152 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

If you're just not interested in the combat, then giving better instructions won't necessarily help

[nightscrawl]

Wulfram wrote...

If you're just not interested in the combat, then giving better instructions won't necessarily help

That wasn't the OP's argument though. He used terms like being "horrible at video games" and talked about "game mechanics [being] foreign to" such players.

Someone not being interested in combat, like some who have posted in this thread, I can also understand and empathize with, but that wasn't the issue raised by the OP, and I think is completely separate from being frustrated by one's inability to play a game due to the combat.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 05 février 2013 - 03:04 .

[shnig_1]

I agree a better tutorial is mainly what is needed, but a narrative difficulty like mass effect can't hurt

[Zelto]

Having a very easy mode/story mode is fine. Games should be playable by everybody. However what they should not do is simplify games to make them easier, which appears to be what happened in DA2.

[FodoSatoru]

In my opinion, combat in Planescape: Torment wasn't done very well and was outclassed by magnificent story many times over. On the other hand, combat in DAO and DA2 is very enjoyable, requires thought (on higher difficulties) and tactical approach (in DA2 less so). The plot of DAO isn't very good ("stop big, black dragon from destroying the world), while the plot of DA2 is an improvement (a personal story rather than another "save the world" rubbish), but acts aren't connected very well into one, solid story. So, I mainly replay PS:T for the story and in the case of DA frachise - for challenge of tactical combat on Nightmare difficulty and interactions with characters I like (Qunari, mostly).

In DA3, I would enjoy tough Nightmare difficulty, which would require thinking out of me, preferably more similar to DAO than DA2 (mentioned many times before, waves of enemies out of nowhere don't make much sense, if you want your game to be tactics-oriented gameplay-wise)

[Fiddzz]

Skelter192 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

It's all relative though. As good as Dragon age origins' story is I don't think it really compares to things like Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones. Those medias can devote everything to making a great story, visuals etc. It's just not possible to compete when you have to worry about graphics, story, gameplay and all the mechanics and balance problems there and everything else a game requires. Too many limitations. Hell George r.r Martin often complains about how limiting film/television is already.

To this day, Planescape: Torment remains my favourite story. It's also a game where I didn't really care for the combat.

I don't think anyone cares for the combat. 

it had combat?! 

[Johnny Shepard]

I also love the combat in DA. Normal was to easy7 for me in DA2 because you don't really have to think most of the time. I love the strategic part of playing Hard because then you had to take control of your companions to win the battle. But on Normal you just as well could just let them fight and just control Hawke because it went just as good and doing it strategic fealt like a waste of time.

[BubbleDncr]

I've brought this up in another thread before, and for the most part people seem too close minded in their belief on what games are for to accept it.

I myself play Dragon Age and Mass Effect for the story. I enjoy the combat, and I like overcoming the challenge of it as well. But in my opinion, they could swap out the rpg combat or the shooter combat int hose game for platforming levels and I would enjoy the game just as much.

I'm very passionate about my love for Bioware games but its based entire on their stories. Sure, the story is no Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones, but I've never become as emotionally invested in books as video games because of the lack of interactivity. I don't get to walk around and explore Middle Earth at my own pace, choose who to help or let die, or make friends or enemies with certain characters when I read LoTR. But I do get to do that in Dragon Age.

So like I said, I do enjoy the challenge of RPG combat, but I can completely understand people who don't. And I don't think they should be completely barred from experiencing awesome story moments of Dragon Age just because of that.

[Fredward]

Blair Brown wrote...
These "Bioware, let's talk about [insert subject]" thread titles seem really condescending.

The first few I was like "sure lets talk" at about 9+ I was "ok this is getting pretty insulting" now i'm in the 'running gag' mood with them

I thought it was just me! Although I don't think they're meant to be condescending. They just annoy me. I think I dislike the idea of formulaic thread titles. WAY TO SMOTHER INDIVIDUALITY JIMMY!



I don't understand the whinging about difficulty. Hard mode should be hard and easy mode should be easy. Really, if you don't want to play a certain mode then don't. THIS IS THE FABLED TOGGLE FOLKS!

Use it.

Modifié par Foopydoopydoo, 05 février 2013 - 08:58 .

[Atalanta]

One thing I think developers/publishers might benefit from by having a "story-mode" difficulty is the ease in which a player can get back into it after a longish break, like when new DLC is released several months after launch.

I found the combat of ME3 very enjoyable - I did an Insanity completion of it and have sunk nearly 250 hours into the multiplayer. That said, I wouldn't be interested in doing any more singleplayer missions at any difficulty higher than Narrative at this point - and if that 'easy' difficulty wasn't available to me, chances are slim that I'd buy any more DLC.
It can be super taxing/emotionally draining game (especially the ending, whew), and I feel that the difficult, lengthy combat scenes push that feeling way too far at times.

On another note, Dragon Age's focus on "resource management" isn't a whole lot of fun for me ... causes unhappy flashbacks of healing raids in WoW, where you end up tunnel-visioning on the mana bar because the game is so unforgiving if/when you run out. If there was a difficulty that made mana/stamina management less important, I'd be into that.

Modifié par Atalanta, 05 février 2013 - 09:55 .

[Conduit0]

imbs wrote...

The Teryn of Whatever wrote...

Nope it's not insulting. Some people want to play the game with fights scaled down so they can focus on the story. You don't like it, don't play on that setting. Being a hardcore gamer and playing on Nightmare doesn't make you a badass. Neither does picking on people who want to play on super-easy.

Personally I like my challenge level moderate. Dying every five minutes isn't fun.

No1 does these things though, not really. When i have complained about difficulty in this thread and others i am not bragging about my superior video game skillz or whatever. I have complained about difficulty because i want things nice and hard. (thats what she said hehe) Without challenge in a game I get bored insta. When i replay DAO i have to use difficulty mods to keep things interesting. Whilst I am curious about why/how people get to the point where they pick the easiest setting every time they pick up a game, I have no bitterness towards that kind of thing.

My only bitterness stems from how easy in general games are today. Games *are* easier in general than ever before. Nightmare mode in DAO, DA2 is not a "nightmare" at all. There were harder games back in the times of 0 difficulty levels. This isn't their fault though, this is some kind of general trend. The only game that I have picked up recently that was actually genuinely difficult on higher levels was Civ5, and the AIs are still dumb in that game, they just get a load more stuff. It's kind of a depressing situation for those of us who like insane challenges.

The modding communities are the only real bright-side to modern gaming from this point of view. Being able to do anything you can to win without feeling guilty is great. Back when I played DAO without difficulty mods I couldn't bring myself to take spells like mana clash or perfect storm, or abuse shatter and many other things (including only using one character). With the mods though it is all fair game.

Rather than spending time trying to shout down people for wanting a narrative difficulty, you could instead be spending your time campaigning for a harder difficulty, a Nightmare+ mode or some such. These requests are not mutually exclusive, so theres nothing preventing both sides from getting what they want.

[humes spork]

Wulfram wrote...

I always wonder if the auto-level is intended to be weak, or if the designers really don't understand their mechanics.

I have no idea, but I've come to the conclusion after having been a gamer for thirty years, twenty-five of those spent in the hardcore min-maxer/optimizer camp, any game that requires me to open up a spreadsheet to calculate stats, solve and write-up equations and formulae, to do a reasonably good job playing the game just isn't worth my time. Oblivion and World of Warcraft, though especially the former, broke me of that lifelong habit, and good friggin' riddance to it.

Theorycraft is a suit that, in which I'm strong, I have zero inclination to use while gaming any more. I just want to play the damn game.

[Wozearly]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Again, not against a Narrative Combat difficulty, but I think a good tutorial and much more transparency in what exactly each stat, tactic and feature does would be much more fun. Can you imagine if a game like Crusader Kings 2 if you had never played a game like that before and it DIDN'T have the tutorial system it has?.

Never mind 'not played a game like that before' - what about the original Hearts of Iron or Victoria? Even as a veteran EU2 and CK player, my first contact with those was incredibly dicey. Brilliant games, just a lot of complexity smacking you in the face in ways you didn't even know you had to worry about until it was too late. Much like, erm, all of their games actually...only those two took it to a whole new level.

Frankly, its not really a Paradox game if you don't epic fail your first two playthroughs while you're learning the ropes.

But full credit to Johann and crew - they've got a heck of a lot better at making things more visible, putting a lot of useful information into mouseovers and generally reducing the number of mistakes you're likely to make through ignorance of features without reducing the number of features or the number of ways you can make mistakes through bad decision-making and bad luck.

[WertyJ]

I feel a narrative would take away from the story, the combat is supposed to have some difficulty to give some meaning to the situations.

That said it wouldn't affect me so I wouldn't be entirely against it.

Would however like an Insane++++ mode or something, I breezed insane (or whatever the equivalent is for dao and da2, I forget it's been a while) :/

Modifié par WertyJ, 06 février 2013 - 12:19 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
I always wonder if the auto-level is intended to be weak, or if the designers really don't understand their mechanics

I've long wondered that too. I have to believe that they intentionally make the auto-level terrible, because the idea they don't know enough to make them better is kind of depressing. Probably they just have an intern who knows nothing about the game put them together (at least that's my hope.)

The advantage of having the game autolevel you suboptimally is a few things:

1) Lets us know how balanced the game is.  If the game requires you to spec in a specific, optimal way in order to be successful, then it's not really allowing players to viably try out different tactics.

1a) Gives a bit of face time to other skills that may not typically be considered (helping prevent local peaks)

2) It lets the player that actively picks the skills get the reward for coming up with optimal builds

[Allan Schumacher]

Blair Brown wrote...

Skelter192 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

To this day, Planescape: Torment remains my favourite story. It's also a game where I didn't really care for the combat.

I don't think anyone cares for the combat. 

it had combat?! 

Baator without Annah cheesing her way with Stealth is sofa king painful...

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
I always wonder if the auto-level is intended to be weak, or if the designers really don't understand their mechanics

I've long wondered that too. I have to believe that they intentionally make the auto-level terrible, because the idea they don't know enough to make them better is kind of depressing. Probably they just have an intern who knows nothing about the game put them together (at least that's my hope.)

The advantage of having the game autolevel you suboptimally is a few things:

1) Lets us know how balanced the game is.  If the game requires you to spec in a specific, optimal way in order to be successful, then it's not really allowing players to viably try out different tactics.

1a) Gives a bit of face time to other skills that may not typically be considered (helping prevent local peaks)

2) It lets the player that actively picks the skills get the reward for coming up with optimal builds

Could adjusting the efficacy of the Auto-Level to the difficulty level be a possible middle ground? 

I just feel like it would hurt those who would need it the most (people who don't want to micromanage their character because they don't like numbers, but then wind up with sub-par characters that make combat harder than it needs to be).

Chances are if someone doesn't want to spend time doing math on their character sheet, they don't want to spend time doing math on their skill selection screen, or don't want to spend time calibrating the Tactics screen.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 06 février 2013 - 12:35 .

[Vaeliorin]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
I always wonder if the auto-level is intended to be weak, or if the designers really don't understand their mechanics

I've long wondered that too. I have to believe that they intentionally make the auto-level terrible, because the idea they don't know enough to make them better is kind of depressing. Probably they just have an intern who knows nothing about the game put them together (at least that's my hope.)

The advantage of having the game autolevel you suboptimally is a few things:

1) Lets us know how balanced the game is.  If the game requires you to spec in a specific, optimal way in order to be successful, then it's not really allowing players to viably try out different tactics.

1a) Gives a bit of face time to other skills that may not typically be considered (helping prevent local peaks)

2) It lets the player that actively picks the skills get the reward for coming up with optimal builds

I'd wondered if those considerations might be part of it, particularly 2.  I guess for balance, I'm more of a "balance so that an optimal build is just barely able to beat the most difficult setting and the easier settings will take care of themselves" type, so a suboptimal autolevel would make the easier settings a lot harder for people who don't care about leveling (and presumably don't want a challenge, since they don't bother to level manually.)

There's also the issue that the autolevel builds aren't just suboptimal, but are oftten actually actively bad builds (though this was more an issue with the NWN games, since it's much harder to actually build a bad character in the DA games.)

[humes spork]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The advantage of having the game autolevel you suboptimally is a few things:

1) Lets us know how balanced the game is.  If the game requires you to spec in a specific, optimal way in order to be successful, then it's not really allowing players to viably try out different tactics.

1a) Gives a bit of face time to other skills that may not typically be considered (helping prevent local peaks)

2) It lets the player that actively picks the skills get the reward for coming up with optimal builds

Well, in light of this maybe the best way to make as many people as happy as possible is not to introduce a "narrative difficulty" but rather introduce options for auto-leveling and tactics that cater to hardcore micromanagers as well as people who just want to see the content and story.

In terms of leveling, maybe add an "optimal" and "standard" auto-leveling option. That pretty much speaks for itself. In terms of AI and tactics, have expanded AI control options; have an "auto-pilot" option that has companions (and even optionally, the PC) automatically perform optimally in combat without player input, manually-selectable tactics that allow the player to program and customize role, and the existing "disable tactics" options for micromanagers.

I hate to say it, but tactics in DA:O were horrid. Limited slots, too many needless conditionals, and too much in-depth management to perform even the most trivial tasks. Just efficiently handling one sustained ability required 2-3 tactics slots, and when companions needed to handle that and other things at once it became too much for the few slots the player had available. Making an efficient dedicated healer required upward of 8-9 slots alone; good luck doing that with making them an ample buffer/debuffer/controller as well.

Presets were god awful, especially when selecting something like "defender" which would only fill out half a character's available slots which you'd then have to fill out manually to handle control and damage-dealing; good luck doing any kind of hybridized play without manual control. If they weren't flat-out counter-intuitive and suicidal at times: yes Wynne, you're set to "passive" mode (the logical general behavior for a healer) and told to heal, so naturally the logical conclusion is to stand next to my tank spreading your cheeks for the darkspawn. Leliana, you're set to "ranged" mode and all of your tactics slots are dedicated to bow and arrow attacks, so why are you running around trying to stab genlock in the face?

All of that gives the player the impression the AI can properly handle jobs given to it, with sufficient time in the tactics window...it couldn't. No matter how "well" you slotted out tactics, micromanagement was still a necessity. That was on normal difficulty. My opinion is that if you're going to take the time and consideration to plan out and diligently set tactics, the AI ought to be able to carry its weight doing what you want it to do.

Make all these options separate from difficulty. This way, someone can tell the game to optimally level their characters and run on auto-pilot for the "narrative" difficulty, sit back and watch the pretty combat without having to muck around themselves. Or, for people like me, set the game to the highest difficulty and all AI/character-building options to manual, making the game an RTS-style test of macromanagement that focuses on how you build your party and how each member fills what role to create a gestalt, opposed to action/RPG.

Modifié par humes spork, 06 février 2013 - 01:14 .

[Fast Jimmy]

humes spork wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The advantage of having the game autolevel you suboptimally is a few things:

1) Lets us know how balanced the game is.  If the game requires you to spec in a specific, optimal way in order to be successful, then it's not really allowing players to viably try out different tactics.

1a) Gives a bit of face time to other skills that may not typically be considered (helping prevent local peaks)

2) It lets the player that actively picks the skills get the reward for coming up with optimal builds

Well, in light of this maybe the best way to make as many people as happy as possible is not to introduce a "narrative difficulty" but rather introduce options for auto-leveling and tactics that cater to hardcore micromanagers as well as people who just want to see the content and story.

In terms of leveling, maybe add an "optimal" and "standard" auto-leveling option. That pretty much speaks for itself. In terms of AI and tactics, have expanded AI control options; have an "auto-pilot" option that has companions (and even optionally, the PC) automatically perform optimally in combat without player input, manually-selectable tactics that allow the player to program and customize role, and the existing "disable tactics" options for micromanagers.

I hate to say it, but tactics in DA:O were horrid. Limited slots, too many needless conditionals, and too much in-depth management to perform even the most trivial tasks. Just efficiently handling one sustained ability required 2-3 tactics slots, and when companions needed to handle that and other things at once it became too much for the few slots the player had available. Making an efficient dedicated healer required upward of 8-9 slots alone; good luck doing that with making them an ample buffer/debuffer/controller as well.

Presets were god awful, especially when selecting something like "defender" which would only fill out half a character's available slots which you'd then have to fill out manually to handle control and damage-dealing; good luck doing any kind of hybridized play without manual control. If they weren't flat-out counter-intuitive and suicidal at times: yes Wynne, you're set to "passive" mode (the logical general behavior for a healer) and told to heal, so naturally the logical conclusion is to stand next to my tank spreading your cheeks for the darkspawn. Leliana, you're set to "ranged" mode and all of your tactics slots are dedicated to bow and arrow attacks, so why are you running around trying to stab genlock in the face?

All of that gives the player the impression the AI can properly handle jobs given to it, with sufficient time in the tactics window...it couldn't. No matter how "well" you slotted out tactics, micromanagement was still a necessity. That was on normal difficulty. My opinion is that if you're going to take the time and consideration to plan out and diligently set tactics, the AI ought to be able to carry its weight doing what you want it to do.

Make all these options separate from difficulty. This way, someone can tell the game to optimally level their characters and run on auto-pilot for the "narrative" difficulty, sit back and watch the pretty combat without having to muck around themselves. Or, for people like me, set the game to the highest difficulty and all AI/character-building options to manual, making the game an RTS-style test of macromanagement that focuses on how you build your party and how each member fills what role to create a gestalt, opposed to action/RPG.

I like this. This is a lot of things I like.


Conversely, instead of having an Auto-Level option, why not a suggestion? "These stats would benefit most from being raised right now." This doesn't force the player to do anything, it just gives them two or three stats that could use some raising, given their level and current stats.

Similarly, a suggestion option for skills could help as well. This wouldn't sub-optimally pick off the wall skills, but would suggest some more odd-ball stuff than the standard power-leveler would think to use. That way, its not forcing a certain path (sub-optimal or not) on anyone?

Also... better AI and a more intuitive Tactics screen, as mentioned above, would go miles for making combat easier for the player. If micro-managing your party is neccesasry to keep them from standing right in the middle of an enemy AoE spell and not moving, it doesn't matter if you are on Casual - if you don't babysit your companions, they will die. The feeling that your companions are dolts, on any difficulty level, ain't helping the difficult or teaching newbie players any valuable skills. Its just making your uber-L33t companions that are the best and the most lethal to instead look like chollos.

[New Display Name]

I did not enjoy the combat in either Dragon Age game, so I would be pleased if I could have a narrative difficulty in DA3 so I can just enjoy the story.

I play games to be entertained, that does not necessarily mean being "challenged."

[shnig_1]

I would also like to throw out there, I tried to do the tactics for origins, but I had no idea how the layout worked or anything, it didn't make sense.

And I consider myself at least an average rpg player, not necessarily a complete scrub, but that tactics screen freaked me out, and I just completed most of the game on normal and a bunch of switching to casual

[Tigerman123]

What's wrong with planescape's combat I ask you

http://www.youtube.c...?v=WcGC2byVmoA' class='bbc_url' title='Lien externe' rel='nofollow external'> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcGC2byVmoA

Modifié par Tigerman123, 06 février 2013 - 04:36 .

[humes spork]

shnig_1 wrote...

I would also like to throw out there, I tried to do the tactics for origins, but I had no idea how the layout worked or anything, it didn't make sense.

And I consider myself at least an average rpg player, not necessarily a complete scrub, but that tactics screen freaked me out, and I just completed most of the game on normal and a bunch of switching to casual

Well, the only reason I, as one gamer, was able to make heads or tails out of it easily was because I had played FFXII extensively when it came out and had lots of experience with its gambit system, which is virtually identical to DA:O's tactics if not a little less robust but more intuitive.

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

Commander Kurt wrote...

- by all means include a narrative setting such as that in ME if people enjoy it (as they seem to do).

I won't use that setting personally, but I have no problem with it existing or people who do want to focus on the narrative. I am tired of these slippery slope arguments that the existence of super-easy modes in games are ruining it for the hardcore gamers and that one day all games will scale down to one EASY setting. That's absolute a** gravy.

I'm also reminded of this one poor BioWare writer who was harassed mercilessly because some fanatical fanboy idiots thought that she was going to force BioWare to remove difficulty levels (she had a preference for narrative-focused gameplay) and also, even more ridiculously, that she was turning Commander Shepard into a homosexual. It's moments like that and the worst of the hoopla surrounding ME3's ending that have made me just kind of embarassed to be associated with certain BW fans by virtue of sharing a love of the company and its games. Jeeze I got carried away there. I've been wanting to get that out of my system for a while. Let's move on...