77 réponses à ce sujet

[Steel Majere343]

Easy mode- we all know thy well. But is it becomming the new normal? It almost seems as though more people are playing this (as well as many other games) on casual or easy. This is a follow up to the article written by game informer magazine discussing this very topic.

I was a skeptic at first, believing that casual or easy mode is only for whimps who can't play on normal, but there is an appeal to playing on casual that you cannot find elsewear.

On casual mode for one you are far more relaxed. No more worrying about if your characters are set up precisely right, no more being stuck on a particular battle for hours, no more using cheap tactics to win.

Of course there are those who say playing games on easy are akin to a choose your own adventure tale, yet what is challenge truly? In dragon age and in every other game there are ways of making Hard easy and people seem content with that.

People whine of the lack of challenge and a borring romp toward casual players when some of them use tactics that actually make normal easier than easy.

For example i recently talked to a fellow over psn who stated that he hated dragon age on easy for lack of challenge, yet proceeded to tell me how he never went through a game without making 500 pultices, having a spirit healer and using forcefield on his tank whenever necessary.

I would imagine he would have MORE fun on casual where battles will no longer consist of the same dull tactic over and over again.

If casual and normal were replaced by other names would peoples opinions remain the same when talking about them?

If normal were called "limited options mode" and casual "unlimited options mode" which would we choose?

It seems that the further up the difficulty chain you go the more limited your playstyle options actually are, thus making more boring romps through the game.

As i monitered my last playthrough on casual mode i tried to pick out diffrences that i noticed between the two other than the obvious difficulty change.

Yet all i could truly note was that the playthrough had a lot less dying, a lot less frusteration, a lot less pultice use, a lot less cheap tactic use (hitting enemies where they can't see/hit me), a lot more enjoyment of the world (instead of wondering if my characters were built correctly that time was spent admiring the wonderfully done calenhad docks) and a far more rich party assortment; Instead of having a "healer, tank, dps, dps" I picked my party only minimally based on in combat use.

Of course my mage had heal and regeneration yet other than that i had three rogues. Which made intresting combat, a lot of sneaking, and it felt like i was actually playing the way i wanted to instead of feeling forced to play a certain way (I.E. tank, healer, etc).

A friend of mine on these forums told me she used to play on nightmare and when she got bored of nightmare she originally thought it was due to lack of difficulty.

Yet she discovered after lowering the difficulty that it was actually due to the fact that she plays the exact same way everytime she plays nightmare mode, because thats what she feels she has to do to advance.

Soon after lowering the difficulty she was hooked on the game again, feeling that it was anew with options and completely different playstyle opertunities instead of the same spells, the same tactics, the same party composition, the same story.

So tell me, where does your pride sit?

[Steel Majere343]

hm i thought this would be a much more engaging conversation. having started this on my college threads and seeing the response there i expected it to be similar here. Eh,



Oh one thing intresting to note about dragon age immparticular. Difficulty doesn't work like it does in most games. Most games just lower health, but on casual no enemy statistics are changed at all.



Instead your party is just stronger. So basically instead of making the game world easier you are just getting some bonuses.



On casual you get bonuses to defence, attack, and a 5dmg bonus along with a bonus to healing effects.



Thats it, thats the big jump some people whine about. A defence, attack, and 5 damage bonus.



Enemy health, and attack, and all their abilities among their other stats remain exactly the same regardless of difficulty level.



Yes, this means that you take the exact same amount of damage on casual, as to nightmare.



The only difference between them at all is that you attack faster, do a little bit more damage per hit, and you have a higher chance to evade attacks.

[AlanC9]

I'm waiting for some casual players to show up. I like my games to be easy enough so I have to really screw up to fail a battle. For me that's DAO on Hard.

[Merci357]

Steel Majere343 wrote...

Soon after lowering the difficulty she was hooked on the game again, feeling that it was anew with options and completely different playstyle opertunities instead of the same spells, the same tactics, the same party composition, the same story.

So tell me, where does your pride sit?

What pride? Is there any competition I'm not aware of?
With DA:O it's the same like with most games, for me. The hardest modes aren't a challenge I'm very fond of - often tedious, or the need to constantly resort to repetitive and somewhat cheesy tactics. However, if I do something dumb, I should be punished for this. So I settle for a middle ground.

[KungBore]

I kind of like Casual. I guess I generally gravitate towards Normal (I find Casual to be a bit too easy, no matter what) but I definitely see your point. I've never gone above Normal because I never have a healer and I only occasionally have a tank. That's my playing style, but I know I would get slaughtered at higher levels.



I agree that with many games, not just Dragon Age, higher difficulties really limit your options. I like doing things that make no sense as far as the game mechanics go, but are fun. I've always thought it would be cool to go three mages (PC, Wynne, Morrigan) and have one max out Primal, one Entropy, etc. Or maybe four archers (PC Warrior archer, Zev, Lel, and turn Allistir or Sten into an archer). That could be fun.



My favourite combination is just all out damage - a Rogue dual-wielding, two-handed warrior, all-offensive mage, and either an archer or second two-hander. Your survivability is pretty low, even with poultices, but it's a heck of a lot of fun. Plus the roles are general enough that you can mix in all sorts of NPCs.



I'm not a powergamer and I don't like checking guides to make sure I'm getting every single awesome item out there. I want to create my own characters, not follow certain "builds." I don't want to have to stop and micromanage my tactics every five seconds. To me, those things are the opposite of fun (literally - they're work). Casual difficulty is a small price to pay for being able to play in a game world where I can play however I want.

[Steel Majere343]

To each his own, yet instead of debating which is better im simply discussing my fascination of the current situation.



It seems that far more people are playing games on easy (the game informer mag poll showed that 62% of gamers prefer their games on easy versus the 23% that prefer games on normal, 10% on hard, and the 5% that prefer their games on the highest difficulty possible) than ever before.



Plus take the current trend of gaming (the fable series actively stays away from player "failure" and bioshock has been experimenting with "soft fails" which let the player die but with virtually no consequence, or minimal consequence).



Its also intresting to note the Pride interference here, people would rather play on normal difficulty and have a horrible experience or have a limited experience than to play on casual even if they really enjoy it more.



DAO has nothing to do with intellegence believe it or not. The difficulty of normal solely depends on what abilities you pick up. Everyone can move a rogue behind an enemy, but the real determining factor is if your mage has picked up spell bloom or sleep. The mage with sleep or mass paralysis will have a significantly easier time.



Casual/easy mitigates this, allowing you to pick up any abilities you see fit, regardless of how usefull they actually are, allowing you to experiment further.

[Steel Majere343]

Merci357 wrote...

Steel Majere343 wrote...

Soon after lowering the difficulty she was hooked on the game again, feeling that it was anew with options and completely different playstyle opertunities instead of the same spells, the same tactics, the same party composition, the same story.

So tell me, where does your pride sit?

What pride? Is there any competition I'm not aware of?
With DA:O it's the same like with most games, for me. The hardest modes aren't a challenge I'm very fond of - often tedious, or the need to constantly resort to repetitive and somewhat cheesy tactics. However, if I do something dumb, I should be punished for this. So I settle for a middle ground.

The pride of gamers, thats generally the reason most actually don't like easier difficulties.  So you tell me, is there some competition I AM not aware of? lol. 

Prime example is that which i stated earlier. Fable is far easier than dragon age will ever be. Yet gamers are perfectly fine playing that, having a blast.

I partly blame forums for this stigma, as forums are usually the birthing place of flaming and the boasts of granduer of how someones mother somewhere completed the game in 15 minuts without dying once.

Modifié par Steel Majere343, 25 juillet 2010 - 05:38 .

[Burningwolf]

For me? I usually wind up playing on casual/normal mode then ill go up a notch if the game holds my attention.Very few games hold my attention long enough for a second playthrough though.



Fallout 3 and Mass effect are the only games I finished more than once in the last ...I dunno 5-10 years.

Its about experiencing the story to me.DA:O had multiple ways to resolve a given situation...but they honestly dont feel diffrent enough to me to warrent another playthrough.



Story over combat for me.If its replayable to *ME* its probabally a masterwork in its on right.Though I do have a large soft spot for action rpg's with a lot of loot..(borderlands,diablo,et all)

[DABhand]

I usually start a game on easy to get the feel of the game and quickly run through it, then I up the skill for the 2nd time around and try and get as much as I can.



Only when I feel the need for self harming would I go for the hardest mode that is going

[Sylvius the Mad]

I want the game to offer a level playing field. So spells behave the same way for me and my enemies. Hit points and weapons work the same way for me and my enemies. Potions and traps work the same way for me and my enemies. Friendly fire works teh same way for me and my enemies.

Whichever difficulty level gives me that is the one I want (in DAO that level is Hard).  Combat, to me, is simply part of the setting, and the setting exists only to provide me with a backdrop for my roleplaying. For decent roleplaying, that setting needs coherence, and a level playing field in combat is part of that coherence.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 25 juillet 2010 - 04:45 .

[Steel Majere343]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I want the game to offer a level playing field. So spells behave the same way for me and my enemies. Hit points and weapons work the same way for me and my enemies. Potions and traps work the same way for me and my enemies. Friendly fire works teh same way for me and my enemies.

Whichever difficulty level gives me that is the one I want (in DAO that level is Hard).  Combat, to me, is simply part of the setting, and the setting exists only to provide me with a backdrop for my roleplaying. For decent roleplaying, that setting needs coherence, and a level playing field in combat is part of that coherence.

well thought out and well said. But i must stop you at the level playing field.

When your tlaking about 4 people fighting an army of enemies there is no level playing field. Odds are deliberately against you. While i know what you mean, in all honesty, its not a fair fight regardless.

While i was playing on normal i frequently found myself frusterated with how fast i would die, never once did i "enjoy the challenge" of this game. That was never the appeal for me here. Even on casual dragons still pose enough of a challenge to make me sit back and go 'wow that was a good fight".

The appeal for me here is the MMO feel and tactical fighting.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Steel Majere343 wrote...

well thought out and well said. But i must stop you at the level playing field.

When your tlaking about 4 people fighting an army of enemies there is no level playing field. Odds are deliberately against you. While i know what you mean, in all honesty, its not a fair fight regardless.

It's the fair ruleset I want, not a fair fight.

And regardless, the game's AI/scripting is not going to be equivalent to a human player, and those hordes of enemies are often individually quite a bit weaker.

[soteria]

It seems that the further up the difficulty chain you go the more limited your playstyle options actually are, thus making more boring romps through the game.

I can only speak from personal experience, but what you describe hasn't been mine. I found that after I placed a few limitations on myself--no potions, no blatant exploitation of the AI, limited re-use of the same abilities in combat, and, of course, nightmare--the combat became more fun. I was most bored on my second playthrough when I was using a traditional tank and healer with no real restrictions on myself. Since then, I've played through different ways: restricting healing magic, or no mage at all, using an archer as a tank, not using any tank, etc. The result has been, I believe, a much greater enjoyment of the combat system because I'm forcing myself to dig a little deeper than tank, healer, force field on tank, poultice when low on health, etc.

The bottom line is when I play a video game I want some sort of challenge. If I'm not being challenged, I'm bored.

I want the game to offer a level playing field. So spells behave the same way for me and my enemies. Hit points and weapons work the same way for me and my enemies. Potions and traps work the same way for me and my enemies. Friendly fire works teh same way for me and my enemies.

Does that extend to wanting enemies to have the exact same spells and abilities as the player? To me, that is a major failing in Dragon Age. From a realism/RP perspective, perhaps we would have perfect symmetry between player and monster, but in fact there is a basic asymmetry there already. An ability that the player can use to quickly kill a single enemy may seem balanced and fun to the player, but the opposite cannot be said to be true. The player avoids friendly fire, because he wants to win without injuries, preferably. The enemy doesn't care and is perfectly willing to shoot two or three fireballs at you, killing you and their own allies alike. It's little consolation knowing that they wiped out their whole force to get you though, is it?

[Remmirath]

I'll play on whatever setting is the most fun to me. If it's too hard, I won't enjoy it, but I do like a challenge. If it's too easy I just feel like I could close my eyes and finish it, and that's not much fun for me.

For any game that has a 'core D&D rules' or similar setting, I'll use that as that is what it's supposed to be (in my opinion). I don't like to have things either adjusted up or down to change the difficulty.

Dragon Age, at least as far as I can tell, doesn't have such a setting and every level is modified in some way. Therefore, I play at what feels like the right difficulty to me. I started out on Normal because I assumed that would be the unmodified one, then switched to Hard, and then lately I've been playing on Nightmare. I'll turn down the difficulty if a battle is just too frustrating, but that's only happened a couple of times.

If I have played a game many times and want more of a challenge, and it has something like the 'Heart of Fury' for the Icewind Dale games, I'll do that every few times I play through but that'll never gravitate to being my default setting.

This all goes for roleplaying games. I creep the difficulty up one setting every time I play through a first-person shooter or something. To me, it's very different.

[Pangaea]

The main thing about a game is to have fun. I usually play all games on normal and started DAO on normal too. But being new to RPG it soon became very frustrating and boring to die multiple times in almost every fight. Some fights were simply impossible to win, probably because I didn't have a "perfect" mage or build of my characters, and lack of experience of course. Turning it down to Easy made the game fun again, so that's what I'm playing with now. If it gets too easy I'll probably try Normal again. But honestly, I am incredible fed up of watching that reload screen...



It's the story I like the most about all games. I'm not really interested in neverending fights. What drives a game forward is its story. I rarely play games more than once, but Mafia is one of few games I've played several times. Almost solely thanks to its great story. I did start a 2nd playthrough on both Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2, but then I picked up this too and started playing DAO instead. But these 3 games can very well make it into my rare category of games I play through several times.



I didn't know how Easy mode worked in this game, but I'm not surprised it doesn't swing things greatly in the player's favour. It's certainly (much) easier than normal, but you can't go through fights with your eyes closed either.



I think the OP is correct that the harder modes limit your options quite a lot. You have to play the game a certain way to win, basically taking advantage of AI flaws or "cheats", otherwise you get pawned. But on easy mode you are freer to do what you like. It in effect becomes more of a roleplaying game, and less of a read up on guides and wikis to figure out the perfect builds and items to buy kinda game. The latter can quickly become a drag, which takes me back to my initial point: A game is supposed to be fun. If it isn't, why play it?

[Lord Gremlin]

I mostly played DAO on easy. That said, I've actually completed it on normal too (when I learned a lot about building characters), but it was kind of boring. Being unable to kill the high dragon no matter what tactics you use. Later on I've killed him anyway by simply grinding up to 20 level. I just don't like such cheap difficulty. For example, in Demon's Souls you always have a chance. Of course it may be insanely difficult if your level is too low, but if you're really smart you have a chance. In DAO on normal some battles require grind.
I have enough problems in real life, I play games to relax and have fun.

Modifié par Lord Gremlin, 25 juillet 2010 - 10:52 .

[Bruno Hslaw]

I was playing on normal the other day and when I went out to get some coffee the daughter changed the game to easy while I was out. To be honest I did not note the difference till she came in about 2 hours later and laughed about it. Is there really a difference or have I just played it to much.

[Restroom]

Read somewhere that hard is the most balanced level with no advantages or disadvantages for either player or AI and from my own experience the difference to normal is marginal. But still cant defeat the spider queen easily on any level.

[Kokopelli1313]

I have been playing pc rpgs since - - - hmmm - since time began? 

I learned to use my favorite tactic. I play my first complete game on easy/casual. 

This has several positive results:
   1.  I can enjoy the settings, the artistry, the storyline.
   2.  I get a feel for the opponents and the allies.
   3.  Since it plays slightly faster I don't mind going to a previous save to try a different option.

If my impression and enjoyment are high, I will replay on a higher difficulty level.

This is what works for me; maybe not everyone.

[Capitalsin]

the first playthrough was on normal and I never died and could just play in real-time all the time. I found it boring because I just didn`t need any strategy. I`m playing on nightmare now and I like the challenge, although at certain points it does get a little frustrating when you die at the same group of enemies over and over.



I think it`s just a matter of opinion, I like getting the most out of my characters and it pays off more in nightmare because you know it doesn`t get any harder, if you can do it on nightmare you can do it always.



But I can understand that some people just want to have fun with the game and don`t feel the need to maximize the challenge.

[Vaeliorin]

soteria wrote...

It seems that the further up the difficulty chain you go the more limited your playstyle options actually are, thus making more boring romps through the game.

I can only speak from personal experience, but what you describe hasn't been mine. I found that after I placed a few limitations on myself--no potions, no blatant exploitation of the AI, limited re-use of the same abilities in combat, and, of course, nightmare--the combat became more fun. I was most bored on my second playthrough when I was using a traditional tank and healer with no real restrictions on myself. Since then, I've played through different ways: restricting healing magic, or no mage at all, using an archer as a tank, not using any tank, etc. The result has been, I believe, a much greater enjoyment of the combat system because I'm forcing myself to dig a little deeper than tank, healer, force field on tank, poultice when low on health, etc.
The bottom line is when I play a video game I want some sort of challenge. If I'm not being challenged, I'm bored.

I want the game to offer a level playing field. So spells behave the same way for me and my enemies. Hit points and weapons work the same way for me and my enemies. Potions and traps work the same way for me and my enemies. Friendly fire works teh same way for me and my enemies.

Does that extend to wanting enemies to have the exact same spells and abilities as the player? To me, that is a major failing in Dragon Age. From a realism/RP perspective, perhaps we would have perfect symmetry between player and monster, but in fact there is a basic asymmetry there already. An ability that the player can use to quickly kill a single enemy may seem balanced and fun to the player, but the opposite cannot be said to be true. The player avoids friendly fire, because he wants to win without injuries, preferably. The enemy doesn't care and is perfectly willing to shoot two or three fireballs at you, killing you and their own allies alike. It's little consolation knowing that they wiped out their whole force to get you though, is it?

This.  I'll add that I also don't use Cone of Cold, Mana Clash or Crushing Prison.  I've only had one character that used Storm of the Century (my caster-type PC mage) and only on one playthrough have I ever crafted a bunch of lyrium potions or poultices (that being my arcane warrior, who sucked down mana like it was water.)

DA just isn't hard, and I find that kind of depressing.  The way I see it, Hard should be Casual, Nightmare should be Normal, and then we could add a couple harder difficulties above that.  I miss the days of games that were punishingly difficult, where even an over-leveled party can get wiped if you don't play smart.  If I can cakewalk through the game the first time through, on the hardest difficulty, and never need to reload once (I'm looking at you, Awakening!) then there's definitely something wrong.

Hard games are few and far between nowadays, and to my mind, that's a sad thing.  Heck, the only hard games I hear about any more are games that are hard because they challenge your reflexes, not your brain, and that's not the sort of challenge I enjoy (I'll admit it, I have crappy reflexes.)

Games need more fights like this where, even if you use cheap-o tactics (auto potion is for wimps...also not killing the minions is lazy ) you're barely going to make it through alive even if you play darn well.

[Fallout_IX]

I completed DA for the rest time recently and played on normal difficulty up until you meet the Darkspawn forge master in the deep roads and kept dying no matter which tactics I seemed to try out. So I switched it down to casual to kill him and put it on normal again. Then when I reached the spinning face statue thing I died 2 or 3 times (had a huge problem getting health potions in Orzammar always had 0-5) so I thought **** it and played the rest of the game on casual which turned out to be more enjoyable and less annoying.



Although other games and rpgs, Mass Effect for example I always play on hardcore or insanity

[Deviija]

I enjoy DAO's casual/easy mode. I differ from others in that I really do not like combat and find it a repetitive tedium. I play on the easiest settings in games because I want to skip through to the dialogues, the cutscenes, the choices, the plot, the intrigue.



Not to say that I hate combat, no. I can enjoy it well enough (on easy settings) since I can smash through nearly all opposition in the game without dying. That doesn't mean I care for it or that I want difficulty to increase. Leave casual/easy as it is, then, and raise the other difficulties.

[Ayanko]

Personally I Like Casual/Normal Mode. Why? Because when my charecter AOE's I don't want to K.O my whole team just because I friendly fired and my tactics were off.

Plus playing hard and nightmare with a mage is hell on earth, everything takes planning. Sure you can Plan easily enough on Casual and Normal. But the harder levels require your constant eyes to watch over all of your charecters, to make sure your warrior holds when your mage is AOEing or that your rouge is stealthed and in the correct position. And lets not forgot your Tank being able to make sure they take all the hits so that one stray darkspawn doesn't find its way to your healer.

[wanderon]

RPGs are the only type of games I play and I basicly want a difficulty level that forces me to at least have to pay enough attention to PLAY the game rather than sit back and watch my party roll over all but the most difficult bosses on their own.



Like Sylvius I also want a more or less level playing feild - or at the very least I want the games combat and other systems to work as they were intended to work. If freindly fire is part of the system I don't want to play at a level where it gets turned off. I don't want special hit point bonuses or extra damage I want to play the game as it was designed to be played without nerfs.



For the D&D based games I play thats core rules generally and for DA I think it's hard mode - I find it annoying that designers have felt the need to nerf the modes they designate as "normal" and make me figure out on my own what the "real" normal should be.



As for the higher difficulty levels - unless there is some reward other than bragging rights for playing on insane or nightmare or whatever I'm mostly not interested - the only game I recall playing that did this was the Icewind Dale series where the experience you received for playing the more difficult levels was increased by 1.5 or 2 which then allowed you to attain higher levels more quickly. That was worth the extra effort it took (usually)...



That said I did play a few of my first origins starts up through Ostagar on normal before ramping up to hard and the first few were quite challenging on that level before I got into the new interface a bit better and figured out what I was doing.



I also occasionally drop back to normal from hard now to complete a particularly difficult segment if I find myself in a reload fest as well then go back to hard - some battles are just too annoyingly difficult for some PCs/parties at some levels and I'm not really "keeping score" anyway just enjoying the game...