673 réponses à ce sujet

[Luvinn]

Take nothing from TW2. Take everything from DA:O.

Seriously, i love both those games (TW2 more i think), but i don't want these completely different games to slowly become identical to one another. Blow up the formula that was DA2, fire the whole staff, do something, but go back to the formula that sucked all of us in to Dragon Age in the first place. I liked DA:O for what it was, and would like the series to keep its own identity.

[Zanallen]

Make DA 3 a side-scrolling action platformer with puzzle aspects.

[erynnar]

Marionetten wrote...

In Exile wrote...

No, you don't understand.

Let me try to be more blunt:

Do you think that alienating potential fans is good? Not having a varied set of difficulties does just that. You are, essentially, praising the game for not making a small and otherwise negligible effort to include some other gamers. Other than showing the middle finger to those gamers, there's no reason not to have a causal mode.

You still don't get it.

For every Ariella I'm sure there's a person who is absolutely loving The Witcher 2 on easy right about now and would be devastated if CD Projekt RED changed it. How are they less deserving? The simple truth here is that you can't cater to everyone. Just by making the game twitch based they excluded a whole lot of people. The difficulties are varied but no amount of variation is going to cover every single person.

Um, *raises hand* I am one of those people. I am absolutely loving Witcher 2 on easy. The combat is just challenging enough for someone like me who plays for exploration and story.  But I am still feeling like a total badass mo'foer. I threw a guy into the air with my force rune and gutted him before he hit the ground! I got a cut away for that, and it was so awesome (yes, I am taking that word back for good not evil:lol:).

I threw a guy from the tower and listened to him scream as I put the beat down on two other guys. Oh, yeah. I am practicing my tactics so I can try normal and hard. I don't know I will ever do Nightmare in Witcher, that's a little too much challenge for me I think.

[Marionetten]

Ariella wrote...

They aren't less deserv ing, but why am I less deserving or those like me, hmm? In paid the same money, as every other Witcher owner in America did, and I'm not getting my money's worth because the "casual" mode isn't. I expect a modicrum of difficulty, but not death in the first minute or so of combat. I expect the hardest fights to be the boss fights, there I expect to die until I can learn the pattern and form tactics, not dying against a bunch of junk enemies in the first moments.

You aren't but it's still going to happen. It happens to me in more or less every single game nowadays. I can't get any satisfaction out of it because it's way too easy. As said, I suspect I know your frustrations all too well as it's the same thing I have to deal with every single time I unwrap a new product. The trick is finding a developer who caters to your interests first and foremost and sticking to them until they stop doing that.

[In Exile]

Marionetten wrote...
They could have five hundred difficulties and I'm sure someone would still feel left out. Different people have different expectations and all. What makes you think super easy would have been the perfect fit for Ariella and what makes you believe that there wouldn't be yet another person having difficulties with super easy and requesting yet another difficulty to be added because it's so damn easy according to you. Doesn't take any development time at all to tweak all those statistics. Nope!

There's clearly a cut-off. But there's a difference in mentality. You just praised them for intentionally making the easiest possible difficulty harder than the average easiest difficulty on the market. I'm saying you already have a benchmark: the market average. Now, certainly, the market could be a race to the bottom. But the thing is, people that want an easy experience in a game are clearly playing it for something other than the game itself (maybe because they want an interactive movie).

Now this is the kind of sentiment which got us Dragon Age II. BioWare thinking they could effectively cater to two distinct fanbases at once while simultaneously luring in new players. I'd rather CD Projekt RED keep doing whatever they're doing instead of taking tips from BioWare. It's not going to work for everyone but it works for me. As said, you say bad design I say great design. I'm afraid we're not going to get past that point.

It isn't about catering to anyone. Again - you design a game for your core fanbase, and then add some allowances for newcommers to the game or genre. It's what Bioware did for DA:O, and they sold 3+ million copies, won critical acclaim, etc.

Showing the middle finger to consumers is always bad design. It's what Bioware did for DA2.

You seem unable to understand that there is no need to change the core planning, core design, even QA for the game. Baby mode is just baby mode. All you need is a disclaimer.

[Marionetten]

In Exile wrote...

There's clearly a cut-off. But there's a difference in mentality. You just praised them for intentionally making the easiest possible difficulty harder than the average easiest difficulty on the market. I'm saying you already have a benchmark: the market average. Now, certainly, the market could be a race to the bottom. But the thing is, people that want an easy experience in a game are clearly playing it for something other than the game itself (maybe because they want an interactive movie).

I praise them for not catering to the market average. And as has already been proven in this thread, some people are actually enjoying The Witcher 2 on easy.

In Exile wrote...

It isn't about catering to anyone. Again - you design a game for your core fanbase, and then add some allowances for newcommers to the game or genre. It's what Bioware did for DA:O, and they sold 3+ million copies, won critical acclaim, etc.

Showing the middle finger to consumers is always bad design. It's what Bioware did for DA2.

You seem unable to understand that there is no need to change the core planning, core design, even QA for the game. Baby mode is just baby mode. All you need is a disclaimer.

It's all about catering to different expectations. Somebody is always going to get the middle finger.

[erynnar]

Luvinn wrote...

Take nothing from TW2. Take everything from DA:O.

Seriously, i love both those games (TW2 more i think), but i don't want these completely different games to slowly become identical to one another. Blow up the formula that was DA2, fire the whole staff, do something, but go back to the formula that sucked all of us in to Dragon Age in the first place. I liked DA:O for what it was, and would like the series to keep its own identity.

I personally think WItcher 2 is more like DAO myself. But I would like to keep my Witcher and DA seperate. I love them both for different reasons. DA3 needs to go back to DAO and do what DA2 didn't. Take what works, tweak what was meh and make it good or great, and fix what was broken. Take one of DA2's story plots and develope it, fix the plot holes. Tone down the speed on the combat to between DAO and DA2 levels. Drop the exploding bodies and anime, MMORPG, FPS, junk. Drop the waves. And less arcade more realism. Oh, and I think they are already trying to work on this hiring more enviornmental artists, no more obviously and painfully recycled areas. And for heaven's sake no more furniture people with mutated fuzzy faces. Pretty please.

[In Exile]

Marionetten wrote...
I praise them for not catering to the market average. And as has already been proven in this thread, some people are actually enjoying The Witcher 2 on easy.

As do I. Like I said: I really like the combat. But there is a market difference in designin an easy game, and allowing for a casual difficulty. One is a pre-production decision. The other is a post-production decision.

It's all about catering to different expectations. Somebody is always going to get the middle finger.

No. It's about catering to different markets. But there is a difference between not being able to do something, and actively choosing not to do it. From interviews, it sounds like the developers didn't consider that gamers that, well, suck might want to play their game.

Modifié par In Exile, 25 mai 2011 - 02:38 .

[Ariella]

Marionetten wrote...

Satyricon331 wrote...

Oh?  He doesn't define "light" anywhere in the article that I see.  He recognizes the game is difficult, explains "maybe" why that is, and says the easy mode should be easy.  The article's author created a framing issue by starting the article the way he did, but if you see past that issue then the developer seems to share Ariella's perspective.

He explains that the game was designed to be more difficult and that you shouldn't compare their normal difficulty to the normal difficulty of other games currently on the market. What makes you believe the same doesn't apply to easy? For me easy is indeed taking it light. For Ariella it isn't. For me Dragon Age II offers no challenge. For Ariella it does. Why must everything cater to one?

Please don't put words in my mouth, Marionetten. I don't play these games for challenge, I play them for fun. I have enough difficulty and challange in my real life. Video games are one of my more favorite escapes. I prefer puzzles, riddles, interacting with my companions, seeing the world I'm in rather than fighting. I've never been a fan of combat, especially twitch based combat. If I had my way, we'd go back to the truly old school turn based system. Might take longer, but it was a heck of a lot more fun, and I could actually plan attacks rather than having to worry about my reflexes being up to spec for the game. RPGs in particular shouldn't be about twitch.

I guess the irony of all this is that Bioware gets yelled at for trying to reach out to a twitch based game audience (CoD) and yet Witcher's whole combat system is twitch based but there's nothing.

[Marionetten]

In Exile wrote...

As do I. Like I said: I really like the combat. But there is a market difference in designin an easy game, and allowing for a casual difficulty. One is a pre-production decision. The other is a post-production decision.

They both require production time. Therein lies the issue.

In Exile wrote...

No. It's about catering to different markets. But there is a difference between not being able to do something, and actively choosing not to do it. From interviews, it sounds like the developers didn't consider that gamers that, well, suck might want to play their game.

... Or their definition of suck was just a bit different.

But as we're just going in circles here I'd like to impose a challenge. Name a single game which has successfully catered to everyone from newborn baby to grizzled neckbeard.

[Luvinn]

Ariella wrote...

I guess the irony of all this is that Bioware gets yelled at for trying to reach out to a twitch based game audience (CoD) and yet Witcher's whole combat system is twitch based but there's nothing.

I only had a problem with DA2's combat because that wasn't what i wanted in a Dragon Age game. Wasn't what i would expect after playing DA:O. It's like thinking you're going to drink water, but its really vodka.

The Witcher 2's combat is still similar to what it was in the first one. It's like ordering vodka, but its a different brand than what you ordered. Some might like it more, less or not even notice.

Another example would be like playing Final Fantasy, or any JRPG. You come to expect a certain style with those games. If they made the next FF look exactly like Dragon Age, i would hate it, even though i like both series equally. Its just not what i want in FF

Modifié par Luvinn, 25 mai 2011 - 02:48 .

[Marionetten]

Ariella wrote...

Please don't put words in my mouth, Marionetten. I don't play these games for challenge, I play them for fun. I have enough difficulty and challange in my real life. Video games are one of my more favorite escapes. I prefer puzzles, riddles, interacting with my companions, seeing the world I'm in rather than fighting. I've never been a fan of combat, especially twitch based combat. If I had my way, we'd go back to the truly old school turn based system. Might take longer, but it was a heck of a lot more fun, and I could actually plan attacks rather than having to worry about my reflexes being up to spec for the game. RPGs in particular shouldn't be about twitch.

It wasn't my intent to put words in your mouth as much as trying to clarify my own position. I experience the same frustration when it comes to most games today as I do play games for the challenge. While I'm not particularly awesome at twitch based experiences myself and prefer more cerebral ones I do still enjoy The Witcher 2. For me it offers a nice mix between the two with the slowdown letting me be bit a more tactical. But yes, I totally understand why it doesn't do the same for you. Different people, different expectations. 

That said, if you want to continue I'd suggest using Quen as much as possible. It really makes the game a whole lot easier as it pretty much lets you hack and slash away.

Ariella wrote...

I guess the irony of all this is that Bioware gets yelled at for trying to reach out to a twitch based game audience (CoD) and yet Witcher's whole combat system is twitch based but there's nothing.

The Witcher was a twitch based game, too. The outrage surrounding Dragon Age II has more to do with the fact that BioWare took one franchise and tried to bridge it to another.

Modifié par Marionetten, 25 mai 2011 - 02:51 .

[Ariella]

In Exile wrote...

Marionetten wrote...
I praise them for not catering to the market average. And as has already been proven in this thread, some people are actually enjoying The Witcher 2 on easy.

As do I. Like I said: I really like the combat. But there is a market difference in designin an easy game, and allowing for a casual difficulty. One is a pre-production decision. The other is a post-production decision.

It's all about catering to different expectations. Somebody is always going to get the middle finger.

No. It's about catering to different markets. But there is a difference between not being able to do something, and actively choosing not to do it. From interviews, it sounds like the developers didn't consider that gamers that, well, suck might want to play their game.

Gee thanks, I suck at games because I can't click a button fast enough, and I can't spam "fill in the blank" fast enough. That's silly and insulting. And I really wish you'd used a better term, In Exile.

There's also another problem, in I can't even look up the hotkeys within the game (dd from Gog, and I don't have a printer to print out the manual) so I don't even have access to a sheet that tells me what the darn keys do. At least, DA2 gives you tool tips as to skills. And as I pointed out, I can barely read the text in the tutorials and usually they come to late to be of any help.

I'm going to try again and again until I get it, but honestly, if you're going to have something labled casual, don't have it be the same difficulty as normal (which I tried too before I switched)

[erynnar]

Ariella wrote...

Marionetten wrote...

Satyricon331 wrote...

Oh?  He doesn't define "light" anywhere in the article that I see.  He recognizes the game is difficult, explains "maybe" why that is, and says the easy mode should be easy.  The article's author created a framing issue by starting the article the way he did, but if you see past that issue then the developer seems to share Ariella's perspective.

He explains that the game was designed to be more difficult and that you shouldn't compare their normal difficulty to the normal difficulty of other games currently on the market. What makes you believe the same doesn't apply to easy? For me easy is indeed taking it light. For Ariella it isn't. For me Dragon Age II offers no challenge. For Ariella it does. Why must everything cater to one?

Please don't put words in my mouth, Marionetten. I don't play these games for challenge, I play them for fun. I have enough difficulty and challange in my real life. Video games are one of my more favorite escapes. I prefer puzzles, riddles, interacting with my companions, seeing the world I'm in rather than fighting. I've never been a fan of combat, especially twitch based combat. If I had my way, we'd go back to the truly old school turn based system. Might take longer, but it was a heck of a lot more fun, and I could actually plan attacks rather than having to worry about my reflexes being up to spec for the game. RPGs in particular shouldn't be about twitch.

I guess the irony of all this is that Bioware gets yelled at for trying to reach out to a twitch based game audience (CoD) and yet Witcher's whole combat system is twitch based but there's nothing.

It wasn't jus that BioWare tried more twitch based combat Ari. I at least not for me. There aren't waves of teleporting or parachuting enemies in Witcher 2(as you know, LOL).  I don't have over the top blood and gore covering my screen, or having my enemies explode into puzzle pieces. If I lop a guy's arms off, or arm, or leg, it is more realistic in its physics. The combat is more twitchy in a way, but I still have to strategize and think about what I'm doing.  

DA2 (was DA2 twitchy, or just boring?), I didn't have to think, or stategize. I just had to deal with wave after wave. I hardly had to think. I put down AOEs and picked off individuals. I could let my group kill everyone without giving them instructions most of the time. Even on easy, Witcher is more engaging and fun, twitch or no.

[Ariella]

Luvinn wrote...

Ariella wrote...

I guess the irony of all this is that Bioware gets yelled at for trying to reach out to a twitch based game audience (CoD) and yet Witcher's whole combat system is twitch based but there's nothing.

I only had a problem with DA2's combat because that wasn't what i wanted in a Dragon Age game. Wasn't what i would expect after playing DA:O. It's like thinking you're going to drink water, but its really vodka.

The Witcher 2's combat is still similar to what it was in the first one. It's like ordering vodka, but its a different brand than what you ordered. Some might like it more, less or not even notice.

Another example would be like playing Final Fantasy, or any JRPG. You come to expect a certain style with those games. If they made the next FF look exactly like Dragon Age, i would hate it, even though i like both series equally. Its just not what i want in FF

That's the funny thing, as I never had that problem with DA2. I read and watched everything I could get my hands on about the game. I'm a spoiler junkie so that was natural for me. Plus I did see what the major whining was on the DAO forums back when it was released.

I think the biggest problem that the DA franchise suffers from is it doesn't have a unified mechanic system like a D&D or a WoD. I think they're still trying to find it. Witcher doesn't have that problem because with a ore build world, they didn't have to worry as much about creating the backstory. DA had to do both, and while they've got a great world, the mechanic isn't completely there in supporting it yet. Maybe they went to far with Da2, I don't know, as I did enjoy the game. Oh there were things I missed from DAO, but things I really liked too. It's all in the Balance, and I hope in DA3 they find it. I think they need to go back look at both games, look at what stood out as good in both and try and mix them together. Bioware need to find that identity. I believe that they can, given time, money, and fan support.

[Dragoonlordz]

http://www.esrb.org/...rtificate=31097

Looks like the console version for TW2 is going ahead this time.

[erynnar]

Ariella wrote...

Luvinn wrote...

Ariella wrote...

I guess the irony of all this is that Bioware gets yelled at for trying to reach out to a twitch based game audience (CoD) and yet Witcher's whole combat system is twitch based but there's nothing.

I only had a problem with DA2's combat because that wasn't what i wanted in a Dragon Age game. Wasn't what i would expect after playing DA:O. It's like thinking you're going to drink water, but its really vodka.

The Witcher 2's combat is still similar to what it was in the first one. It's like ordering vodka, but its a different brand than what you ordered. Some might like it more, less or not even notice.

Another example would be like playing Final Fantasy, or any JRPG. You come to expect a certain style with those games. If they made the next FF look exactly like Dragon Age, i would hate it, even though i like both series equally. Its just not what i want in FF

That's the funny thing, as I never had that problem with DA2. I read and watched everything I could get my hands on about the game. I'm a spoiler junkie so that was natural for me. Plus I did see what the major whining was on the DAO forums back when it was released.

I think the biggest problem that the DA franchise suffers from is it doesn't have a unified mechanic system like a D&D or a WoD. I think they're still trying to find it. Witcher doesn't have that problem because with a ore build world, they didn't have to worry as much about creating the backstory. DA had to do both, and while they've got a great world, the mechanic isn't completely there in supporting it yet. Maybe they went to far with Da2, I don't know, as I did enjoy the game. Oh there were things I missed from DAO, but things I really liked too. It's all in the Balance, and I hope in DA3 they find it. I think they need to go back look at both games, look at what stood out as good in both and try and mix them together. Bioware need to find that identity. I believe that they can, given time, money, and fan support.

You said it Ari! *HUGS*

[erynnar]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

http://www.esrb.org/...rtificate=31097

Looks like the console version for TW2 is going ahead this time.

YAY for my console friends!

[Ariella]

erynnar wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Marionetten wrote...

Satyricon331 wrote...

Oh?  He doesn't define "light" anywhere in the article that I see.  He recognizes the game is difficult, explains "maybe" why that is, and says the easy mode should be easy.  The article's author created a framing issue by starting the article the way he did, but if you see past that issue then the developer seems to share Ariella's perspective.

He explains that the game was designed to be more difficult and that you shouldn't compare their normal difficulty to the normal difficulty of other games currently on the market. What makes you believe the same doesn't apply to easy? For me easy is indeed taking it light. For Ariella it isn't. For me Dragon Age II offers no challenge. For Ariella it does. Why must everything cater to one?

Please don't put words in my mouth, Marionetten. I don't play these games for challenge, I play them for fun. I have enough difficulty and challange in my real life. Video games are one of my more favorite escapes. I prefer puzzles, riddles, interacting with my companions, seeing the world I'm in rather than fighting. I've never been a fan of combat, especially twitch based combat. If I had my way, we'd go back to the truly old school turn based system. Might take longer, but it was a heck of a lot more fun, and I could actually plan attacks rather than having to worry about my reflexes being up to spec for the game. RPGs in particular shouldn't be about twitch.

I guess the irony of all this is that Bioware gets yelled at for trying to reach out to a twitch based game audience (CoD) and yet Witcher's whole combat system is twitch based but there's nothing.

It wasn't jus that BioWare tried more twitch based combat Ari. I at least not for me. There aren't waves of teleporting or parachuting enemies in Witcher 2(as you know, LOL).  I don't have over the top blood and gore covering my screen, or having my enemies explode into puzzle pieces. If I lop a guy's arms off, or arm, or leg, it is more realistic in its physics. The combat is more twitchy in a way, but I still have to strategize and think about what I'm doing.  

DA2 (was DA2 twitchy, or just boring?), I didn't have to think, or stategize. I just had to deal with wave after wave. I hardly had to think. I put down AOEs and picked off individuals. I could let my group kill everyone without giving them instructions most of the time. Even on easy, Witcher is more engaging and fun, twitch or no.

I've got guys on top of me yelling "Kill the Witcher!" coming from every direction and I don't have a single ally to help me keep them off. I can't  tactical pause the game, and I can't pull up the hot keys to see what's connected to which in game, so all I have are my two little mouse buttons with fast and strong attacks.

I guess I can either write all the darn keys down (which is annoying) or I can windows mode and hit escape then go to the witcher launcher and pull the hot keys up. Either way, not having the reference at my finger tips is a pain in the butt, and just adds unnneed difficulty to the learning curve.

[erynnar]

Ariella wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Marionetten wrote...

Satyricon331 wrote...

Oh?  He doesn't define "light" anywhere in the article that I see.  He recognizes the game is difficult, explains "maybe" why that is, and says the easy mode should be easy.  The article's author created a framing issue by starting the article the way he did, but if you see past that issue then the developer seems to share Ariella's perspective.

He explains that the game was designed to be more difficult and that you shouldn't compare their normal difficulty to the normal difficulty of other games currently on the market. What makes you believe the same doesn't apply to easy? For me easy is indeed taking it light. For Ariella it isn't. For me Dragon Age II offers no challenge. For Ariella it does. Why must everything cater to one?

Please don't put words in my mouth, Marionetten. I don't play these games for challenge, I play them for fun. I have enough difficulty and challange in my real life. Video games are one of my more favorite escapes. I prefer puzzles, riddles, interacting with my companions, seeing the world I'm in rather than fighting. I've never been a fan of combat, especially twitch based combat. If I had my way, we'd go back to the truly old school turn based system. Might take longer, but it was a heck of a lot more fun, and I could actually plan attacks rather than having to worry about my reflexes being up to spec for the game. RPGs in particular shouldn't be about twitch.

I guess the irony of all this is that Bioware gets yelled at for trying to reach out to a twitch based game audience (CoD) and yet Witcher's whole combat system is twitch based but there's nothing.

It wasn't jus that BioWare tried more twitch based combat Ari. I at least not for me. There aren't waves of teleporting or parachuting enemies in Witcher 2(as you know, LOL).  I don't have over the top blood and gore covering my screen, or having my enemies explode into puzzle pieces. If I lop a guy's arms off, or arm, or leg, it is more realistic in its physics. The combat is more twitchy in a way, but I still have to strategize and think about what I'm doing.  

DA2 (was DA2 twitchy, or just boring?), I didn't have to think, or stategize. I just had to deal with wave after wave. I hardly had to think. I put down AOEs and picked off individuals. I could let my group kill everyone without giving them instructions most of the time. Even on easy, Witcher is more engaging and fun, twitch or no.

I've got guys on top of me yelling "Kill the Witcher!" coming from every direction and I don't have a single ally to help me keep them off. I can't  tactical pause the game, and I can't pull up the hot keys to see what's connected to which in game, so all I have are my two little mouse buttons with fast and strong attacks.

I guess I can either write all the darn keys down (which is annoying) or I can windows mode and hit escape then go to the witcher launcher and pull the hot keys up. Either way, not having the reference at my finger tips is a pain in the butt, and just adds unnneed difficulty to the learning curve.

Yeah, I can see that being a pain. But I am not having that problem. I guess because I data entry all day long? So I memorized the hotkeys fast I guess. I just use my force rune "q" and and wasd for movement.  Tend to hit some then tumble away, take another down in hit points go back to the first one.  I really don't know why I am doing so well, nor having so much fun. ME2 controls are like Witcher 2 for you to me. I got really frustrated (and I still am) with ME2's controls. I know I'll learn them. But they aren't intuitive to me. ROFL! And pause isn't helping. 

[In Exile]

Marionetten wrote...
They both require production time. Therein lies the issue.

But it's the difference between DA:O and DAII as a result. Saying it's just a matter of production time misses the point.

In Exile wrote...
... Or their definition of suck was just a bit different.

But as we're just going in circles here I'd like to impose a challenge. Name a single game which has successfully catered to everyone from newborn baby to grizzled neckbeard.

Maybe. But according to you, it wasn't. What I'm saying isn't that the developers wanted something different. It's that if you're right, they're just jerks who lied to gamers.

Ariella wrote...
Gee thanks, I suck at games because I can't
click a button fast enough, and I can't spam "fill in the blank" fast
enough. That's silly and insulting. And I really wish you'd used a
better term, In Exile.

I apologize for giving offence. But by your own admission, this game is far from your strength. I'd be willing to bet my weight in gold CD Projekt didn't really consider gamers who couldn't click a button fast enough to be part of their audience at all.

ETA:

Again, I apologize.

I'm
going to try again and again until I get it, but honestly, if you're
going to have something labled casual, don't have it be the same
difficulty as normal (which I tried too before I switched)

Easy is easier than normal. It just changes the dmg resistances & renegeration, I believe.

Modifié par In Exile, 25 mai 2011 - 03:21 .

[Arcan57]

It's not that Bioware needs to take pointers from TW2. They know how to create fun, engaging, epic games. They just didn't with DA2. They were horribly rushed and took away some of the wrong lessons from their other on-going series. ME1 to ME2 featured a relatively substantial switch in gameplay, with a more arcade, more simplified system. The change worked really well and sold tons of units. It was a decent enough shooter to draw in some FPS players while keeping the character interaction/role-playing elements strong enough to please KOTOR fans.

Trying to go for crossover appeal is more difficult for a tactical, pausable real-time combat RPG. DA2 ended up with combat that was boring from a tactical standpoint for reasons well described in other threads but didn't have the combo twitch of a good third-person action game (God of War). I actually think DA2 would have been a better game if it had used dynamic dodging system (I kept pressing space to roll forward early on, like in Jade Empire). It will be interesting to see if they decide to complete the transformation into action game (ala ME) or take the series back to a more BG/DA:O style. I'd be disappointed if it becomes an action series, but if they did it right I'd still buy it. I'd be ectastic if they brought back DA:O style gameplay, since it doesn't really exist anywhere else.

[erynnar]

Ariella wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Marionetten wrote...

Satyricon331 wrote...

Oh?  He doesn't define "light" anywhere in the article that I see.  He recognizes the game is difficult, explains "maybe" why that is, and says the easy mode should be easy.  The article's author created a framing issue by starting the article the way he did, but if you see past that issue then the developer seems to share Ariella's perspective.

He explains that the game was designed to be more difficult and that you shouldn't compare their normal difficulty to the normal difficulty of other games currently on the market. What makes you believe the same doesn't apply to easy? For me easy is indeed taking it light. For Ariella it isn't. For me Dragon Age II offers no challenge. For Ariella it does. Why must everything cater to one?

Please don't put words in my mouth, Marionetten. I don't play these games for challenge, I play them for fun. I have enough difficulty and challange in my real life. Video games are one of my more favorite escapes. I prefer puzzles, riddles, interacting with my companions, seeing the world I'm in rather than fighting. I've never been a fan of combat, especially twitch based combat. If I had my way, we'd go back to the truly old school turn based system. Might take longer, but it was a heck of a lot more fun, and I could actually plan attacks rather than having to worry about my reflexes being up to spec for the game. RPGs in particular shouldn't be about twitch.

I guess the irony of all this is that Bioware gets yelled at for trying to reach out to a twitch based game audience (CoD) and yet Witcher's whole combat system is twitch based but there's nothing.

It wasn't jus that BioWare tried more twitch based combat Ari. I at least not for me. There aren't waves of teleporting or parachuting enemies in Witcher 2(as you know, LOL).  I don't have over the top blood and gore covering my screen, or having my enemies explode into puzzle pieces. If I lop a guy's arms off, or arm, or leg, it is more realistic in its physics. The combat is more twitchy in a way, but I still have to strategize and think about what I'm doing.  

DA2 (was DA2 twitchy, or just boring?), I didn't have to think, or stategize. I just had to deal with wave after wave. I hardly had to think. I put down AOEs and picked off individuals. I could let my group kill everyone without giving them instructions most of the time. Even on easy, Witcher is more engaging and fun, twitch or no.

I've got guys on top of me yelling "Kill the Witcher!" coming from every direction and I don't have a single ally to help me keep them off. I can't  tactical pause the game, and I can't pull up the hot keys to see what's connected to which in game, so all I have are my two little mouse buttons with fast and strong attacks.

I guess I can either write all the darn keys down (which is annoying) or I can windows mode and hit escape then go to the witcher launcher and pull the hot keys up. Either way, not having the reference at my finger tips is a pain in the butt, and just adds unnneed difficulty to the learning curve.

Ari, there is a pause button of sorts...the ctrl button. It isn't full stop like in DAO or DA2 but it slo mo so you can plan.

[TheTranzor]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

http://www.esrb.org/...rtificate=31097

Looks like the console version for TW2 is going ahead this time.

Sweet, idiot console jockeys rejoice! 

[Luvinn]

Arcan57 wrote...

It's not that Bioware needs to take pointers from TW2. They know how to create fun, engaging, epic games. They just didn't with DA2. They were horribly rushed and took away some of the wrong lessons from their other on-going series. ME1 to ME2 featured a relatively substantial switch in gameplay, with a more arcade, more simplified system. The change worked really well and sold tons of units. It was a decent enough shooter to draw in some FPS players while keeping the character interaction/role-playing elements strong enough to please KOTOR fans.

Trying to go for crossover appeal is more difficult for a tactical, pausable real-time combat RPG. DA2 ended up with combat that was boring from a tactical standpoint for reasons well described in other threads but didn't have the combo twitch of a good third-person action game (God of War). I actually think DA2 would have been a better game if it had used dynamic dodging system (I kept pressing space to roll forward early on, like in Jade Empire). It will be interesting to see if they decide to complete the transformation into action game (ala ME) or take the series back to a more BG/DA:O style. I'd be disappointed if it becomes an action series, but if they did it right I'd still buy it. I'd be ectastic if they brought back DA:O style gameplay, since it doesn't really exist anywhere else.

This is pretty much how i feel. I know they want to reach a wider range of gamers, but you aren't ever going to appeal to everyone. Were they actually trying to reach the fps crowd? I know too many of them to know that they will never get into rpg's. My brother is a classic example; i tried to get him to play ME2 forever, finally get him to try it, and within 10 minutes he is fast forwarding dialoge to be able to shoot people. 

Simple fact is theres better choices for people wanting a purely action game that it makes no sense to move from the rpg base that have been playing the games for years. Think coffee. It is good hot or cold, but if its room temp, its kind of meh. Instead of trying to do 2 things, focus on one and do it well. There will always be a loyal base in every genre. And who knows, you might get new players if its done really well too.