432 réponses à ce sujet

[kongol36]

is the poster of this thread playing the same DAO as i am?

[boe2]

wait, this topic is STILL going? And the OP is STILL denying every counterclaim? Does the OP ever get any sleep?

[OurSacrifice]

boe2 wrote...

wait, this topic is STILL going? And the OP is STILL denying every counterclaim? Does the OP ever get any sleep?

There is discussion going on in the thread, and unlike yourself, those involved in the discussion don't ask someone to elaborate and then run away when the information they requested is given.  But I appreciate you bumping the thread to keep things going.

[SheffSteel]

Anyone who says "L2P nub" at this point is really saying "Ignore me, I play on console and have no clue about the difficulty of the game on PC."



My experience of the difference between PC and 360 versions is as follows:

- on PC, my human rogue and friends had a very hard time initially, having had several fights that had to be reloaded, but at around level 8 or so things are starting to get easier - my mage is now able to use Cone of Cold to stop a wave of attackers, and the second ogre really was nowhere near as hard as the first.

- on 360, the dwarf warrior was able to win every battle by charging in and hacking away with a 2H sword until everything was dead. Every other character in the party used the same tactics.



Both games are on Normal difficulty..

[BluesMan1956]

Xalm Grey wrote...

Malecite00 wrote...

L2P noob, I would post something more constructive, but as the above poster said this is the billionth time a frustrated new player, who refuses to adapt to the games system, shows up and makes a rant post about it.

Yeah god forbid you'd take a moment to consider with this many complaints that maybe, just maybe there's something worth complaining about? Alot of people feel let down by this game. Who are you to say we should conform to any way of playing?

If you don't like the game, you don't have to play.  All games require the player to play within the constraints of game design and mechanics. 

One thing that really bugs me about "this game sucks" is that it is never an objective evaluation of the game as designed.  If it's broken, that's one thing.  I do, however, believe this game is functioning exactly as designed

[OurSacrifice]

BluesMan1956 wrote...
If you don't like the game, you don't have to play.  All games require the player to play within the constraints of game design and mechanics. 

One thing that really bugs me about "this game sucks" is that it is never an objective evaluation of the game as designed.  If it's broken, that's one thing.  I do, however, believe this game is functioning exactly as designed

So why was the game patched 2 days after release to help correct the broken difficulty levels?

[3lb3r3th]

phordicus wrote...

are you dense?  i was showing the similarities between the IE games' AI and DAO, nothing more.  some of my bg2 scripts are 5000+ lines of code.  i'm all set here but thanks   (for the record i completely agree with "free" tactics slots;  that i have to waste battle planning space just so they'll use a healing potion is pathetic.  many gripes about that, so little time).

===========

a few other things are at play here, though:  all of these enemies are virtual unknowns.  i'm just now starting to notice which creatures have physical damage resistances.  also, some enemy are mobbers (they'll just cluster around whoever's closest) and others are unbelievably skittish (changing targets with nearly every attack).  all these unknowns can make an otherwise evenly matched battle overwhelmingly frustrating.  finally, not all of these battles are precisely scaled.  what was impossible at level 5 might be a joke at level 15, whereas other fights will be more consistently challenging regardless of when encountered.

If you write 5000+ lines AI scripts then you should know the difference between a fully customizable and a fixed AI script and not claim those two are "the same".

To pick up your AE example its no problem to set melee chars to devensive behaviour so they will not move much away from your character. If you set the caster to cast his/her AE spells only at a certain range the group will also not get hit and stick together. And even better: you can also set them to move out of enemy AE at the same time.

I ask you: in wich game you have that much behaviour control. I can think of one:
Origins OMEGA cybertank game
That one requires you to pick up a programing language however.

And about noticing imunities or weaknesses on certain enemys: thats your job. You learn it whilst fighting them. Kinda a martial form of exploring. Blaming that on the AI for no auto adaption is a bit over the board. Wich game auto adapts to enemy imunities? Thats up to the player. And its not surprising with such an advanced behaviour system to have a huge variation in enemy behaviour, too. Thats also part of the game. I personally like different behaviour in my opponents.

Sometimes an encounter requires a change in engagement. Fortunately you are able to do this with ease. I can't help myself but i don't see this as a drawback but actually feel its a major step twoards more refined group combat behaviour and gameplay mechanics.

AI slots via char progression and being forced to direct control group members are the only complains i can come up with and i can live with both.

Modifié par 3lb3r3th, 10 novembre 2009 - 02:47 .

[Iggynous]

noob



sucha noob

[ApacheX2]

OurSacrifice wrote...

This is supposed to be the spirtual successor to Baldur's Gate?  Really?  To me, it just seems like a game created to simply try and mesh a formula that works for a popular MMO with a single player game.  Having to manage aggro with 4 characters, having to deal with combat scenarios that aren't even properly balanced, having to deal with NPCs that are supposed to help, but instead opt to stand in FIRE they created only to die in 4 seconds without you being able to ask them to move away ... it's all just sloppy.

Bioware, your games have always been fun, they've always been engaging and interested from the opening scene to the final credits.  But this game - just doesn't cut it.  The combat is terrible, the balance is incredibly poor, overwhelming odds, in a game that's just completely about getting smashed to pieces just isn't a concept for fun.

BG had some very minor trial and error combat, but with a knowledge of the ruleset you could almost always go into an encounter and walk away victorious, not because it was an easy game, but because it was properly balanced to allow the player a small amount of freedom in their party choices.  This game however, is 100% trial and error, with a RNG component added in to artifically increase a difficulty that's already not properly balanced for a standard party.  Sure you could stack tanks & mages and blast through encounters with mass AoE like you're running a raid in World of Warcraft, but there's absolutely no fun gameplay elements in a boring concept like that.

If *this* is the "polished" product that PC users had to wait 1/2 a year longer for, then I'm literally sick to my stomach thinking what the product was like before this layer of polish was added to the game.  You've taken the concept of micromanaging your characters to a level that just isn't FUN.  I don't want to hit the spacebar every other second to make sure my characters are doing what they're supposed to be doing.  I don't want to have to do stupid tactics like running my tank in and kiting enemies around like an idiot while my ranged pummel them.  That's not an interesting, or even remotely enjoyable gameplay experience.  But, since I also don't want to go into a battle and steamroll the enemy, there's no middle ground offered at the moment.

You're game is broken, it's not enjoyable, and I so dearly wish I could get a refund from you or EA for being a beta tester for a micro-management simulator.  Going back and watching gameplay videos and video reviews you can clearly tell it was played on easy - which is pretty pathetic considering your history of games.  But, I guess that's what happens when you become larger than life and swallowed up by EA.  You start churning out crap instead of the jewels that you were once widely known for.

Thanks for the memories - I tried to be optimistic about DA:O, but you failed to deliver.

WoW!....You wasted so much space to basically say ...."Im no good at this game and I quit"! Try improving your skills then come back...>FAIL

[Fahadius]

I'm not sure what complaints about difficulty are all about...my first playthrough on normal was cake. The early part of the game was the roughest, but once I got chain lightning it was easy. Then the mid-part of the game came in and I had blood wound(giant AOE bloodmage hold+DoT), Inferno, and Earthquake - This combo kills whites and yellows with ease, and severely injures most oranges - I had Alistair in full drake scale gear and a fire resist weapon...he resisted 99% of my AOE damage and was able to tank right in the middle of it, and my other 2 heroes were ranged.



Point is, this game can be tough if you let it, but finding combos that can overcome obstacles is half the fun. I'm starting my second playthrough on hard and won't be using AOE at all...it'll be harder, but it will also be interesting to find new ways to complete tough challenges.

[Gloyrian]

I think the OP means that at the Battle of Redcliffe against the undead that the group of knights run straight into the fire trap they created instead of waiting in the back for the undead to run trough the fire. And yeah i agree with him that its a bit of bad coding that those knights are suicidal

[Rrend]

Rellucs wrote...

Maybe you just suck. Yeah, I think that's it.

/signed
I have no idea what all the crying is about.  I beat the first main boss battle without consuming a single health pot on normal and it took a fair amount of strategy and good tactics to clear the way to the top of the tower.  Next play through will be on a more difficult setting and maybe I should consider lowering my IQ so that I can complain on the forums about how broken the combat system is...

[BluesMan1956]

OurSacrifice wrote...

BluesMan1956 wrote...
If you don't like the game, you don't have to play.  All games require the player to play within the constraints of game design and mechanics. 

One thing that really bugs me about "this game sucks" is that it is never an objective evaluation of the game as designed.  If it's broken, that's one thing.  I do, however, believe this game is functioning exactly as designed

So why was the game patched 2 days after release to help correct the broken difficulty levels?

I am not sure exactly which fixes you are referring to.  Early patches are to correct bugs, not to alter design.  There are always early patches, regardless of the game.

[OurSacrifice]

Gloyrian wrote...

I think the OP means that at the Battle of Redcliffe against the undead that the group of knights run straight into the fire trap they created instead of waiting in the back for the undead to run trough the fire. And yeah i agree with him that its a bit of bad coding that those knights are suicidal

You are the first person to actually mention the scenario that I brought up.

BluesMan1956 wrote...

OurSacrifice wrote...

BluesMan1956 wrote...
If you don't like the game, you don't have to play.  All games require the player to play within the constraints of game design and mechanics. 

One thing that really bugs me about "this game sucks" is that it is never an objective evaluation of the game as designed.  If it's broken, that's one thing.  I do, however, believe this game is functioning exactly as designed

So why was the game patched 2 days after release to help correct the broken difficulty levels?

I am not sure exactly which fixes you are referring to.  Early patches are to correct bugs, not to alter design.  There are always early patches, regardless of the game.

So why did they adjust the difficulty of easy and normal?  It wasn't bugged, it was technically flawed, and the mass complaints at launched clued them into that fact - the continuing complaints across all forums that discuss this game show that the game STILL needs fixing.

Modifié par OurSacrifice, 10 novembre 2009 - 03:31 .

[Ralsar]

The patch did pander to players who found Easy to be really difficult and Normal to be impossible.

[Rrend]

Mindlles wrote...

Got to say i really like the combat, sure its hard and if u run with the wrong setup off chars ur in problem. My chars are in no way perfectly build. But i still mange to win most fights, even tho manny are very close calls. What i learned so far, is if theirs mages in the attackers, make damn sure u take them out fast.

Only thing i miss from NWN is the chance to in pause be able to put more then 1 task.

Totally agree!!!!!

The inability to queue orders is extraordinarily frustrating because it requires you to either babysit one character to hit the next action when the current one expires, or constantly swap between characters, or just sit back and hope your defined tactics are good enough to prevail.  All 3 are disappointing options when even queueing two or three actions would be enough to eliminate this issue altogether.

[Ghandorian]

OurSacrifice wrote...

BluesMan1956 wrote...
If you don't like the game, you don't have to play.  All games require the player to play within the constraints of game design and mechanics. 

One thing that really bugs me about "this game sucks" is that it is never an objective evaluation of the game as designed.  If it's broken, that's one thing.  I do, however, believe this game is functioning exactly as designed

So why was the game patched 2 days after release to help correct the broken difficulty levels?

Where they broken? Or is EA catering to a younger generation of gamers who can not accept that sometimes you loose. That is all it is about from my perspective. Some times you loose and have to try again. Maybe that character and party combination simply can not get through the fight. Is that so bad? If you do not stand a chance of loosing than winning means absolutely nothing.

I have not downloaded the patch and do not see why I would need to.

[BluesMan1956]

Ralsar wrote...

The patch did pander to players who found Easy to be really difficult and Normal to be impossible.

I don't think the OP was talking about a patch that made an adjustment so that scripted AI wasn't so stupid.  I would call that a bug and not a design feature.  When you are dealing with AI in a complex game like this, things can be pretty tricky.

The bottom line is that this is game is EXTREMELY frustrating on Casual if you don't bother to learn how to play.

[Sylixe]

This is what happened to the genre of RPG's when MMO's took over and decided to hand all the lazy players everything they want. The whole instant gratification generation of players really is making me sick to my stomach. If this game isn't to your liking please go back to playing whatever easymode game you wwere playing and allow those of us that enjoy a challenge at least something to play.

[OurSacrifice]

Ghandorian wrote...
Where they broken? Or is EA catering to a younger generation of gamers who can not accept that sometimes you loose. That is all it is about from my perspective. Some times you loose and have to try again. Maybe that character and party combination simply can not get through the fight. Is that so bad? If you do not stand a chance of loosing than winning means absolutely nothing.

I have not downloaded the patch and do not see why I would need to.

Unless the game gives you every character you need to complete every encounter on the first screen, then yes, you should be able to complete any encounter with the members it gives you from the start.

At no point should the game be designed in a manner that would force you to go to location "A" to get player "X" so you can go to "C" and complete it.

[Dragonkingdom]

Seems to me you want a straight Shooter game. I absolutely love this game. Combat is par for the course in party based RPG. Just take the time to use the space bar, and issue new commands. Think about it, the extra combatants you don't control, are taking hits your characters could be getting.

[Skemte]

Seriously? This games combat is FAR more interactive than Baldur's Gate series ever was...

[Nixhound77]

I haven't read the whole thread, but is the problem basically that the OP wants an additional difficulty-setting that's somewhere between easy and normal, and would like the game if this was implemented? Maybe this would be a good idea to patch in, as long as they don't ruin the hard and nightmare settings. Those should be left as they are, noone is complaining that hard is too hard, for obvious reasons.



Personally I'm playing on hard (on pc), and find the difficulty just perfect. Some fights are very difficult yes, but they are often optional, and you don't need to win them to progress the main plot. You don't have to kill the revenants in the Becilian forest for example, those are just put in for players who likes a challenge.



50 hours into the game, I've not had any major problems, except for the blood mages in the abandoned building. I died many times, but when I finally won, it felt very satisfying (this place is optional by the way).

[addiction21]

Ralsar wrote...

The patch did pander to players who found Easy to be really difficult and Normal to be impossible.

Or it could be the typical hot patch that is common after a lot of releases today with things they wanted in the game but since the disks were allready pressed and sent out they just waited.  Or do people think that the stores magically get the games the day of release?

[Macrake]

I agree with the OP to some extent. I played through on hard and it was very easy. But combat was so boring and just not fun at all. No challenge to it whatsoever - just constant repetition and annoyance. Maybe other people like this combat, but I could not enjoy it and with there being so much of it in parts of the game, it kinda dragged a great game down a bit, for me at least. Perhaps it would've been better with more challenging fights instead of so much of the same.