17 réponses à ce sujet

[Fisto The Sexbot]

 
By now I guess most people interested know that the AoD beta has been released. I downloaded a new version of the beta client, and apprently there are some references to Dragon Age 2 that I've unfortunately missed the first time:





Crappy forum may minimize the pictures taken, so if you can't see them... just get the beta (or press ctrl+mouse wheel to zoom in)! It's a fairly small download. Just take the 'Awesome' button when starting a new game.

Modifié par Fisto The Sexbot, 13 mai 2012 - 08:35 .

[wsandista]

Awesome Button is obviously much more tactical than positioning, good use of traps, or properly built characters, since you have to tactically time the speed which you press it to avoid carpal tunnel syndrome.

[LolaLei]

What's AoD about?

[In Exile]

A message that basically says:

"This game is hard, for people who are SPECIAL and stand above the UNWASHED MASSES. If you can click the PATRONIZING and DEMEANING button labelled "AWESOME", or you can play the REAL GAME."

Is not the way to go.

But assuming the message was written so as not to be insulting, there are still three problems:

1) That message has no real explanation of difficulty. Saying you have a premade overpowered character tells you nothing about how hard the game will be.

2) What if people want to roleplay without challenging combat?

3) Why are people stuck with a pre-made character if they don't want the challenging combat?

Modifié par In Exile, 14 mai 2012 - 04:30 .

[Malsumis]

Don't like VD, but his game is looks good. Actual C&C, real character building and interesting tactical gameplay.

Too bad the graphics are poor, and therefore be dismissed by many gamers.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

In Exile wrote...

A message that basically says:

"This game is hard, for people who are SPECIAL and stand above the UNWASHED MASSES. If you can click the PATRONIZING and DEMEANING button labelled "AWESOME", or you can play the REAL GAME."

Is not the way to go.

But assuming the message was written so as not to be insulting, there are still three problems:

1) That message has no real explanation of difficulty. Saying you have a premade overpowered character tells you nothing about how hard the game will be.

2) What if people want to roleplay without challenging combat?

3) Why are people stuck with a pre-made character if they don't want the challenging combat?

You seem a bit clueless, and I think this is going to be a pain in the ass, but combat can be avoided in this game, as opposed to 90% of BioWare's content. 

I'm not entirely sure what would constitute a 'real' explanation of a difficulty setting. There are only two difficulty settings as it is: Awesome and Normal. If you can't handle Normal you'd obviously be left with Awesome (and playing a pre-made character). I think the lack of a difficulty setting is a good idea. It makes actions carry weight, and consequences to starting a fight in the game can often prove fatal.

If you want combat, but want it to be less challenging, then, y'know, trial and error.

Modifié par Fisto The Sexbot, 14 mai 2012 - 05:00 .

[areuexperienced]

Trial and error doesn't really fly when you don't have heaps of free time on your hands, nor is it fun for everybody. I like to play RPGs but don't feel that hard/challenging combat is an integral part of it. Sure, it adds to the experience for some people (me included, at least mostly) but sometimes you just want to see what happens next without having to reload a billion times because you got owned yet again.

Just my two cents, this game looks like it's worth a try.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

wsandista wrote...

Awesome Button is obviously much more tactical than positioning, good use of traps, or properly built characters, since you have to tactically time the speed which you press it to avoid carpal tunnel syndrome.

Play as a battle-hardened veteran of an unknown origin! (or veterancy for that matter!) Discover the awesomeness that runs through your blood! Be Awesome in combat just because you have A Great Destiny™ lying before you and are Just Better than the worthless plebs that adore your heroism!

Don't let something like 'stats' or 'character build' get between you and the action.

I'm confident that most Dragon Age 2 fanbros here (no offence) would get their asses kicked in this game. Heck, I got my ass kicked (but I went and got it back).

And if you thought the Witcher 2 was 'hard', you might as well just GTFO. :P:P

Modifié par Fisto The Sexbot, 14 mai 2012 - 05:11 .

[Fisto The Sexbot]

areuexperienced wrote...

Trial and error doesn't really fly when you don't have heaps of free time on your hands, nor is it fun for everybody. I like to play RPGs but don't feel that hard/challenging combat is an integral part of it. Sure, it adds to the experience for some people (me included, at least mostly) but sometimes you just want to see what happens next without having to reload a billion times because you got owned yet again.

Just my two cents, this game looks like it's worth a try.

Virtually all combat can be avoided anyway. I personally don't think combat has to be part of a roleplaying experience at all. It's just another side of it imo.

[wsandista]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Awesome Button is obviously much more tactical than positioning, good use of traps, or properly built characters, since you have to tactically time the speed which you press it to avoid carpal tunnel syndrome.

Play as a battle-hardened veteran of an unknown origin! (or veterancy for that matter!) Discover the awesomeness that runs through your blood! Be Awesome in combat just because you have A Great Destiny™ lying before you and are Just Better than the worthless plebs that adore your heroism!

Don't let something like 'stats' or 'character build' get between you and the action.

I'm confident that most Dragon Age 2 fanbros here (no offence) would get their asses kicked in this game. Heck, I got my ass kicked (but I went and got it back).

And if you thought the Witcher 2 was 'hard', you might as well just GTFO. :P:P

Witcher 2! Hard! HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Most DA2 fanbros got their butts handed to them in "Hard" on DAO:lol:

[LeBurns]

Sorry but what is AoD, and am I supposed to know what that means?

[Chaos Lord Malek]

LeBurns wrote...

Sorry but what is AoD, and am I supposed to know what that means?

LeBurns, AoD stands for Age of Decadence. Its a post-apocalytpic RPG something like Fallout, but instead of future, its in past - in the 'Roman' era. So you got houses controlling cities, that were left from destroyed empire.

And its not that hard actually.

If you play 'talking' type of character, you don't have to fight at all, and game plays more like an adventure. I played it with Merchant girl and it was very enjoyable, and i will definitely play the full game as well.

Modifié par Chaos Lord Malek, 14 mai 2012 - 07:37 .

[In Exile]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...
You seem a bit clueless, and I think this is going to be a pain in the ass, but combat can be avoided in this game, as opposed to 90% of BioWare's content. 

You're wrong. I didn't assume combat was mandatory. I assumed someone wanted to RP a warrior. Who would then solve quests through combat.

I'm not entirely sure what would constitute a 'real' explanation of a difficulty setting.

If we're not going insult the intelligence of our player-base, it would involve an exhaustive description of how each difficulty modifies AI, enemy stats, PC stats, etc. So that we can calcuate the outcomes of character designs and encounters.

There are only two difficulty settings as it is: Awesome and Normal. If you can't handle Normal you'd obviously be left with Awesome (and playing a pre-made character).

i.e., you'd be told your own gaming preferences are meaningless so someone can felate themselves about being hardcore. Case in point, see the DA2 "fanbro" poster.

I think the lack of a difficulty setting is a good idea. It makes actions carry weight, and consequences to starting a fight in the game can often prove fatal.

I think not having saves really makes things carry weight. Do you want to survive by sleeping or eating food, or being good at video-games? Hard choices, buster.

Gaming experiences should be customizable.

If you want combat, but want it to be less challenging, then, y'know, trial and error.

To quote myself:

"i.e., you'd be told your own gaming preferences are meaningless so
someone can felate themselves about being hardcore. Case in point, see
the DA2 "dudebro" poster. "

Modifié par In Exile, 14 mai 2012 - 10:56 .

[Fisto The Sexbot]

In Exile wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...
You seem a bit clueless, and I think this is going to be a pain in the ass, but combat can be avoided in this game, as opposed to 90% of BioWare's content. 

You're wrong. I didn't assume combat was mandatory. I assumed someone wanted to RP a warrior. Who would then solve quests through combat.

You're wrong. I didn't assume anything about your assumptions (other than answering pre-emptively since you deliberately left your questions vague because you think you're a 'good debater'. For the record, you're not.); I just think talking with you would be a pain in the ass, and by all accounts, that seems to hold true.

If we're not going insult the intelligence of our player-base, it would involve an exhaustive description of how each difficulty modifies AI, enemy stats, PC stats, etc. So that we can calcuate the outcomes of character designs and encounters.

I'm not exactly sure how many 'hardcore' games have that (most games in general don't seem to show modifiers when selecting a difficulty), or why that would be a requirement to insult someone's intelligence, or a requirement for an admission to being able to classify the game as hardcore. 

I would think the difficulty setting is intended to be redundant itself, made for people who obviously don't care about the triviality of character builds or stats. If you want to make a point about the lack of something in a game, you'd have to demonstrate why it should be there. So far you only said it should be there because you yourself think it's a lack, or because you didn't like how the developers acted all 1337 when they did that.

i.e., you'd be told your own gaming preferences are meaningless so someone can felate themselves about being hardcore. Case in point, see the DA2 "fanbro" poster.

Your gaming preferences are what decide whether you want a game like Age of Decadence or Dragon Age II. For many players (like me), Dragon Age II lacks what they want from an RPG. That doesn't really mean that BioWare thought my tastes would be 'meaningless' (nor would I see a reason to care if it were so), just not in line with my preferences.

You find the 'attitude' of the game insulting, but that's not quite true. The game just assumes intelligence/competence/basic ability from the player. It's quite the opposite I'd say, of being insulting.

I think the lack of a difficulty setting is a good idea. It makes actions carry weight, and consequences to starting a fight in the game can often prove fatal.

I think not having saves really makes things carry weight. Do you want to survive by sleeping or eating food, or being good at video-games? Hard choices, buster.

I think the game really has way too many pointless sidequests. I just want a button that lets me skip to the most critical moments in the plot, and win the game. I also want to have Awesome in my blood so that my character is inexplicably Good at Fighting, becomes The Chosen One, and leaves a trail of corpses in his wake.

There's a difference between a broken feature (not being able to save the game, basically making the average-length RPG unplayable if you ever turn off the game and your computer), between making a game hard. A hard game is not automatically broken, and creating a hard game is not an excuse for having broken or bad features. I'm not surprised that you can't tell the difference (but if you want me to, I will).

And yes, are you dumb? Of course I'd like a game that lets me eat food and sleep to survive. I f***** played Lone Survivor a while ago for that matter. At least know the elitist demographic when you're trying to build up a straw man.

Gaming experiences should be customizable.

Hm, you already seem to assume that I do not think the game is customizable.

If you want combat, but want it to be less challenging, then, y'know, trial and error.

To quote myself:

"i.e., you'd be told your own gaming preferences are meaningless so
someone can felate themselves about being hardcore. Case in point, see
the DA2 "dudebro" poster. "

If you think trial and error (the most basic and effective way of learning how to play the game, in my opinion) is tantamount to the game's creators insulting you because they did not customize the game rules to your every desire then just imagine how people who like Age of Decadence should feel, in a market saturated with junk like Dragon Age 2.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Chaos Lord Malek wrote...

LeBurns wrote...

Sorry but what is AoD, and am I supposed to know what that means?

LeBurns, AoD stands for Age of Decadence. Its a post-apocalytpic RPG something like Fallout, but instead of future, its in past - in the 'Roman' era. So you got houses controlling cities, that were left from destroyed empire.

And its not that hard actually.

If you play 'talking' type of character, you don't have to fight at all, and game plays more like an adventure. I played it with Merchant girl and it was very enjoyable, and i will definitely play the full game as well.

If you don't fight, sure, then it's really easy. But if you do...

The game is not an exclusivity club for 1337 people who only play indie games or **** like that. It's meant for people who want a roleplaying experience imo and that's exactly what I believe the joke difficulty/character background is meant to insult in Dragon Age II: the lack of being able to build your own RPG avatar that doesn't get special plot treatment, not combat difficulty.

[jimmy_smith]

AoD combat is hard, I mean REALLY hard.

If you don't focus all skill points into combat skill and done all quests to get all skill point,
then some combat will be impossible to win
and if you don't have high enough social skill to avoid combat, it's dead end for you.

Ever pure combat build can't catwalk in this game,
you need to reload like 10-20 times to win the hardest fight in demo.

IMO the creator of this game is insane(both in good way and bad way).

For combat viewpoint only
First, they're build a challenging game but can winnable if you know what to do(combat demo)

Then, they're build a near-unbeatable game but turn out to be a piece of cake
if you're min-max the system and know everything before hand.(Beta 1)

Now(Beta 2), they're build an impossible to win game
unless you're min-max and blessing with math goddess(or reload until you're blessing)

I'm already beat the hardest fight in beta 2 but that's because I'm min-max the system and keep reload until I win

AoD is my no.1 anticipate indie game, but the game direction is concern me.

It's seem like the creator will make the game harder and harder until no one can beat their game

make hard game ----> no one can win---->time past and someone can win---->make it harder----->no one can win---->........
loop is going on and on

Modifié par jimmy_smith, 15 mai 2012 - 07:31 .

[HanErlik]

AoD is almost ready to be released, Diablo 3 has been released. What is next? Judgment day?

Modifié par HanErlik, 15 mai 2012 - 08:16 .

[Chaoz1994]

Goddamn, just beat the arena in the combat beta. That was really hard! I felt my build (dodge/crit) relied way too much on RNG though - if I got a good crit and dodged everything it was easy, else I got annihilated. Aimed shot head seemed to be the best way to do things most of the time.