a "normal mode" and a "god mode" where you're invulnerable. Those finding the normal mode too easy would be out of luck, and those finding it too hard may end up being bored to tears by the challenge being removed entirely. If the stated problem to solve was that there were a bunch of gamers that wanted to play the game without any challenge, then the inclusion of a story mode would make sense; but they said that the problem was some gamers (particularly those new to the IE games) finding the easiest difficulty setting to still be too hard for them.
I haven't seen the hordes of gamers claiming that they're looking forward to playing through IWD with an invulnerable party, I've simply seen people claiming that they exist and somehow getting offended on their behalf by those of us who are supposedly concerned with how they play or want to play the game (I know I'm certainly not). Are you all really saying that an invulnerable mode is a better solution to the problem of some people finding easy mode too hard than a couple of easier difficulty settings would have been? Please tell me why without accusing me of caring too much about how others play the game or by saying something along the lines of "well, we don't know which solution is better, why does it concern you?"
Maybe I'm beating a dead horse or overstaying my welcome in this thread, but we're all (or, most of us anyway) here for the same reason: because we care about Beamdog, the IE games, and we enjoy discussing RPG design. I'm pretty sure that Trent and company appreciate the constructive criticism of their fans and refusing to consider the ideas of those that dislike some particular decision made by the company discourages people from mentioning their constructive criticisms.
I think games should be enjoyable not a frustration thing that one always lose and die, each one of us have his own lvl of enjoyment and preferences of what lvl one wanna play the game.
You would be hard pressed to find a more die hard fan of the BG games then I am, but the first time I stepped into Irenicus’s dudgeon I certainly found the combat system overwhelming. I had no idea what cheats were, but thankfully the one who introduced me to the game did, and “fixed” my character for me so I wasn’t dyeing every 5 minutes while I learned how to play. If he hadn’t done that I may have just given up and never found out just what a wonderfully deep experience the game was.
Once I got a handle on the combat system I no longer needed or wanted him to “fix” my character for me, but I’m so glad that option was available to me as a beginner. I might have given up and never known what I was missing otherwise.
I do agree that an “easier” option would have been nice as well. Perhaps they might consider adding that as well at some point, if there is enough interest in it.
Like I said, even in Mass Effect 3 it makes battles very easy, not impossible to lose.
I would much prefer Story-Mode to be One-Hit-Kills instead of invincibility.
I wish there was a vote or something that actually showed roughly, how many people want to play a game they cannot lose. Except children or toddlers.
I am not even talking about the challenge of the Infinity Engine games anymore. I'm speaking about any kind of game from any time-period.
Even kindergarten's games have basic rules where you can fail, Hide and Seek for example.
About videogames, sure there's the story but there's no motivation or sense of accomplishment to play such a game. It's going from place A to place B if you cannot die.
And really, if someone needs to turn Story Mode on they are not going to enjoy a party-based, tactical, ADnD game, they're going to play Candy Crush.
In short, I doubt people will go: "Wow this is so much fun! I cannot die in this party-based, tactical DnD game! It's so much fun having no challenge at all!"
Part of the experience of the Infinity Engine games is having some kind of challenge, even on the easiest difficulty. It's one thing they are praised for.
Would you really want to play in a PnP campaign where the DM makes you invincible on demand and you play "for the story"?
-"Oh damn this dragon is going to kill us, hey dude (DM) can you make us invincible?"
-"Sure"
-*Dragon dies*
-"Yeah! We defeated a dragon! lol"
Also I wonder if there has been 100% consensus about this feature among the blues (I mean the people with blue background on this board) or if some of them were sceptical or even against it, either the whole feature or the proposed implementation.
How did it go? The majority did rule? The boss had the final word on it? Or there was indeed consensus?
Even though that would be nice as well but I was talking about some major site making a poll about it.
"Would you like to play a game where there's an option to make you invincible without cheat-codes? Yes or No?"
And see how many people from all kinds of consoles, platforms, ages, preferences on genres etc, voted with Yes.
It doesn't matter if only one person found story mode useful, if he/she did (and he/she is unlikely to be hanging out in these forums), then the game has been improved by the inclusion of the feature. Of course working on a feature that is only appreciated by one individual would not be cost-efficient, but without any statistical proof one way or another, it is absurd to claim such people don't exist. And I reiterate, regardless of how many people use Story Mode, the game has been improved overall by its inclusion, and that can only be a good thing.
Also Story Mode is only one of many little things the dev team will have had to make a decision on. Do you seriously expect every decision to achieve 100% consensus before it can be implemented? If not, what is point of asking about the internal politics of decisions taken?
1) the feature could be implemented in a different, and arguably better, way than what it's basically a god mode.
2) alternatively, by discarding the feature entirely, resources could have been better spent on something else, maybe something arguably more worthy.
etc. Curiosity. Statical proof is not required, just common sense:
One of the many reasons is because you would have no respect for the game if it allows you to destroy everything in your path and have zero challenge.
Would you feel the same sense of accomplishment or have respect for Dark Souls or Ninja Gaiden if they had a God-Mode in the options by default?
Do you believe Baldur's Gate would be considered a classic if there was an option to turn God-Mode on so easily back when it was released?
Like I said, some of the challenge is part of the experience. Giving you an option to skip the challenge is bypassing a good portion of the experience.
I have given suggestions to replace God-Mode. Which I still don't like but they're far better than eliminating all challenge on your first play-through with a click on an option.
oh come on it's just an entertainment software product. the fact that you cherish/worship it doesn't mean that others have to do the same.
Your low opinion of classics or games is not shared by a ton of people either.
"Respect classic rock-bands/music? Lol, they're just people playing notes for fun."
Personally, I will find this mode useful when I replay the game and I just want to skip over the small fries and get right to the big battles (when I will switch the difficulty back to normal).
Infinity Engine games without the challenge are not the same, I firmly believe. And others on the forum, reviews etc feel the same.
The challenge is a major factor they're special, because they make you think and find solutions.
They're tactical, party-based, (A)DnD games after all.
There is no reason to not includemit as an option. Quit being butthurt babies and move on. Making the game capable of reaching the broadest audience possible is a good thing, and this lets inexperienced players try the game wihout being brutally destroyed by everything their first playthrough. Appreciating the art, music and STORY are all worthy challenges, even if your characters do the troll thing.