343 réponses à ce sujet

[Nighteye2]

I'm still unhappy about the direction DA2 seems to be taking, compared to DA:O, but I thought this video gives a good explanation of the kind of depth I'm looking for in the Dragon Age franchise. :innocent:

[SocialButterfly]

Eh okay and what you want to say with this?

[Shepard Lives]

Did you seriously create a thread for this?

Oh the anger.

[FellowerOfOdin]

Expect it to be easier than Dragon Age : Origins as the game will be highly adjusted to mainstream gaming.

[I set my friends on fire]

You know, I recently played AC2 brotherhoood, and made me think if hawke would have flashbacks with depth, because i almost cried during some of Ezio's.

[Apollo Starflare]

It's a good thing you were here to post this topic, one never discussed anywhere else on the forums! I havn't seen anything to suggest the game will be easier than Origins, especially considering the only footage we've seen has been on easy or 'invincible mode' demos and even then players who didn't use tactics or utilize their companions properly got ruined.

[Beaner28]

If the game has issues with a lack of difficulty I will be extremely disappointed. I don't understand why BioWare feels they have to cater to the lowest common denominator in the gaming community. They already FPS and CoD. Why do they need RPGs?

[hexaligned]

They aren't the lowest common denominator, they are average.


130+
Very superior
2.2%

120-129
Superior
6.7%

110-119
High average
16.1%

90-109
Average
50%

80-89
Low average
16.1%

70-79
Borderline
6.7%

Below 70
Extremely low
2.2%

IQ scores broken up by percentage of population. Obviously making a game that caters to people in the 90-120 range is going to appeal to the largest possible audience, (and presumably the highest sales) Mystery solved. DAO wasn't a hard game as it was, it certainly didn't have real strategic depth to it. I don't see DA2 as being much of a departure from that. (based on the little I have seen of it)  Honestly my fellow 130+ ers, you should be used to mass marketed media being this way.

Modifié par relhart, 23 novembre 2010 - 08:54 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

*walks in*

I prefer easy games I have a low tolerance for frustration

*walks out*

Also... Usually the "deeper" the game is, the easier it is.  More options = more outs.

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 23 novembre 2010 - 08:59 .

[errant_knight]

There are aspects of the game that I'm very displeased about, but I don't think those indicate a lack of depth or challenge in and of themselves. To me, the changes are more of an immersion issue than anything else, although some romoved aspects of the game that I find enjoyable. Still, the depth comes from the storytelling, about whih I have no doubts, and challenge...well, if you die more easily than the enemies, there will be challenge. Maybe not the same kind, it may not be as tactical as I'd prefer (we don't know that yet), but that doesn't mean it will be easy. I do expect that the lower levels will be easier, since the learning curve seemed to be a problem for some, but I expect hard and nightmare to be just that.

[DarthCaine]

Meh, I play games for "fun". In more traditional RPGs like DAO and KOTOR, I always play on easy, 'cos the combat is my least favorite part of the game, and I play just for the story (though on Action RPGs I usually play on normal/hard)

Modifié par DarthCaine, 23 novembre 2010 - 09:17 .

[ErichHartmann]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Expect it to be easier than Dragon Age : Origins as the game will be highly adjusted to mainstream gaming.

Easy is relative.  There is nothing "hardcore" about early BioWare games.  I beat Baldur's Gate I & II with little trouble.    

[Onyx Jaguar]

MDK 2 was hard as hell, though that was because of imbalance in design

[Maria Caliban]

shepard_lives wrote...

Did you seriously create a thread for this?
Oh the anger.

Did you look at the video?

I mean, I thought it was an excellent example of what makes a game good. Why would you get angry at him for posting it?

Apollo Starflare wrote...

It's a good thing you were here to post this topic, one never discussed anywhere else on the forums!

I am apt to agree it's never discussed on this forum.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 23 novembre 2010 - 09:26 .

[Wulfram]

For RPGs, too easy is better than too hard. At least you can still enjoy the plot and writing in a too easy game.

[Onyx Jaguar]

After watching the video again...



You expecting a better tutorial or something like that?

[hexaligned]

All I got out of the video was that I needed to go find a ROM of Ogre Battle 64 so I can play it at work tomorrow. I disagreed with most of what was postulated in it though, I'm one of those people that actually enjoys number crunching different character/party builds and such.

[Nighteye2]

A better tutorial, but more important I want enough depth to require a tutorial. More strategic and tactical options, more ways to solve quests and win fights. With challenging complexity, rather than streamlined.



Enough to be able to get creative and feel rewarded for that creativity.

[Maria Caliban]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

After watching the video again...

You expecting a better tutorial or something like that?

As the video stated, 80% of a game could be tutorial. I assume the origin to the battle with the ogre in Origins was the tutorial.

relhart wrote...

All I got out of the video was that I needed to go find a ROM of Ogre Battle 64 so I can play it at work tomorrow. I disagreed with most of what was postulated in it though, I'm one of those people that actually enjoys number crunching different character/party builds and such.

What did you disagree with?

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 23 novembre 2010 - 09:49 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

That would make sense, especially since the game opens up after that.

[ErichHartmann]

RPGs don't need tutorials. Half the fun is figuring out the world on your own.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Baldur's Gate had a decent tutorial, though I would say its sequel did not do a good job in its tutorial.



A tutorial is needed, jumping into a game like Pools of Radiance is like trying to cook something with just the ingredients and no instructions

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'd agree that the origin through the Ogre battle was the tutorial.

The tutorial covered the basics of combat, levelling up, group control, monster ranks, exploration, chests and loot, tradeskills (poison, traps), and boss monsters. It even gave you an overview of the sorts of things you could learn from cutscenes.

[Maria Caliban]

I guess the question would be: Was is a good tutorial?

One of the reasons that Portal's tutorial was excellent was that you couldn't fudge your way through. If you didn't understand the concept they were attempting to teach then you didn't make it through that section.

That actually seems to conflict with the statement of the video that a good game is accessible at first.

Would Origins, from the beginning of the origin to the battle with the ogre, have been better if there were certain sections that could only be passed by displaying specific tactics?

For example, a creature that could only be attacked at range with fire/frost enchanted weapons? A quest where you have create health kits and heal group of soldiers of their injuries? A hallway where a rogue has to disarm a trap or the characters are just teleported to the beginning of the hallway?

These are very gamey examples, but what if the developers identified five 'essential' tactical elements and only let someone progress to the main game after the player had demonstrated use of them?

Because I have observed there was a wide gap between people who got the basics of gameplay and those who didn't.

[Nighteye2]

Maria Caliban wrote...


I guess the question would be: Was is a good tutorial?

One of the reasons that Portal's tutorial was excellent was that you couldn't fudge your way through. If you didn't understand the concept they were attempting to teach then you didn't make it through that section.

That actually seems to conflict with the statement of the video that a good game is accessible at first.

Would Origins, from the beginning of the origin to the battle with the ogre, have been better if there were certain sections that could only be passed by displaying specific tactics?

For example, a creature that could only be attacked at range with fire/frost enchanted weapons? A quest where you have create health kits and heal group of soldiers of their injuries? A hallway where a rogue has to disarm a trap or the characters are just teleported to the beginning of the hallway?

These are very gamey examples, but what if the developers identified five 'essential' tactical elements and only let someone progress to the main game after the player had demonstrated use of them?

Because I have observed there was a wide gap between people who got the basics of gameplay and those who didn't.

I think many people, especially those with little RPG experience, would have enjoyed the game more. Even old veterans may be drawn out of their comfort zone with a good tutorial, which I would consider to be something positive.