79 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

BG 2 vs DA:O ...oh lawdy! To me it depends on the game difficulty and the classes you have in your party. All are tools in your toolbox for success or utter failure. Both games a fairly balanced for me. I prefer to play as glass cannon type characters so I like it difficult. Reloading of course, can be second nature some days and so can the cussing...but I like it that way dammit!

[soteria]

But is it supposed to happen when they can´t see the mage? Cos I knew they do that and I stood back and entered the room with a stealthed rogue to open with a paralysis / inferno combo from out of sight and they still cast it.



In the end, I shapechanged to bear to have enough hp to survive and stood further back - they casted but didn´t move afterwards so I could burn them all through the wallcast.

Yeah, I've seen the same thing. I think it's just because the computer always knows your position and that ability doesn't require a line of sight. It's a puzzle to me why some spells require a line of sight and others don't. Rather, I *know* why some do (all the projectile spells, for obvious reasons) but I don't know why they didn't make it a requirement for others.

[Sylixe]

MerinTB wrote...

And, for the record, I've played Icewind Dale probably a dozen times.
And played (part-of(repeatedly)) BG1, BG2 "2" times, PS:T (part-of(repeatedly)), IWD 2 several times, ToEE (part-of(repeatedly)) as well as cRPGs going all the way back to Ultima 1 and Wizardry.
Come up with reasoning as you like, but there are people who "know RPGs" who think DAO's difficulty was fine.

There's also a large group of players from the old school RPG days that think this games idea of difficulty is a joke.  From my first play through, which was nightmare from the beginning i never had an issue with any fights.  Hell i never even used the pathetic buffs, poisons and bombs they threw into the game for no point.  Unless you ran into ever group of mobs blindly, you can handle any fight presented to you easily.

Clearly the game was either not playtested enough or they went back and dumbed down the game severly after the game was tested.  My gut says it was probably dumbed down because i know Bioware can do better than this with mob AI and in game mechanics.  However there are times in the game where i feel like they weren't given enough time to polish encounters and holes were left in the game to exploit fights.  The Brood Mother is a huge example of this IMO.

[I Valente I]

It could be that the "difficulty" that most of you revere from the old infinity engine games simply no longer exists? By those standards, no new games are difficult, especially RPG's. Oh did you think the new Ninja Gaiden was hard? Try Ninja Gaiden 2 on NES, it's basically a big middle finger to people's feeble attempts at beating the game.



it's my belief that difficulty like the old days is impossible today, from a marketing and sales perspective. Today's "bumper bowling" kids are too sensitive to struggle that they will take personal offence to anything severly challenging. Perhaps we should all just change our standards? Some times it's not worth it to ruin games by comparing them all to classics and then throwing them away in disgust.

[ckriley]

Here's the thing. I actually think DAO might be considered easy for an RPG, but hard as a video game. I actually think DAO has spiky difficulty. Meaning you can solo the High Dragon and other hard bosses (I won't mention them since that goes into spoiler territory) and then get absolutely destroyed by bandits or darkspawn on the road. And the CC can be a bit much, which can make for very frustrating gaming sessions.



There are a lot of people I know that breezed through both BG games, the IWD games, and some pretty hardcore RPGs that most of us have probably never heard of, only to come to DAO and get annihilated. It kind of speaks to poor game design in DAO, sorry to say. I mean, I still think it's a fun game, but the combat can be a bit head-scratching in some points.

[Merci357]

Well, I'm around since the late 80's, and while it may be due to my young age back then, and the lack of experience with these kind of games, but I regard CRPGs from that time way more challenging then anything i played in the last decade.

Most SSI games, not only the Gold Box games, like Pools of Radiance, Champions of Krynn and the sequels, but also the Phantasie series... if my memory serves right right, I found all of them way more challening. That said, all those games had no custom difficulty, so you had them to play the way the developers wanted you to.



However, I died a few times on my first DA playthrough, so it's fine. Both ME games, or Jade Empire, just to name the most recent BioWare games, are easier, imho. Honestly, challening combat is nice to have, but I care more about story, interaction, choices these days.

[Tirigon]

Merci357 wrote...

Well, I'm around since the late 80's, and while it may be due to my young age back then, and the lack of experience with these kind of games

That´s it. They were not necessarily more difficult but you were less experienced. Every game gets easier the more you play it. That´s why I usually start playing on easy or normal and am challenged, but end on the highest difficulty and find it easy. (Provided I play a game long enough, of course).

[AlanC9]

Merci357 wrote...

Most SSI games, not only the Gold Box games, like Pools of Radiance, Champions of Krynn and the sequels, but also the Phantasie series... if my memory serves right right, I found all of them way more challening.

I on'y ever played Pool of Radiance (liked it) and Azure Bonds (hated it). I don't remember either as being any more challenging than the IE games -- that is, not at all challenging.

[DWSmiley]

The SSI Gold Box games...gosh, that's going back aways! I played all of those and for me they were easier than DA:O for two reasons. They were turn-based so you always had time to decide what to do next and I was a D&D addict so I knew the spells and combat mechanics in advance.

[MerinTB]

DWSmiley wrote...

The SSI Gold Box games...gosh, that's going back aways! I played all of those and for me they were easier than DA:O for two reasons. They were turn-based so you always had time to decide what to do next and I was a D&D addict so I knew the spells and combat mechanics in advance.

Agreed.

[MerinTB]

Tirigon wrote...

Merci357 wrote...
Well, I'm around since the late 80's, and while it may be due to my young age back then, and the lack of experience with these kind of games

That´s it. They were not necessarily more difficult but you were less experienced. Every game gets easier the more you play it. That´s why I usually start playing on easy or normal and am challenged, but end on the highest difficulty and find it easy. (Provided I play a game long enough, of course).

Ditto.

You do realize that when you first experience doing something it is harder than when you try the tenth time?

If BG2 was your first experience with tactical real-time combat, say, but you played that several times and several other such RPGs and then get to DAO years later and now it seems too easy -
well, my friend, you've practiced and your a veteran.

It's like all those people who say "Parallel parking?  It's the easiest thing about driving!  No, really, let me show you!"  No, the easiest thing about driving, after turning the car on with the key and switching radio stations and such, would be driving in a straight line on an empty road.  But you know, for someone new behind the wheel, even keeping the car going straight seems pretty challenging.

Honestly, BG2 was not that challenging, relatively, an DAO is not that simple.

I won't presume to tell those of you saying so WHY you believe it to be so.

But I have to bow before the superiority of those who, on their first playthrough, won every battle, never had a party member die, never used any consumables, all on nightmare.  You are far more talented than I will ever be (or, for that matter, want to be - there's no reward or prize for finding games boring.)

[Merci357]

DWSmiley wrote...

The SSI Gold Box games...gosh, that's going back aways! I played all of those and for me they were easier than DA:O for two reasons. They were turn-based so you always had time to decide what to do next and I was a D&D addict so I knew the spells and combat mechanics in advance.

Hm, now I'm curious. Is there any harm to d/l and play say Pools of Radiance these days, using an emulator. While I own it still, it's gathering dust since decades, and I doubt the discs are still readable, provided I had any means to do so, or an working Amiga. When does a game become abandonware?

[HoonDing]

The Krynn RPGs made characters age one year each time one cast Haste upon them. It always made my characters ultimately too weak to carry along until the very end.

Merci357 wrote...

When does a game become abandonware?

When it's no longer sold & supported by the developer.

[DWSmiley]

virumor wrote...

The Krynn RPGs made characters age one year each time one cast Haste upon them. It always made my characters ultimately too weak to carry along until the very end.

[

I dreaded the level-draining undead...

[MerinTB]

I don't think SSI exists anymore - if you go to Abandonia or such sites you can find many of the Gold Box SSI classics!

[Cadarin]

I've got to agree with the OP that the BG series isn't really that hard. The only time I've ever felt like DA:O was too easy, was when I brought a healer along. Without a healer and playing on nightmare, the game is actually really well balanced for me. I try to avoid cheesing the healing pots too.

I'm really hoping that someone makes a mod for DA:O that's similar to Ascension and Tactics for BG2 though. There's no denying that the enemy AI in DA:O is extremely weak (almost nonexistent). An AI overhaul could help a lot with making the combat more varied and challenging.

Modifié par Cadarin, 28 mai 2010 - 05:08 .

[Anal Bandit]

I had trouble on the first playthrough although I didn't know what I was doing. Through the second playthrough I played on nightmare and found it fairly easy except at the start. My arcane warrior/blood mage just destroys everything =/

[Tirigon]

Anal Bandit wrote...

I had trouble on the first playthrough although I didn't know what I was doing. Through the second playthrough I played on nightmare and found it fairly easy except at the start. My arcane warrior/blood mage just destroys everything =/

Obviously the game becomes easier if your main character is the strongest class in the game, too. I have yet to find a combo that owns more than AW / BM, at least in the Vanilla game.

[soteria]

While I own it still, it's gathering dust since decades, and I doubt the discs are still readable, provided I had any means to do so, or an working Amiga. When does a game become abandonware?

I'm not an expert on copyright law, but I don't think downloading a game you own is illegal anyway. When you buy a game, or music, you're not really purchasing the physical disc so much as rights to use it. That's why burning a cd to your own computer and copying to your own ipod is legal, but letting your friends do the same is not--because you have a license to use it for your own enjoyment, not for all your friends.

[Viz79]

Merci357 wrote...

DWSmiley wrote...

The SSI Gold Box games...gosh, that's going back aways! I played all of those and for me they were easier than DA:O for two reasons. They were turn-based so you always had time to decide what to do next and I was a D&D addict so I knew the spells and combat mechanics in advance.

Hm, now I'm curious. Is there any harm to d/l and play say Pools of Radiance these days, using an emulator. While I own it still, it's gathering dust since decades, and I doubt the discs are still readable, provided I had any means to do so, or an working Amiga. When does a game become abandonware?

You could just boot up Neverwinter NIghts and download the module (made by the community). Many of the classic gold box games have been ported to NWN.

[maxernst]

Viz79 wrote...

maxernst wrote...

Viz79 wrote...

Well its a bit strange - lots of people find DA difficult but there is no way these people would have if they played the original BG/Planescape/Icewind Dale games. So they are clearly new to this genre of rpg gaming.

You're quite wrong.  I played all those games except Icewind Dale and found it quite difficult at first...and even on my second playthrough, the revenants are still hard.  I'd still call it more difficult than Planescape: Torment, which didi not have a lot of challenging combats...actually, you can get through large stretches of the game without fighting at all. The others were much easier for me because I was intimately familiar with AD&D rules...I already knew what all the spells did, what resistances and abilities most of the enemies would have, etc.  If anything, I think the people who say that DA:O is easy for people who've play a lot of  MMORPG's are probably closer to the mark, because the combat tactics are more akin to those.

I don't really understand your differentiation with MMOs - they also stick with the same rules that cRPGs do. i.e. you need a tank to take the damage and pull the attention of the mobs, a healer to ensure people stay up and limit damage, crowd control via stuns etc and then damage via melee or magic. This is consistent with pretty much every single RPG ever made. The positioning of your group whether in a MMO or a CRPG also maintains the same rules - keep your mages out of damage, try and make sure your rogues etc dont pull aggro and try and keep it all on the tank. Finding traps, pulling aggro, using cover, its all the same!

This posted a long time ago, but I didn't get around to responding.  No, you don't need a tank in Baldur's Gate--I never deliberately allowed one charactero be  surrounded by enemies.  I always had three or four characters that could handle melee and in most cases simply putting two in the doorway/hallway while the rest of the party fired missiles and spells was all the crowd control I needed.  In more open situations, I might have to use three or four melee characters and maybe a summoned creature, but keeping the mages out of melee was almost never a problem.  Also in BG2, you rarely had to worry much about the non-spell users were doing other than positioning them to ttack...they didn't have a lot of special attacks to think about.  Also in BG2, I'd say the bulk of my spell use was buffing and counterspelling not crowd control.

So my initial strategy in DA:O was to have Dog & Alistair in the doorway, my rogue firing arrows and Morrigan or Wynne casting spells.   And (using a BG approach), I just had Dog & Alistair on auto-attack the whole time, just like I would have a fighter in BG2.  Two "fighters" a "thief" and an "Mage/Cleric" is a perfectly viable group for using my strategy in BG2 would be fine, but it wasn't a very effective strategy in DA:O.  First of all, monsters seem to be able to go right through you to get at the mage.  Secondly, I wasn't making adequate use of the stun/knockdown attacks which are the bread and butter of Dog, Alistair and rogues, let alone using taunting or threatening.  Finally, Dog & Alistair don't really do that much damage--if you want to work two warriors, you're much better off combining one of them with Sten or Oghren.  Far better would be to go with two mages and use my rogue as a duel-wielding warrior to deal damage while Alistair knocked down/stun and absorbed damage.  I was thinking of my rogue as being needed for traps/locks, not so much as a combat fuction because--again in BG2--a thief is almost deadweight in combat except for the backstab which is situationally dependent.  So, no--at least with my playing style--I did not find that my BG tactics worked very well.  Your spellcasters also had much greater flexibility in BG2 because they could learn and memorize a larger number of spells whereas in DA:O, you choose your new spells at each level and if you don't pick well, you don't have an option to rest and memorize different ones instead.  It was much, much harder in the D&D system to screw yourself by poor skill and spell selection--a half-dozen levels worth of bad decisions in the early part of the game when you're learning the system in DA:O can cause you pain for the whole game. 

It also  seems to me most of the tough battles people mention from BG2 weren't from Shadows of Amn but from the expansion, which I will admit I didn't play.  Nor can I address the question of whether the high difficulty levels were harder in BG2--my comparison is default difficulty for both games, and I real don't recall BG2 as being especially hard.  I'll grant it was a long time ago, and maybe I had greater patience then, but I'm pretty sure I never changed the difficulty from normal on the first playthrough, which I did a number of times in DA:O.

[CBGB]

Is DAO harder than BG2?

A strange thing has happened between the two: forum use became common. As a result, you'd likely get two very different answers if you asked,

"How hard is DAO to play without any online information or help from other players?"

and

"If you follow a guide and an uber-build template, how tough is DAO?"



There's a BIG difference between the two. In the former case, you won't know which spells or skills or builds to favor, except by trial-and-error. Your Shapeshifting Summoner might not seem so mighty after a few levels.

Do we measure game difficulty by the challenge it presents to the player or the community?

[orpheus333]

Sylixe wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

And, for the record, I've played Icewind Dale probably a dozen times.
And played (part-of(repeatedly)) BG1, BG2 "2" times, PS:T (part-of(repeatedly)), IWD 2 several times, ToEE (part-of(repeatedly)) as well as cRPGs going all the way back to Ultima 1 and Wizardry.
Come up with reasoning as you like, but there are people who "know RPGs" who think DAO's difficulty was fine.

There's also a large group of players from the old school RPG days that think this games idea of difficulty is a joke.  From my first play through, which was nightmare from the beginning i never had an issue with any fights.  Hell i never even used the pathetic buffs, poisons and bombs they threw into the game for no point.  Unless you ran into ever group of mobs blindly, you can handle any fight presented to you easily.

Clearly the game was either not playtested enough or they went back and dumbed down the game severly after the game was tested.  My gut says it was probably dumbed down because i know Bioware can do better than this with mob AI and in game mechanics.  However there are times in the game where i feel like they weren't given enough time to polish encounters and holes were left in the game to exploit fights.  The Brood Mother is a huge example of this IMO.

When it comes too this argument i think the die hard bioware/pc rpg fans don;t realise that they have already learnt a significant amount of tricks and tactics too beat these games. BG2 Tactics for example work incredibly well when playing DA and alot of us underestimate how good we can be at playing these games. 

Newer players, Casual Players and i dare say less power gamey players will, and do, find it more difficult. I ahve ahd no issue with the difficulty in DA. Upto a point (and its the same with the infinity engine games) you have a party which is organised, powerfully equiped and a set of tactics for said party that will conquer anything.

Modifié par andyr1986, 30 mai 2010 - 03:00 .

[soteria]

There's a BIG difference between the two. In the former case, you won't know which spells or skills or builds to favor, except by trial-and-error. Your Shapeshifting Summoner might not seem so mighty after a few levels.

Do we measure game difficulty by the challenge it presents to the player or the community?

Without a guide, it only took me 5-10 minutes of playing around with Morrigan to figure out shapeshifting sucked, and you get her long before you ever get a chance to invest in shapeshifting on your own mage. It also didn't take me very long to realize that Wynne makes everything easier. It did take me about half the game to figure out I was wasting my time raising strength and willpower on my rogue, but that didn't make my game "broken." My second game, on nightmare, was a sword and shield warrior, and I raised every stat except cunning to at least 20 (yes, even magic). It was still stupidly easy, and at that point I really wasn't reading any guides. Of course, they hadn't even been written yet at that point so that would have been impossible.

[Tirigon]

soteria wrote...

Without a guide, it only took me 5-10 minutes of playing around with Morrigan to figure out shapeshifting sucked, and you get her long before you ever get a chance to invest in shapeshifting on your own mage. It also didn't take me very long to realize that Wynne makes everything easier. It did take me about half the game to figure out I was wasting my time raising strength and willpower on my rogue, but that didn't make my game "broken." My second game, on nightmare, was a sword and shield warrior, and I raised every stat except cunning to at least 20 (yes, even magic). It was still stupidly easy, and at that point I really wasn't reading any guides. Of course, they hadn't even been written yet at that point so that would have been impossible.

Well but this is quite not so the reality for others. For example, it took me 3 and a half playthroughs to learn to appreciate Wynne as dedicated healer, and even now that I have I find it only situationally useful. Sometimes more damagedealers is much more useful.

And raising str / willpower on a rogue can quite screw it. I was thankful for respec mod.