| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Improved Initiative writes out a few concerns that I happen to share:
To put it bluntly, if Pathfinder picked up the 3.5 pieces and maintained the complexity and customization of 3.5, then 2.0 is doing exactly the opposite. It seems from everything I've seen that the next edition's goal is to strip down your options, simplify the game, and to make it as simple to play as possible. In short, it's chasing all the people who wouldn't play the first edition because of all the reading, math, and complexity involved in it.
As a player, I don't like this. I really, really hope that I'm wrong, but everything I see sends up big, red flags that tells me Paizo is going to make a game that appeals to the 5th edition DND crowd. The problem for me is that 5th edition already exists... if that was the game I wanted to play, then that is what I would play. Don't get me wrong, 5e is perfectly functional, does what it sets out to, and is fun... but to paraphrase a fellow at my table, it's a beer and pretzels RPG. You have a limited number of options, fairly minor customization, and there aren't a lot of rules to remember. I play Pathfinder because it's the game that lets me tweak every aspect of my character, and have those tweaks mean something mechanically. It's the game I stuck with because you could have a single-class party, but every character will be wildly different from one another.
In short, I don't want a game that sacrifices all that customization in the name of streamlining and simplicity.
What evidence do the developers have to disprove this hypothesis?
|
| 30 people marked this as a favorite. |
What evidence do you have to prove it? Burden of proof is on the one who states the fact and all that. I don't think Neil has any more information that we have.
I wouldn't come to you and say "AlgaeNymph touches goats, now disprove it". That's not how argumentation works.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly everything about it screams more customization. Every level I have several character choices form what it looks like. look at the level preview.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I think the game will have more than enough customization while being easier to run and play. These design goals are not mutually exhaustive.
At this point we know that you'll be able to customize your character based on race, class, sub-class/archetype, ancestry feats, general feats, class feats. That's more than enough categories of variables to fiddle with making concepts represented mechanically.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly everything about it screams more customization. Every level I have several character choices form what it looks like. look at the level preview.
The sense I'm getting is that alot of options that were part of the system in pf1, are now optional (aoos gor example)
Honestly everything about it screams more customization. Every level I have several character choices form what it looks like. look at the level preview.The sense I'm getting is that alot of options that were part of the system in pf1, are now optional (aoos gor example)
Eh I've never like AOO honestly.
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah yes, because the edition where no matter your ancestry or class you have methods to customize your character through Ancestry/Class/General/Skill Feats so that you have choices every single level is obviously going to remove character customization.
AOO did hamper a lot of options in combat tbh, by removing it you allow for a wastly more mobile combat without being halted at every step because every spider around want to have a snap at your heels.
Still from what i gather of the Ancestry system aswell is that you gain more options as not only race, but culture and background have a matter in the generation, in addition to every class is getting a system similar to the current rogue talent system.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
People who picked up Pathfinder a while after its release might forget that things like Archetypes and Traits are nowhere to be found in the Core Rulebook. On release, these mechanics did not exist. They were released incrementally over time. The robust customization options found in the game now are the result of 10 years of releases. Pathfinder 2nd Edition has things like archetypes built into the core assumption of the game, along with ancestry and heritage feats, a whole new spell level, a whole new class, a whole new race...and with the ability to control proficiencies, it means that in the late game, characters will be even more differentiated and specialized in their skills. The game is already, with what little has been shown, more dynamic than Pathfinder was at release. There are already more options. Consider my fears allayed.
I've played 5e a lot and I understand what makes that game less mechanically satisfying from a customization standpoint. This game looks to have none of those problems to me. It's just different because it's new, which was necessary. Pathfinder would not be improved by just continuing to add new stuff to it forever. The playtest for Pathfinder First Edition was 10 years ago. That's an enormous lifespan for a tabletop game, and it's bloated considerably with all the books out for it. The only way to improve the game is to start from the bottom up.
What evidence do you have to prove it? Burden of proof is on the one who states the fact and all that. I don't think Neil has any more information that we have.
I wouldn't come to you and say "AlgaeNymph touches goats, now disprove it". That's not how argumentation works.
...
Your cheek (or perhaps my sensitivity) aside, I should have noticed that. If nothing else, this certainly answers the question of why I don't watch network news even when it agrees with me.
I'll be passing on that question to Niel, along with my sentiments regarding being caught mistaken.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a pretty easy answer to this question is no.
I don't think it is the 5e crowd that Paizo is worried about losing. It is the folks new to table top Role playing who are thinking about picking up a new game and feel overwhelmed by the 10 years of rule fixes slapped on someone else's original game design, when there are major game issues that are preventing players from enjoying the full range of paizo products (like how PFS has to tap out at level 12, because the game becomes unmanageable at high levels without a lot of experience from the GM and a great table-side relationship between the players. This basically ensures that a lot of folks never really touch the higher-level adventures and Adventure path books because the game fizzles out and bringing in new characters at levels higher than 9 or 10 becomes very difficult to do easily or in a balanced fashion.)
As someone that has had a number of people express interest in playing an RPG walk away after looking at the prospect of character creation, I am very excited to see a system designed around the narrative elements pathfinder wants to feature, built around the idea that it will be expanding its options over the course of time, and not trying to smash all the rules into one book at the beginning that will later be contradicted and complicated. I understand how some people will feel like that is removing options, but in my mind it is making space for them intentionally, rather than forgetting them by omission.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just hoping that they don’t do the new coke thing.
I'm missing something with this new coke thing. I don't drink coke. What is this new coke thing?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke
Huh Thanks that is interesting. I don't think it something a small publishing company can get away with seems rather risky. could go out of business before you get back to coke classic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It’s not a 100% parallel, but it has some definite points of similarity regarding market share and dramatically changing an established brand to chase after new customers. Hopefully they can make it work ...
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I'm getting the impression we might have more choice, but that they'll mean less.
For instance, currently we have five or six bonus types that could apply to a roll, and by carefully selecting what items, spell, abilities, and circumstances a party stacks, they can become formidable. The stalk of streamlining so far suggests that may go away.
We have spell-like abilities, spells, supernatural abilities... which I expect may all become "spells", following one unified set of rules. Which means you can't carefully select abilities to target the weaknesses of a given monster as easily.
There's a richness that comes from complexity. Doesn't mean everyone likes it, but it's there. And one of the stated goals of PF2 is simplicity. The richness derived from complexity is incompatible with simplicity.
That all said, I'm waiting for the actual playtest to judge if Paizo manages to insert enough other richness into the game such that I don't miss the complexity. I can say that we'll be done with Starfinder as a system once we're done our current campaign, for this reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm missing something with this new coke thing. I don't drink coke. What is this new coke thing?
Coke produced "new Coke" formula which was widely regarded as terrible. It was done specifically to kill the new Pepsi formula that had just been released that was harming Coke's sales. Through they're marketing campaign and the their new terrible soda they were able to kill Pepsi's growing share of the soda market and then brought back the old Coke formula, which people loved/love, regaining their market share.
That's why many coke cans say "Original Formula" or "Classic" on them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
See I look at it as finally fulfilling all the request I see across the boards. All the changes their making that I have seen so far are ways of dealing with the requests and complaints that I see so often on the boards. I realize not everyone was wanting those things and some people probably wanted them fixed differently but I think they are really working to fix some of the problems people have expressed.
I'm personally so far happy with everything I've seen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Betteridge’s Law of Headlines, firstly — the answer is “No”. :-)
Secondly, it sounds like the majority of EVERY CLASS is literally customizable via class feats, as opposed to PF1’s paradigm of taking what the class gives you, or swapping out a hard set of abilities at one time via archetypes. If anything, customizability will increase, or at worst have a lateral move in the way you are customizable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We get as many skill feats as we got regular feats. We get as many class feats as we got disoveries/talents, even on classes that didn’t get those. We get as many domains. On top of this, we get five general feats, making more customization than before. And we select our capstone from a list of choices.
Furthermore, in core, we eventually get as many ancestry feats as we got alternate racial traits, we get a background in place of traits, and we get archetypes, all of which were later additions.
Totals:
PF2: 10 skill feats + 10 class feats + 5 general feats + 5 ancestry feats + 10 skill advancements + 1 background + 1 archetype + 1 capstone = 47 choices
5e: 5 (expensive) feats + 1 non-stat racial option + 1 class archetype (e.g. bardic college) + 1 skill advancement + 1 background = 9 choices
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, the Litherland blog of clickbaity headline goodness.
I don't get the same feeling that Neal does, nor has Paizo stated they want to strip down options or simplify the game. They do want to streamline it, which one could say is code for simplify, but I think in this case actually isn't. As for making the game as simple to play as possible, that would be any designer's goal, so players can get on with the story and designers can design more stuff to easily play.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The blog entry does a poor job of backing up its assertions. It makes assertions like, "It seems from everything I've seen that the next edition's goal is to strip down your options, simplify the game, and to make it as simple to play as possible," but providing no actual examples as to what the writer means by this.
From my reading of the previews so far, I strongly disagree with the assertion. The expansion of the feat system suggests more customization than before. The streamlining of combat introduces more tactical options and choices. The introduction of multiple levels of success allows for a wider range of both powers and effects.
Yes, certain elements of the game will be streamlined, but the way in which they're being streamlined opens the door for more choice, not less. For example, the action economy is much easier to understand but offers more room for movement in battle, setting up combination attacks with other PCs, and using tactics beyond anchoring a target and going full attack.
Based on the previews, I don't think it's correct to say that Paizo is chasing the 5th edition D&D crowd. Rather, it seems that the game is chasing the crowd that wants more character customization and recognizes it as Pathfinder's strength, but doesn't want to deal with the fiddliness of the rules.
I would love to see some of the blog's claims backed up by evidence drawn from the previews we have, because then it would be easier to see where the point of view is coming from. As it is, this reads as just an echo of the complaints that accompany any edition change.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Based on the previews, I don't think it's correct to say that Paizo is chasing the 5th edition D&D crowd.
Also based on this comment from Vic Wertz
Wizards has their space. Pathfinder has our space. Challenging them in their space would be a losing proposition... for us, for them, for gamers everywhere. Everybody loses.
It’s not going to stop the comments, but you can’t really get more explicit than that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best way to go about it is to address whats been revealed. You cant make a full picture yet. I can only compare the reveals to PF1, unchained, and perhaps Starfinder. Even then, I'm not going to make a declaration about the entire system until August at the earliest. Probably, not even until August 2019.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Improved Initiative writes out a few concerns that I happen to share:
** spoiler omitted **
What evidence do the developers have to disprove this hypothesis?
I went to read the blog post under the link. The author makes a long development that can be boiled down to 3 points:
1) PF2 does away with a lot of customization to get closer to a 5E type of game.2) Customization is why he likes PF1 as a player.
3) This will cost him professionally because his investment in PF1 will lose value.
I don't think anyone can argue with points 2) and 3), those are unquestionably valid.
The problem is, the author doesn't even attempt to bring proof to support point 1). The OP doesn't, either. Both are just voicing concerns on the basis of incomplete information. So, I'd be justified in rejecting your premise completely and asking you to show evidence to your hypothesis, like others did above.
Nevertheless, I'm going to try to list a few things on either side of the argument.
Customization / complexity elements that go away in PF2:
- Spells and feats that tweak the full-round/standard/move/swift/immediate action system.
- Spells, magic items and feats that bring variously stacking bonuses and penalties to ability scores, thus indirectly impacting multiple other stats. I'm speculating here a little bit, because nothing this broad has been stated definitively. But it looks like the design intent here is to replace a lot of that with a wider array of conditions.
- Fine-grained selection of skill ranks every level.
On the other hand, we get a wealth of customization and options that weren't there before:
- The action system means there are more choices about what to do in a round than before. In PF1, the level 1 fighter can basically move and attack; if he's already in melee range, usually just attack. In PF2 he can move and make 2 attacks; move, attack and move away (a credible option now that attacks of opportunity are not universal); or move, attack and take a defensive stance with a shield. In the same way, the caster can now do a variety of things with certain spells, depending on how many actions are used to cast (examples with magic missile and healing were shown).
- The class feat system means that every class now gets customized progression, not just those classes with discoveries, talents, rage powers etc.
- The skill feat system offers increasingly powerful options for using skills. This is similar to skill unlocks, but generalized to everyone, not gated behind a feat or class.
- The ancestry feat system does something similar, but for races. In PF1, the opportunity for race customization was only available at level 1, never to be changed later.
Then, customization possibilities that existed before remain:
- General feats are there for all classes.
- Archetypes exists, although we now very little about them yet.
On that basis, I believe PF2 will have more, not less, customization opportunities than before. They will, however, be easier to use and described in a more streamlined manner. The complexities of PF1 that are taken away, on the other hand, are those that made the game hard to learn and often slow to run, especially for the DM who wants to do it strictly by the book.
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
End character customization? If anything, it looks to me like PF2 will make it too customizible. Between class feats, ancestry feats, and skill feats (and regular old feats, which I am guessing are still apart of the game but we haven't heard much about them yet that I know of) plus archetypes, it sounds like several classes are going to be eliminated by virtue of being able to do their whole shtick through various customization choices.
Lack of customization is one thing I don't think we have to worry about.
How do I know this beyond a shadow of a doubt: business model. Wizards' business model for D&D is to treat the name like a property. They've licensed it to a number of companies for video games, movies, and other properties that generate the company income. They put out a total of 2 player supplements, 1 monster book and one upcoming NPC/monster book since its release 4 years ago. They do put out 2 adventures/year that is either largely or completely contracted out to other companies. Their small game production staff starves their audience so they will buy the few supplements they put out, insuring that each is a high seller, showing other potential licensees that licensing D&D is a solid bet. Heck, they don't even sell their own stuff through their website. If you want the books, you have to go to a game store or someone else's website. Their business model is produce just enough to maximize profits from what they produce and let others produce material that they get a certain amount for them doing so. They are managing a property, not developing it. In such a scenario, customization is the enemy. Anything that adds system weight and doesn't maximize the life of the property is a bad thing. This is why post subclass, there are few choices for a given class.
Paizo by comparison has a large staff that produces monthly adventures, monthly campaign setting material, bi-monthly player supplements, and regular accessories on top of selling other people's products through their own web store. For such a large staff with a large number of supplements, customization is king. Supplements without any new game mechanics do not sell well. So for such a large number of game supplements, they are going to need a large number of character customization options. So they are baking into the core game ways to customize your character. Sure Paizo is trying to license their setting to help increase their income from other sources, but that is secondary to their own inhouse development of their setting first.
Every thread I've read and poll I've seen about what makes PF great puts custom chargen at the top. This is something Paizo most certainly gets. It would be suicide for them to make 5E clone.
As for the new coke thing, customers sometimes do know what they want. Back in '09 Chevrolet decided to ax the Impala in favor of keeping the Malibu. Even though customers preferred the Impala in large numbers to the Malibu. Chevrolet execs decided they simply put too much marketing into the Malibu over the Impala to let the Malibu go.
Paizo don't be afraid to keep the Impala at expense of the well marketed Malibu.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What evidence do you have to prove it? Burden of proof is on the one who states the fact and all that. I don't think Neil has any more information that we have.
No.
Burden of proof is on the company that wants me to buy their product.
If the seller cannot demonstrate they are selling a product I desire, I take my money elsewhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since like 50% of every class (and most of every ancestry) is "picking features from appropriate lists at appropriate points" I don't see how anybody could come up with "less customization."
I mean, the 1st edition cleric doesn't make any choices every other class doesn't also get save for "which spells to prepare" past 1st level. Is this the standard of customizability we're after?
So certainly there are a lot of options from PF1 one won't have yet in PF2- it will be a while before one can play a Cecaelia Kineticist adopted by Nagaji, but that's unavoidable.
|
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
What evidence do you have to prove it? Burden of proof is on the one who states the fact and all that. I don't think Neil has any more information that we have.No.
Burden of proof is on the company that wants me to buy their product.
If the seller cannot demonstrate they are selling a product I desire, I take my money elsewhere.
The playtest rules are for free, so you can't take your money elsewhere. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
It sounds like Feats are the united customization system, replacing unique class specific ones like rage powers and rogue talents. Each class and ancestry has its feats (likely along with generic/universal ones) and you likely pick from those every other level.
So there should be a LOT of customization in PF2. Especially with multiclassing and archetypes.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh 2e will have plenty of "customization" but the question is if I will care.
There is a big difference between choices, meaningful choices, and interesting choices.
So far, I've not been sold on the hype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
End character customization? If anything, it looks to me like PF2 will make it too customizible. Between class feats, ancestry feats, and skill feats (and regular old feats, which I am guessing are still apart of the game but we haven't heard much about them yet that I know of) plus archetypes, it sounds like several classes are going to be eliminated by virtue of being able to do their whole shtick through various customization choices.
Lack of customization is one thing I don't think we have to worry about.
Yeah...I agree with this. If anything I worry that classes might not have enough distinct elements that they auto get. Could make option paralysis a real thing if there are THAT many choices available.
Complexity of character build is the one thing I am not that concerned with...
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Without going into details that aren't mine to share, I will say that so far I've played 5 characters and 3 classes in the new system, and in each case I felt like I actually had more meaningful customization than in the current edition, not less. I think it's really important to note that "streamlined and accessible" is not the same thing as "stripped of options and points of customization". With some of the things that Mark has talked about in other threads, like excessive prerequisites being pruned out of the new system, I had far fewer "Aw man, I want XYZ feat so it looks like I'm on rails for the next 5 levels as I grab prereqs" moments and a lot more moments where my reaction was "Sweet, which one of these awesome options do I want to grab?"
The playtest rules are for free, so you can't take your money elsewhere. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯What evidence do you have to prove it? Burden of proof is on the one who states the fact and all that. I don't think Neil has any more information that we have.No.
Burden of proof is on the company that wants me to buy their product.
If the seller cannot demonstrate they are selling a product I desire, I take my money elsewhere.
Maybe they meant the print copies of playtest.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What evidence do you have to prove it? Burden of proof is on the one who states the fact and all that. I don't think Neil has any more information that we have.No.
Burden of proof is on the company that wants me to buy their product.
If the seller cannot demonstrate they are selling a product I desire, I take my money elsewhere.
They can demonstrate conclusively only in one way: Showing you the final product, or at least, the playtest, as a proxy of the final version.
So, demanding they disprove your hypothesis (for which you cited no evidence) is equivalent to asking them to launch the playtest 4 months earlier than the announced schedule. I can understand the impatience, but I don't think it will help you very much.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The playtest rules are for free, so you can't take your money elsewhere. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I've already shifted from purchasing PF1 rulebooks to filling holes in my managa collection.
I have little reason to continue purchasing a product that will no longer be supported and see nothing in PF2 so far that I like.
It is on Paizo to convince me otherwise.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The playtest rules are for free, so you can't take your money elsewhere. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I've already shifted from purchasing PF1 rulebooks to filling holes in my managa collection.
I have little reason to continue purchasing a product that will no longer be supported and see nothing in PF2 so far that I like.
It is on Paizo to convince me otherwise.
Fair point.
See you in four months. You've got no reason to hang out here in the meantime, as there's no product for you to review to see if it works for you.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Coke produced "new Coke" formula which was widely regarded as terrible.
This is the popular telling of the story, and it is completely wrong. It's a classic example of a lie being repeated so often that people just accept it.
The fact is that most people liked New Coke, and for the first few months of its release it enjoyed positive reception and high sales. The problems stemmed from a vocal minority that was shouting at the top of their lungs about how terrible it was. And the thing is, the narrative often is driven by whoever shouts the loudest. So with so many people shouting about how terrible New Coke was, others started to believe it and opinions turned south. The actual lessons learned by marketing departments everywhere is that it doesn't actually matter if your product tastes good or not: what matters is that people believe your product tastes good, and those are two different things. It doesn't matter whether New Coke is better than Coke Classic or vice-versa, only that the public believes that one is better. And now that public perception is fixed, the company will use it to its advantage.
This is actually a very good example that we, as fans, should take to heart. It's very easy to lash out against change, and there will be no shortage of other fans who are equally uncomfortable with a change to agree with us. Self-inspection is difficult, but it's very worthwhile, and going forward it's well worth our time to ask whether we dislike something because it is legitimately bad, or because we've convinced ourselves that it's bad. Because those are two different things.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think a system where you still have a range of scores between at least 8 and 18, get to pick which skills you raise as you level, and where all characters have a minimum of 30 Feat choices (which are definitionally choices from various lists of options...and some people get more, Rogue has a minimum of 40, I think) total, and which still has Archetypes, can reasonably be said to be reducing character options.
That's more individual choices than any Core Class but Fighters and Wizards got in the previous edition. And Wizards still get a spellbook and pretty much all the choices they got last edition on top of that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reading the article, I really couldn’t guess as to what makes him think there is less customization, except if customization to him is based on stacking lots of small bonuses. I get how some people enjoy min-maxing over making actually fleshed-out characters, but with how many options players will get to choose from level after level it should be painfully obvious that players will have lots of opportunities to make varied and unique characters.
Also, on his note about no more Pathfinder meaning no more work for him, come the £#{% on. He can’t honestly think that Pathfinder was going to be published forever can he? And if he is refuses to adapt to a new system in the event the one he is accustomed to then he deserves the same fate as coal miners or factory workers who refuse to move on when the demand for their profession has dropped.
...clickbaity headline goodness.
Guilty in every sense of the term. Though I did specifically ask for contrary evidence, and what's the best way to get it...?
Would like to see some input from the devs, though.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would like to see some input from the devs, though.
That link I posted from Vic above not only spoke about their goal (and explicitly confirmed they aren’t “chasing the 5E crowd”).
He also gave a great example of the kind of simplification/streamlining they’re talking about:
Also, don't confuse "simpler" with "stripped down." If you haven't read the blog about the new action economy, please do. It describes a system that's simpler than we have now, but that is also more flexible than we have now. I can tell you from my own play experience, it allows for more varied play strategies and more interesting player decisions. But it's easier to learn and faster in play. I think it's more fun, and I think most of you will think that too, once you've tried it. THAT is what this is about.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Coke produced "new Coke" formula which was widely regarded as terrible.This is the popular telling of the story, and it is completely wrong. It's a classic example of a lie being repeated so often that people just accept it.
The fact is that most people liked New Coke, and for the first few months of its release it enjoyed positive reception and high sales. The problems stemmed from a vocal minority that was shouting at the top of their lungs about how terrible it was. And the thing is, the narrative often is driven by whoever shouts the loudest. So with so many people shouting about how terrible New Coke was, others started to believe it and opinions turned south. The actual lessons learned by marketing departments everywhere is that it doesn't actually matter if your product tastes good or not: what matters is that people believe your product tastes good, and those are two different things. It doesn't matter whether New Coke is better than Coke Classic or vice-versa, only that the public believes that one is better. And now that public perception is fixed, the company will use it to its advantage.
This is actually a very good example that we, as fans, should take to heart. It's very easy to lash out against change, and there will be no shortage of other fans who are equally uncomfortable with a change to agree with us. Self-inspection is difficult, but it's very worthwhile, and going forward it's well worth our time to ask whether we dislike something because it is legitimately bad, or because we've convinced ourselves that it's bad. Because those are two different things.
I wasn't vocal about it, but I hated new Coke. For the record, the current Coke isn't the same as the old Coke, as they modified the recipe for high fructose corn syrup over pure cane sugar. New Coke lasted less than 3 months in the spring to summer of 1985. At least current Coke tastes enough like old Coke, that I can drink it still.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would like to see some input from the devs, though.
Between the twice-weekly blog posts and the active participation in many threads by many devs (especially Mark, who's been an awesome resource), I'd say there's already a glut of input from the devs, all of which points to choices upon choices upon choices.
Honestly, im far more concerned about the restrictions they are removing killing the feel of things and making everyone do everything, than about how much you can shape things.
Hell even the barbarian was healing, quite sure at that point you can customize your PC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All evidence so far actually points to larger customization, however the crystal ball is foggy on if the customization matters.
I mean I can go right now and buy 100 different shades of black, they are still all black. Some people might even like one black best, or argue the merits over one over the other - but they are still all black. If all the changes make for tons of customization but mathematically all end up the same - I will no longer find the game fun.
I feel like this is in essence what people are worried about. If I put 10 fighters with 10 weapons and 10 builds that are wildly different in the room - but the all hit 80% of the time and do 35 damage on average (regardless of build options) - does it really matter that we could customize?