254 réponses à ce sujet

[LPPrince]

74 Wrex wrote...

I don't know what some people find hard on casual difficulty

Thats the core of the problem with some people- they just can't understand how someone can be worse at something than they are.

Example- Playing Modern Warfare 2 multiplayer a long time ago with my ex watching(who was a gamer mind you) I handed her the controller and let her play for a bit.

0 kills, 9 deaths. Dear lord.

"Hand me the friggen controller back"

10 kills, 9 deaths.

My point being that you have to keep in mind that not everyone plays with the same skill that you do(not you specifically, I mean everyone really).

In a perfect world, there's a way for people to watch cutscenes without even having to play the game, the easiest difficulties are walks in the park, the regular difficulties are a perfect balance, and the hardest difficulties really challenge the player.

We don't live in a perfect world though, so we have to hope the developers of the games we play can do as best a job as they can.

[ObserverStatus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm starting to understand why so many people look down on casuals.

I don't. If you do based on this thread, you're coming to a bizarre conclusion. Why someone would judge another human being simply for liking something different is beyond me.

I do.  It's not so much that I need to judge people just who don't share my taste in difficulty settings, I just need to judge people in general. If you believe that morality is independent of any creed, how else can a man measure his own character but by comparing himself to other people? In my opinion, we all define ourselves by things that we see in others that we do not like to a degree, whether that may be their religious practices, political affiliations, or console preference, because their is no source of self evident truth on such matters.  I judge other human beings simply for liking things different because it helps me to better understand myself.

TL:DR Judging people for superficial reasons builds character.

Modifié par bobobo878, 25 novembre 2012 - 09:50 .

[74 Wrex]

I know what you mean LPPrince
I never play on the hardest difficulty

Modifié par 74 Wrex, 25 novembre 2012 - 09:49 .

[Dave of Canada]

LPPrince wrote...

Thats the core of the problem with some people- they just can't understand how someone can be worse at something than they are.

I said I couldn't see why people found casual hard because when I play casual, I tend to disregard equipment statistics for aesthetic purposes and don't bother leveling my companions much. The entire game can practically be auto-attacked, I tend to engage in combat and let my companions do everything because casual is usually my "story" run.

That's why I don't understand.

[Fredward]

bobobo878 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm starting to understand why so many people look down on casuals.

I don't. If you do based on this thread, you're coming to a bizarre conclusion. Why someone would judge another human being simply for liking something different is beyond me.

I do.  It's not so much that I need to judge people just who don't share my taste in difficulty settings, I just need to judge people in general. If you believe that morality is independent of any creed, how else can a man measure his own character but by comparing himself to other people? In my opinion, we all define ourselves by things that we see in others that we do not like to a degree, whether that may be their religious practices, political affiliations, or console preference, because their is no source of self evident truth on such matters.  I judge other human beings simply for liking things different because it helps me to better understand myself,.

This sounds like something out of my communication studies textbook. xp

In fact it is, its called the social comparison theory of self concept. We judge others so we can get a better picture of who we are and where we fit and match up to others and such. BUT I think there is a difference between judging people to differentiate yourself from them and judging and using that as justification for a superiority complex. After all "gamerness" isn't measurable. There isn't a "right" way to do it.

[ImperatorMortis]

Honestly though how is casual difficulty not easy enough? On that difficulty the game practically holds your hand.

[ObserverStatus]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
This sounds like something out of my communication studies textbook. xp
In fact it is, its called the social comparison theory of self concept. We judge others so we can get a better picture of who we are and where we fit and match up to others and such. BUT I think there is a difference between judging people to differentiate yourself from them and judging and using that as justification for a superiority complex. After all "gamerness" isn't measurable. There isn't a "right" way to do it.

Well, I simply disagree, the fact that gamerness is immeasurable makes the need to judge other gamers based on tangentially representative criteria all the more critical.  Allowing people believe that there is more than one right way to be a gamer will only dillude your own principles, allowing moral apathy to corrupt your soul.

Modifié par bobobo878, 25 novembre 2012 - 10:07 .

[10K]

If BW decides to add a skip combat button in DA3 I'm going to use it every chance I get especially if the combat is like DA:O. I dislike that point and click fighting. Just thinking about it, I wish DA:O had that opinion now it would make my new play through more exciting.

[The Six Path of Pain]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

lol at people making fun of this guys "skill." How can you have skill at a video game? All you do is press a button or click a mouse.I normally play on Normal or Hard but I can understand your frustration. It's been torture trying to introduce my casual gaming friends to RPGs. The learning curve is a lot steeper. As for your troubles, an easy way to play this game to play as a mage. You'll eventually unlock powers, such as cone of cold, that makes this game child's play. The first and last hours of an RPG are always the hardest, you just have to muscle through those portions.

If you don't think you need skills for video games then pick yourself up a copy of Tekken and Street Fighter.Then sign yourself up for a tournament.Don't even bother practicing buddy after all it's just pushing a bunch of buttons.Do that then call me in the morning and let me know how that turned out for you

[Bruno Hslaw]

I play most games on easy just to get through it and see the end, I have no patience sorry. Then I will do it again on hardest settings for the challenge, kind of feels like you get 2 games IMO doing that.

One is enjoying the story the other the challenge. One of the reasons I liked origins was well the origins felt like a lot more games (mainly the origin parts) were available.

My daughter likes the story of games and she often asks me round her house to 'help' her get passed a level ( basically get her past stuff that gets her stuck.) I remember many years ago developers complaining only about 10% of games ever get completed as people gave up on them. Then games got very easy (or I got better lol) then everyone finished everything. The point is its tipping back towards, harder settings a bit and do we really want to go back to only 10% finishing a game in a few years? REALLY?

That would suck for games makers, if nobody got to see half their finished game, as they quit halfway.

That's what I liked with Halo you could zip through in a couple of hours or set it so every grunt was a tank. Really helps when playing coop with my great niece who is six, eer no not onHalo.

[DragonAgeLegend]

Is he trolling?

[eroeru]

Orian Tabris wrote...

Personally, I think DA2 did it exactly how difficulty settings should be. One for those who really just want to skip through the combat and get to the story, one for those who just want to see how good their characters are/don't aspire to challenge themselves (yet)/just want the combat to be fun and worth playing, one for those who want a real challenge/to brag about how good they are and one for those who want a challenge, but don't want to rack their brains figuring out how to win fights.

That's one very needed option less than required (for all-round enjoyability).

Of course we need a "brain-racker" setting!

@Topic - The difficulty is that games are by-definition and by their whole purpose and meaning inspired by a sense of engagement via thinking and solving problems. The games that innately, through mechanics require you to think (creatively doing so of course) are much better games for that. You cannot make a setting that hasn't a challenge to a *good* (sic!) game (it's impossible, since the mechanics of a good game can be better only if more mentally engaging) - but you *can* of course omit certain parts of it.

Narrative mode is fine. As long as I'm not "rewarded" for playing it, and it works rather by omitting certain elements and making the functions in it more controllable (via, for example, auto-fights and dialogue indicators as to what option would be bad for you - and yes, making some dialogue-choices be much more punishing than others would make the game better via more diversity). But we do need a game that's innately challenging. A game's value is indeed innately in challenges, it's just how the world, the word ("game) and our brains play out - the person playing being inproficient has no relevance to assessing the quality of a game whatsoever. "Accessibility" in no way means "quality", this the developers must acknowledge. And if accessibility has priority over quality (in mutually exclusive fundamental game-mechanics), we get a worse game. It's that simple.

edit: and I certainly don't hate on "accessibility" only because it makes me feel better about myself (whatever that may mean) - it's because in fundamentals, accessibility and quality tend to work against each other, and I would go so far as to call them mutually exclusive (again, in fundamental levels of game-mechanics, not the "polish").

double-edit: the reason why I'm talking about fundamental challenges in games as such is because of the OPs wording - I understood him as wanting to not have challenges at all. And that's okay. It's just that this isn't achieved by "toning down the settings" - this request for a first-and-foremost unchallenging gamemode is a request for a fundamentally differing game-mode. You can't appease those requirements by toning down the numbers in a good *game* (of which the goodness is as of a *game*) - it's only achieved by separating the quality "gaming" part from the "cinematic" or "story" part. Hence, the gaming part should just be omitted, and the parts that can be left should be there for the story reasons alone, rather than having the gameplay serve no purpose whatsoever (by allowing this possibility of a non-purposeful gameplay, you hinder the main game, because a *good* challenge that can be made unchallenging cannot be done, by definition even).

Modifié par eroeru, 25 novembre 2012 - 07:31 .

[Nurot]

Without reading all of this thread, I want to weigh in on the subject.

I am also one of those gamers that tend to suck att games. And I have been playing regularly since I was a child. I am not really having much difficulity with DA (I am playing on hard right now and doing fine), but twitchy games and platformers give me trouble. It is really annoying to get stuck in a game when you reach an encounter/passage that is just too difficult. You can't finish the story and you can't play the rest of the game. Usually, it is a boss that stops your progress, which is annoying since you could probably play on without trouble if you could just pass that boss... I tend to hate bosses because of this. If only there could be games without bosses..

Although I usually have no trouble with DAO or DA2 I think the easy setting could be improved. If you play on easy, it is generally because you want to just walk through the game. Playing on easy doesn't mean that you hate combat (though I am sure some do), but that you want combat to be easy. Certain boss encounters are really hard (like the rock wraith and the boss battle in Legacy), even on the easy setting. Easy should be easy ALL the way though, since you don't play on easy for the challenge. That is what normal and above is for. So give us easy boss battles on easy..

[ohnotherancor]

I don't think that just having a "skip combat" button would be the best solution to avoiding combat.

I think a better way to do this is allowing for different approaches to encounters - instead of having to fight someone all the time, why not convince them with your words that fighting isn't the best option? Or why can't you sneak past trash mobs? If the player isn't rewarded with the same amount of XP, reward them in different ways - give diplomatic characters more allies at the endgame or stealthy characters special loot for taking secret passageways. And, of course, these different options can lead to different RP possibilities.

If there's absolutely no way to avoid combat in certain encounters, maybe a "Skip combat?" prompt could come up on the easiest difficulty if the player has had to restart 2 or 3 times. I'm mostly thinking in terms of boss fights since I remember DA 2 had cinematics marking the final blow of the fight and all.
(Though I would be cool with having no required boss fights too. Perhaps we could lure them into some sort of trap instead of fighting them?)

Modifié par x0hn0th3r4nc0rx, 25 novembre 2012 - 05:06 .

[Fawx9]

Isn't this just basically asking for VN's like the Japan gaming market has?

While it may be an interesting idea, don't we have to worry about all the time that this removes from the game?

Like if we take DA:O, the Dwarf King arc probably gets cut down to a 1/4 or less of what it was. Are the few that will use this mode be satisfied with basically a game that's a shell of what it should be?

[joshko]

74 Wrex wrote...

I don't know what some people find hard on casual difficulty

It's not the difficulty, it's why they are playing the game.
Me for example, I almost never play a RPG on any thing but casual. Why? Because I'm playing it for the environment, the story, and the characters. I have no interest in being challaged by the AI. My favoret RPGs: Skyrim, The Witcher 1 and 2, and ME 1. In non of these was I interested in the combat. Sure they're fun, all the shouting, rolling around, and sniping from behind cover. But the real joy came from walking around a bend to see a beautiful view, to have just a second to make a difficult decision, and to punch the snot out of a lunatic scientist.

Now if I want a challange I will play Mount and Blade online where I have to constantly be adjusting to my opponents fighting style, or I'll hop into Third Age Total War or a Paradox stratagy game.

It's not the difficulty, it's what you want out of the game you're playing.

[Kidd]

Sounds to me there could simply be one more difficulty setting.

- Narrative
- Casual
- Normal
- Hard
- Nightmare

On narrative mode, perhaps the multipliers already set for Casual could be made more extreme, or perhaps it could basically be Casual without the ability to get knocked out. Essentially, making it impossible to reach 0 HP. As long as there's a line saying something like "this is not how the combat experience was designed to be played" to explain what it is, then it's all dandy methinks.

[Navasha]

I think a casual setting where you are basically invincible would be the best thing. People playing on casual obviously are not playing the game to be challenged. They just want to play the storyline. Making the players immune to damage seems like a simple fix.

Just PLEASE, keep the hard difficulty settings HARD. Too often we see a whole game scaled down and then it kind of ruins it for everyone.

[DaringMoosejaw]

bobobo878 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm starting to understand why so many people look down on casuals.

I don't. If you do based on this thread, you're coming to a bizarre conclusion. Why someone would judge another human being simply for liking something different is beyond me.

I do.  It's not so much that I need to judge people just who don't share my taste in difficulty settings, I just need to judge people in general. If you believe that morality is independent of any creed, how else can a man measure his own character but by comparing himself to other people? In my opinion, we all define ourselves by things that we see in others that we do not like to a degree, whether that may be their religious practices, political affiliations, or console preference, because their is no source of self evident truth on such matters.  I judge other human beings simply for liking things different because it helps me to better understand myself.

TL:DR Judging people for superficial reasons builds character.

Orrrr it's because you're of a tribalist mindset, where people that like the things you do are intelligent and superior beings and people that don't do things you do are subhuman and deserve to be mocked. You're merely attaching your own self worth to an idea or a 'side' and disparaging those who disagree with you, because it's easier than standing on your own merits.

If they want to add a story mode, go ahead, so long as it doesn't mess with any of the other difficulties. I don't have some sort of bizarre complex about the difficulty of the games I play needing to be legitimized by there not even being a possibility of an easier difficulty.

Modifié par DaringMoosejaw, 25 novembre 2012 - 11:33 .

[nightscrawl]

Navasha wrote...

I think a casual setting where you are basically invincible would be the best thing. People playing on casual obviously are not playing the game to be challenged. They just want to play the storyline. Making the players immune to damage seems like a simple fix.

That's not necessarily true either though. My first play of DA2 was on casual because (1) I wanted to experience the story, and (2) I wanted to learn about the game and its combat mechanics before moving onto the higher difficulty. If you have a casual mode as you descirbed there would be no learning involved so the struggling player who is making an effort for improvement isn't getting what they need.

Similarly, I always play DAO on easy. The reason? I don't want friendly fire. Easy is my ONLY option in that game. Happily, they expanded it for DA2 so I don't have to do total faceroll just because I don't want friendly fire.

[Ridwan]

Lol, if this thread is serious then stick with books thread starter. The game is VERY EASY on the easiest mode.

[FaWa]

DAO is much harder than DA2 on the easiest setting imo. The Archdemon is an easy fight thanks to the ballistas, but the entrance and first floor of Fort Drakon are actually challenging, even on the easiest difficulty. DA2 doesn't have any hard fights on any level.