Perma death in an RPG this big is not my cup of tea.

The problem, of course, is that "hardcoe" mode in Fallout: New Vegas wasn't named correctly. It wasn't more difficult (like most things named "hardcoe"), it was just more..... micromanagey? ("realistic" doesn't really work, either).


Of course, just because Diablo used "hardcoe = permadeath", that doesn't mean that every "hardcoe" mode should be permadeath.

hahaha no...no...deffinitly not

I would be willing to play in 'hardcoe' mode if there are signs which areas of the world are dangerous and which aren't. This can be done by already showing it on the map, or npc's warning you or just stronger foes.
This would indeed alter the game experience all together. Then I would feel like people will first buff themselves up A LOT so that are sure they won't do anywhere.

Oh boo hoo hoo, woe is me... Someone wants something in the game, that wouldnt at all affect me, but I dont want them to have it, cause Im a greedy self centered baby... whine whine whine... :chaos:

Interesting but as others said, just don't reload. Falling in between some rocks and getting stuck mid battle and other similar circumstances are going to happen and it would svck to lose a dead is dead game in that manner.

But I am a bit interested in this as an unlockable mode because it seems fairly simple to implement. And no one would complain about the game being too easy. And self implemented dead is dead can be fun on replays, so it would be cool to have a mode just for the extra challenge.

Overall, I think there are better ways to increase overall difficulty.

I wouldn't mind the option but I generally enjoy combat that puts me at a disadvantage and requires me to reload several times in some parts before I get the gameplay right to beat it. It would make for an interesting experience for sure.

You could just delete the save file after dying.

:D

I find it interesting that people who DON'T HAVE TO USE IT are so emphatically against it. I understand being meh to the idea as you wouldn't have to use it, but they act like it's a requirement if it's included and are like, "NOOOOO, NO, NO, NO!!!!. :facepalm:

.... And I'm one of the people who may never use it. I might at some point, but I don't know. It's definitely not a done deal for me if it were included.

Its so funny, too. I'll bet those were also the same people who told people who were angry about fast travel "don't like it: don't use it".

The road goes both ways, folks.

Permadeath? Hell Yes! (backed up saved games ON)

That is an alternative, although I think it would have less of an impact than just permadeath. This was actually what SOE did with Jedi back during Pre-CU to rectify people losing them after hundreds of hours of grinding. It's definitely something BGS could look at, but I think implementing permadeath would be easier and more rewarding for those who would want to try it. There is clearly a risk, and many consider it very negative. That, in my opinion though, is what makes the system so intriguing. There is a risk and anything could happen. The experience would be so fundamentally different from the normal game that most people would be astounded by the change in feel.

I do recognize BGS has a reputation of having bugs in their games, which is no surprise considering how enormous they are. So definitely there are some downsides if the game itself were to punish the player unfairly, but it's unlikely there will be any bug ground-breaking that would make the system unreasonable. Again, this hardcoe mode would be optional for those wanting the challenge and the difference in pace from the normal game. It's not forced on others, and it would merely be a way for BGS to represent the game in another light. I personally would be much more invested in a character that only has one life, more so than just having infinite saves and reloads.

I think perma or maybe semi perma (set weekly or monthly checkpoints in game time )

Would add unique scenarios.

The quest in BFB in the demo. Who in the right mind would return the claw without going deeper? If I reach heavy resistance or unavoidable death - just reload. But PD player would have to stop and assess the risks based on the previous trials and traps . Maybe it was hard and the hordes could, only get thicker. Maybe the worst had came? Maybe its easy and it'll stay easy. Maybe it was easy and your expecting a sudden onslaught. Maybe I am confident enough with my sneak, defencive spells or armour. Maybe I left the daedric at home?

I may get glory
I may miss a once a game opportunity
Maybe I saved 100's of hours of work
or maybe I even lose it all

I've pre-ordered Witcher 2 and looking forward to playing it, but I have some concerns about the way the insanity mode is incorporated.

Because of the way I've found most RPGs to be balanced, I generally enjoy games much more at the hardest difficulty, as the easier difficulty settings are usually not challenging. I love the sense of accomplishment after finally making it through tough battles where you die dozens of times before figuring out the best strategy to survive and defeat the enemies.

For a platform, puzzle, action games or very linear RPGs, "Insanity" or "perma-death" mode makes a lot of sense. For an open world Bethesda game where a huge part of the experience has nothing to with the main quest and involves gradual character progression and world exploration over a period of hundreds or 1000s of hours for a single playthrough, this makes absolutely no sense to me.

For a somewhat non-linear, slightly less open-world RPG like Witcher 2, I'm not sure. I rather enjoy games with battles that are so tough that it is nearly impossible to make it through without dying at least a few times. That's when I feel like the level of challenge is perfect. If I'm not dying frequently, then it feels like the game is too easy.

If I add up all the times I died in Oblivion with FCOM/OOO/MMM/Fran's overhaul mods installed, at the highest difficulty setting over the course of a single playthrough, I'm sure I have died and reloaded thousands of times.

In the case of Witcher 2, I'm concerned that if the Insanity setting has the right level of challenge in terms of combat and gameplay, that the "Hard" mode will be too easy. And I have no interest in restarting a 60-100 hour game every time I die, not to mention part of the non-linear aspect of the story means sometimes you will want to go back and replay certain stages of the game simply for RP purposes, or to make different choices in NPC dialogue, etc.

Yay! I also pre-ordered The Witcher 2 and can't wait! I loved the first one, and this one is definitely looking better in every single way.

Insane Mode in The Witcher 2 will definitely be interesting, but I think it will allow us to see the game in a completely different light. It won't be easy. But then again, anyone playing on insane mode should know that.

Again, it ultimately depends on how the person explores and encounters the open world. I always knew my limitations in Morrowind and Oblivion. I knew what I could do and I knew what I could handle. If anything, it would merely reinforce BGS's level scaling, which doesn't want players to necessarily wander everywhere, as some parts should be harder.

I agree with you that the risks are high, and having to start over would be unfortunate. However, I would argue the likelihood of dying would actually decrease as one levels. As one becomes more comfortable with the game, they learn better tactics, use different skills, prepare for encounters more efficiently, and are always engaged in what they are doing. A person who just starts insane mode will likely have a higher chance of actually dying because they are trying it for the first time, and don't know the tricks of the trade yet. It's ultimately a process people would need to learn and get a feel for to truly reap the benefits in my opinion.

I'm not really sure. On one hand, as far as I understand the Witcher is going to be far more linear, which means less chance for a chance encounter brutalizing you. On the other hand, you can be very safe in TES if you keep enough health potions on you, so maybe it would work. I probably wouldn't even try it if there weren't any incentive, though.

I'm just the opposite. This would be my nightmare so any "hardcoe" mode like this I will never use. I don't personally care if it's in as long as it's an option. For the sake of you folks who get a kick out of difficult game play modes, sure, put it in. I can't imagine that it would take up much in the way of development resources, so I wouldn't mind if they did it.

Of course, I'm sure modders could find a way to do it as well.

Peace, +Petrose

This will never be implemented in any game except halo 3 and Reach because of the Iron Skull
No quit bringing these threads up.

The prologue is linear, but The Witcher 2 as a whole is a very open game. I would also argue in some regards that combat in The Witcher 2 is probably more difficult than Skyrim merely for the fact of the amount of mobs being thrown at you. Geralt also can't heal during combat, so you always have to be prepared and use a variety of tactics to survive each encounter. Perhaps BGS could give an incentive to players, like a special weapon or something. However, the reward in itself would just be experiencing the game with permadeath. It would really fundamentally change how people explore and play the game. Some argue it would detract from their experience, and perhaps. I personally believe it would only enhance it, and encourage players to be better at the game as a result and use newer and different tactics at their disposal.

@ArenthianSniper- Did you not read the OP? Permadeath will be in The Witcher 2 and has been part of RPGs for a very long time. Halo by far wasn't the first to use it...

It would only be for a hardcoe mode. I think this sounds awesome! You would sure as heck play a whole lot differently with this. Before going in guns blazing at everything hostile you'd have to pick your fights a lot more carefully and know when NOT to fight.

I wouldn't like perma death. But I would eliminate saves in Skyrim hardcoe mode. I think there are too many opportunities for do-overs with saves.

The game should keep track of auto-saves every time you entered/exited a building or cave. And you can only start from the game's last autosave. That will make people think twice about rushing head first into situations.

Yes, I would play a hardcoe mode of permanent death. (I wouldn't want to be forced to drink, eat, and sleep.) With perma-death, I'd like to see the number of spawn areas decrease. Not just to give the character a break, but to make leveling that much harder. The more enemies you meet, the more you kill; the more you kill, the more you level.

Im disappointed i was excepting there to be a poll about hardcoe rpg elements and making them have more depth and complexity

But oh well about the topic. Sure why not have it as a option? Lets be honest... There is no reason to NOT have the OPTION.

Feel free to make a topic about that if you'd like.

I only made this topic as permadeath has always been a very fun and controversial system. I think overall though it generally has a negative connotation because many have never experienced it, and it's really not a system for all, which is why it would be for a optional hardcoe mode.

In the case of Skyrim, I would be opposed to including any sort of "perma-death" if it was built into the "hardcoe/nightmare" setting so that you could only experience some great features like the following when coupled with perma-death:
- increased combat difficulty
- increased friendly fire
- enemy immunities
- reduced healing for PC
- better enemy AI
- PC needs to eat, drink, sleep
- much more expensive merchant prices
- scarcity of gold and healing items

In other words, I would to be able to experience these increased difficulty/RP features without an obligatory perma-death setting.

If it was completely optional and not a built in requirement to experience other "hardcoe" features, then of course I would have no problem with it.