I am the kind of person that reloads a save to replay battles until everything turns out perfectly with zero deaths or resource waste.
This was so me when I was younger. I would play through potentially
hours of the same stuff until I got exactly the result I thought I needed.
Nowadays, I hardly ever go back (unless I'm specifically trying to learn how to do something). A lot of that has to do with the structure of games changing over time. I just started playing through the original Kohan again, and man, the campaign is a reminder of how far we've come. Basically, there's little chance of winning many campaign levels unless you already know what you're facing. While there is some level of overall strategy that can be used to "react" to the AI, the game will normally let it cheat like crazy with the economics. This forces the player to play through maps numerous times, until they sort of "know what to expect". More trial and error than actual strategy and tactics. (And, I remember Kohan feeling
amazingly balanced when it was released.
The random maps still mostly are.)
Thank the gods games got away from that formula. It simply bred the mindset that you have to do things a certain way or you'll fail.
Try and play games like TW3 with a different mindset: there are no mistakes, you simply make choices. No matter what you do, Geralt will still be a badass witcher. You want to know how to build Geralt on TW3? Choose something that looks good, and then forget about it. By the time I finished TW3 I had at least a dozen unused points because I also couldn't decide how to use them, and the game was still perfectly playable on Blood & Broken Bones.
Exactly. I encountered a few balance issues, but nothing that ever made me feel like I was being funneled into a certain playstyle or outcome.
The only reason you can compare outcomes and choices (and therefore regret choices) in computer games is because they are scripted and limited. If you were playing a tabletop RPG you would simply make choices and never know whether something else would have turned out differently, and the truth is it doesn't really matter because the point of a game is to be enjoyed. The only optimal character is the one that allows you to enjoy the game. Some people think they have to play the strongest/fastest/sexiest/whatever character and then tell others their characters are "suboptimal", completely neglecting styles and preferences. Basically everyone wants to be some sort of Superman... isn't that boring?.
That's been true for a while, too. Yes, there are sometimes over- / underpowered skills
when compared to other game aspects, but that rarely invalidates the other playstyle. Perfect example: there was a rifle called "The Warden" in Planetside 2. Almost universally lauded as "the worst @#$%!ng weapon in the whole game OMG -- LOL!!!" Since I'm a total glutton for punishment, I decided to test that. For about 2 years. Just stubborn.
I admit, the gun was a royal pain in the bleeping bleep. Semi-auto, small clip, middling damage. THEN...I discovered something. Optimal range. Perfect for supporting roles. At ranges that were too close for effective sniping / too far for assault rifles to be effective...The Warden was king. The only big challenge was finding a good position. I became lethal with that thing.