494 réponses à ce sujet

[IN1]

Also, a game shouldn't be judged on it's highest difficulty setting but on it's default, a.k.a. "normal", difficulty and "normal" difficulty in DA2 is a lot easier than it was in DA:O.

Why? It is much more logical to determine game challenge rating by the highest built-in difficulty setting, of course. 

[Ox_Mox]

I actually liked da 2's combat system a lot more than origins. If they could just keep similar combat speed/talents/combos and improve aesthetics (ridiculous cartoony animations, enemies parachuting in) it would be pretty awesome.

IN1 just don't stick stuff like 'That is an objective fact you cannot argue with' in a post. You could say the sun will rise tomorrow and still get attacked by putting that there. No matter how well backed up an opinion is about the quality of DA2's combat system, it's still just an opinion. How 'good' a combat system is is inherently subjective.

[noxsachi]

Basically DAII had much better combat than DAO, but some of their ideas were a little wonky. Like for example I enjoy how melee isn't a slow plodding mess anymore, but the attacks and movement speeds just look too fast. Everything goes at ludicrous speed. The gibs are stupid compared to the Origins finishing moves, which while over the top, were cool. Also another non-fan of the waves.

[tausra]

Without emperical data to back up your statements you sound ignorant. When you state these are "cold hard facts", avoid using very subjective words and show me the data. You won't be taken seriously unless you can prove beyond any subjective leanings that the numbers are on your side.

Even on hard Mode DA2's combat was little more than click an enemy, auto attack, use an ability, pick new target as that one has exploded from an arrow.

Modifié par tausra, 27 avril 2011 - 06:10 .

[IN1]

Without emperical data to back up your statements you sound ignorant. When you state these are "cold hard facts", avoid using very subjective words and show me the data. You won't be taken seriously unless you can prove beyond any subjective leanings that the numbers are on your side.

First of all, it's empirical. Secondly, the OP contains a whole bunch of very specific examples. If you are inclined to research the matter of buggy/non-functional abilities and properties in DAO further, DA wiki has tons of bug-related information -- in fact, every buggy talent/spell has a bug footnote, I've seen to it back in DAO era personally. Copying and pasting from the wiki for several hours just because you are too lazy to verify the facts yourself is an odd idea that does not appeal to me somehow.

[tmp7704]

IN1 wrote...

Yeah, you got me! Those IDs are sooooo mysterious!  Are you kidding me? The fact you cannot figure it out does not mean they aren't human-readable. 

There is a couple I cannot figure out, I admit, but that's basically immaterial

Well, they're mysterious enough you can't figure out some of them by your own admissions 

Regarding DAO difficulty, i think it's disingenuous to try and sell it as "just resistance bonus and no AR penalty" when a little earlier you were taking time to list modifiers to potion drop system in DA2 as a factor... and DAO also has this mechanics as part of its difficulty settings. There's also --quite more important imo-- "ability use cost" for the AI, which effectively causes 50% more frequent use of abilities on NM level. And of course the friendly fire modifier, again present in the both games.

And there's of course the aspect i've mentioned earlier -- yes, DA2 has more difficulty switches. But without making direct comparisons how do we know whether say, the extra damage bonus it gives to the creatures doesn't just bring the damage output of these creatures to level comparable with what DAO dishes out on normal? Unless of course your point is simply "DA2 is better in this regard because it has more different ways to alter the difficulty and this extra flexibility is an advantage in itself", in which case i'm inclined to agree.

Modifié par tmp7704, 27 avril 2011 - 08:34 .

[IN1]

tmp7704 wrote...

IN1 wrote...

Yeah, you got me! Those IDs are sooooo mysterious!  Are you kidding me? The fact you cannot figure it out does not mean they aren't human-readable. 

There is a couple I cannot figure out, I admit, but that's basically immaterial

Well, they're mysterious enough you can't figure out some of them by your own admissions 

Regarding DAO difficulty, i think it's disingenuous to try and sell it as "just resistance bonus and no AR penalty" when a little earlier you were taking time to list modifiers to potion drop system in DA2 as a factor... and DAO also has this mechanics as part of its difficulty settings. There's also --quite more important imo-- "ability use cost" for the AI, which effectively causes 50% more frequent use of abilities on NM level. And of course the friendly fire modifier, again present in the both games.

And there's of course the aspect i've mentioned earlier -- yes, DA2 has more difficulty switches. But without making direct comparisons how do we know whether say, the extra damage bonus it gives to the creatures doesn't just bring the damage output of these creatures to level comparable with what DAO dishes out on normal? Unless of course your point is simply "DA2 is better in this regard because it has more different ways to alter the difficulty and this extra flexibility is an advantage in itself", in which case i'm inclined to agree.

I want to understand something... Have you played NM difficulty in both DAO and DA2? 

[tmp7704]

Yes. Found the Hard mode with some self-imposed restrictions more fun in both ultimately though -- the extra leeway meant it's more viable to play with character built more around rp angle than pure effectiveness. Why?

Modifié par tmp7704, 27 avril 2011 - 09:02 .

[IN1]

tmp7704 wrote...

Yes. Found the Hard mode with some self-imposed restrictions more fun in both ultimately though -- the extra leeway meant it's more viable to play with character built more around rp angle than pure effectiveness. Why?

And... based on this experience, you are still undecided as to which NM mode is more challenging?

[tmp7704]

IN1 wrote...

And... based on this experience, you are still undecided as to which NM mode is more challenging?

I've played DAO refraining from pot use. Frequently the party wouldn't have a healer with it or even a mage at all. Didn't see much fun in using the Mana Clash etc. With DA2 i figured pots were ok given they can no longer be spammed. And the fights dragged on and were tedious enough it provided extra incentive to maximize just to get done with things.

So, with that setup being what the base of my experience on i can't really say one was obviously harder than the other. Can DAO be cheesed through much easier if one focuses on it? Yes. How much of that is however the result of difficulty switches, and how much a result of certain mechanics and skills in DAO which render everything the game attempted to throw at you trivial?

(and how any of this affects the typical player who complains the Normal of DAO was too hard? Not that many people is going to experience either game on its top difficulty level)

Modifié par tmp7704, 27 avril 2011 - 09:21 .

[Lyvean]

IN1 wrote...

Also, a game shouldn't be judged on it's highest difficulty setting but on it's default, a.k.a. "normal", difficulty and "normal" difficulty in DA2 is a lot easier than it was in DA:O.

Why? It is much more logical to determine game challenge rating by the highest built-in difficulty setting, of course. 

How is it more logical? What on earth are you on about?

A game's difficulty should -and is- always be measured on its NORMAL difficulty. Every other difficulty, be it easy or hard or whatever is an artifical enhanced mode for players who want something more difficult or something easier.

Normal is what I'm playing because I want to be challenged but not be unfairly overwhelmed. Normal in DA2 has no use of tactics - AT ALL. It's the definition of easy and it breaks the game. 

Instead of trying to defend this complete **** of a game, this total cash-in, why don't you actually try to make some sense by analysing the real problems of this game?

I wonder, isn't BioWare humiliated enough by having its people artificially boosting the metacritic scores? Or maybe they are still trying to attract some attention in order to survive another humiliation at the hands of Witcher 2 and Skyrim? 

Has BioWare really stooped so low? I for one -and many people I know- won't even bother with The Old Republic. We don't want to give money to a company with such mentality... Ah, how times have changed, eh?

Modifié par Lyvean, 27 avril 2011 - 09:48 .

[IN1]

A game's difficulty should -and is- always be measured on its NORMAL difficulty.

Can you provide a source, please? Your imaginary "everybody knows" is not good enough, sorry.

Instead of trying to defend this complete **** of a game, this total cash-in, why don't you actually try to make some sense by analysing the real problems of this game?

You mean, why don't I join the chorus of ass-wounded (ex-)fans for some mighty ****ing and whining + great jokes about AWESOME button & Mike Laidlaw?

First and foremost, because I find this kind of behavior immature and repulsive. Secondly, because I prefer to focus on the aspects of the game that lie within my area of competence, so to say. These aspects are very solid, and a huge improvement over glitchy, messy, chaotic DAO combat mechanics. 

[Lyvean]

IN1 wrote...

A game's difficulty should -and is- always be measured on its NORMAL difficulty.

Can you provide a source, please? Your imaginary "everybody knows" is not good enough, sorry.

Instead of trying to defend this complete **** of a game, this total cash-in, why don't you actually try to make some sense by analysing the real problems of this game?

You mean, why don't I join the chorus of ass-wounded (ex-)fans for some mighty ****ing and whining + great jokes about AWESOME button & Mike Laidlaw?

First and foremost, because I find this kind of behavior immature and repulsive. Secondly, because I prefer to focus on the aspects of the game that lie within my area of competence, so to say. These aspects are very solid, and a huge improvement over glitchy, messy, chaotic DAO combat mechanics. 

They are actually not. The combat mechanics provide nothing interesting and new. In fact, because of their action-oriented design and the faster battles, they just become simple "press a button" mechanics, that they are not good for an RPG and not good for an action game. 

And if my reaction is immature, I wonder how we will call BioWare's reacton on trying to artifically boost the scores of their game... It's so sad...

[Yrkoon]

IN1 wrote...

A game's difficulty should -and is- always be measured on its NORMAL difficulty.

Can you provide a source, please? .

  Say what?  You want a source that proves that games ship with a default setting typically called "normal"  or "core" or "default"  or other specific descriptors that plainly  and obviously suggest that  "this is  the standard difficulty setting,  but feel free to adjust it up or down to your tastes"?  -    with these adjustments basically being  "easier than default",  'Harder than default', and 'insanely harder than default?'

Modifié par Yrkoon, 27 avril 2011 - 11:19 .

[Ulicus]

Speaking as a console player (sorry -- I'll get the PC versions eventually, if only for the mods), all I know is that DA:O-A's combat is practically unplayable having got used to DA2. I feel like I'm wading through mud in that game, now.

But, of course, DA:O played an awful lot better on the PC than consoles, so I hear, so I can imagine why -- if both console and PC versions of DA2 are similiar -- the PC group would feel it was a step down. I'd miss an isometric view, too.

I don't know how much of my preference for DA2's gameplay has to do with the mechanics over the game simply running so much more smoothly. It definitely didn't feel like "lawl awesome button to me" when I played on nightmare. It was very tactical.

Though I only started playing after the patch that reintroduced auto-attack. If I'd had to hammer the button all the time I'd have probably got very annoyed, very fast.

Modifié par Ulicus, 27 avril 2011 - 11:50 .

[mdugger12]

IN1 wrote...

A game's difficulty should -and is- always be measured on its NORMAL difficulty.

Can you provide a source, please? Your imaginary "everybody knows" is not good enough, sorry.

Instead of trying to defend this complete **** of a game, this total cash-in, why don't you actually try to make some sense by analysing the real problems of this game?

You mean, why don't I join the chorus of ass-wounded (ex-)fans for some mighty ****ing and whining + great jokes about AWESOME button & Mike Laidlaw?

First and foremost, because I find this kind of behavior immature and repulsive. Secondly, because I prefer to focus on the aspects of the game that lie within my area of competence, so to say. These aspects are very solid, and a huge improvement over glitchy, messy, chaotic DAO combat mechanics. 

100% Agree

Facts are Facts

[Persephone]

IN1 wrote...

A game's difficulty should -and is- always be measured on its NORMAL difficulty.

Can you provide a source, please? Your imaginary "everybody knows" is not good enough, sorry.

Instead of trying to defend this complete **** of a game, this total cash-in, why don't you actually try to make some sense by analysing the real problems of this game?

You mean, why don't I join the chorus of ass-wounded (ex-)fans for some mighty ****ing and whining + great jokes about AWESOME button & Mike Laidlaw?

First and foremost, because I find this kind of behavior immature and repulsive. Secondly, because I prefer to focus on the aspects of the game that lie within my area of competence, so to say. These aspects are very solid, and a huge improvement over glitchy, messy, chaotic DAO combat mechanics. 

+1

This is what really annoys me. This "broken disc" excuse for "wit" by derailing positive threads/attacking favorable posts with "I just bet you luff ze Awezum Button, console brat!" and "How much did Mike "Lamelaw" pay ya to post this?" nonsense. It wasn't even very funny the first time. I remember DAO haters making up a similar joke based on the MM trailer: "This is the new sh*t." Pathetic, really.

Modifié par Persephone, 27 avril 2011 - 12:43 .

[Zippy72]

Oh my goodness - this thread is fantastic!
There's nothing like proof to win an argument. Can I come out of the 'I like DA2' closet now?

[nicethugbert]

DA:O characters move with absolutely no sense of urgency in combat and that is an immersion killer and totally uneccessary considering the pause button. DA2's increased movement and attack speeds are huge immersion boosters for me.

[Persephone]

Zippy72 wrote...

Oh my goodness - this thread is fantastic!
There's nothing like proof to win an argument. Can I come out of the 'I like DA2' closet now?

Joooooooooooooin the Dark Side!

We have......er.........cheese!!:happy:

[Persephone]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Zippy72 wrote...

Oh my goodness - this thread is fantastic!
There's nothing like proof to win an argument. Can I come out of the 'I like DA2' closet now?

Joooooooooooooin the Dark Side!

We have......er.........cheese!!:happy:

Shush, I'm trying to indoctri....-er....recruit here.

[Statulos]

Persephone wrote...

IN1 wrote...

A game's difficulty should -and is- always be measured on its NORMAL difficulty.

Can you provide a source, please? Your imaginary "everybody knows" is not good enough, sorry.

Instead of trying to defend this complete **** of a game, this total cash-in, why don't you actually try to make some sense by analysing the real problems of this game?

You mean, why don't I join the chorus of ass-wounded (ex-)fans for some mighty ****ing and whining + great jokes about AWESOME button & Mike Laidlaw?

First and foremost, because I find this kind of behavior immature and repulsive. Secondly, because I prefer to focus on the aspects of the game that lie within my area of competence, so to say. These aspects are very solid, and a huge improvement over glitchy, messy, chaotic DAO combat mechanics. 

+1

This is what really annoys me. This "broken disc" excuse for "wit" by derailing positive threads/attacking favorable posts with "I just bet you luff ze Awezum Button, console brat!" and "How much did Mike "Lamelaw" pay ya to post this?" nonsense. It wasn't even very funny the first time. I remember DAO haters making up a similar joke based on the MM trailer: "This is the new sh*t." Pathetic, really.

It's hard to beat CD Projekt taking Vader to do songs about games...

[Tigerman123]

Normal is for people who haven't played an RPG before, but want to be able to beat the game, slowly mastering the mechanics as they progress, so normal is just a euphemism for easy, which goes for most other games as well

[Dormiglione]

Now im really curious. How should the highest difficulty of a game tell you how challenging it is? I have beaten Gears of War 1 and Gears of War 2 alone on "insane". I have beaten Halo Reach and Halo 3 on my own on legendary. And now, what does this tell me? Is Gears 1 more challenging than Halo 3? Is Halo 3 more callenging as Halo Reach?

It tells me absolute nothing. Each of this games has its own mechanics and you need another tactic to beat the game.