328 réponses à ce sujet

[Rainbow Wyvern]

I'd be all for a 'narrative' difficulty. For some reason I just fail miserably at Dragon Age combat, sometimes even on Casual. So I'd appreciate a faceroll loldemigod difficulty option for DA:I, so I don't have to get frustrated with combat, or care about where I'm putting my skill points all that much.

[Jynxed_]

I would LOVE this. In my playthroughs of DAO and DA2 I used console commands to get through all the enemies so I could get to the story  so a super duper easy mode would be right up my alley

[Wulfram]

I don't think it's wholly unreasonable to oppose a narrative mode.  There is something to be said for making completing the game a challenge that requires at least some degree of skill.

 

In the case of Dragon Age I don't find that argument compelling, because the story is such a large element of their appeal.  But there are other games that I'd make it for.

[berelinde]

I don't think it's wholly unreasonable to oppose a narrative mode.  There is something to be said for making completing the game a challenge that requires at least some degree of skill.

 

In the case of Dragon Age I don't find that argument compelling, because the story is such a large element of their appeal.  But there are other games that I'd make it for.

If you want to preserve the challenge of higher difficulties, why not tie achievements to difficulty level? If you play in Narrative Mode, you don't get combat achievements. In a perfect world, players who skip the dialogue wouldn't get story-based achievements, either, but the outrage would be deafening if they did that.

[Thomas Andresen]

I honestly don't care either way. If it enables more people to enjoy the game, then go for it. Casual is the difficulty I find myself playing most; it's plenty easy for me, and I never used the narrative difficulty option in ME3, so I don't imagine I'd use it in Inquisition.

I don't think it's wholly unreasonable to oppose a narrative mode.  There is something to be said for making completing the game a challenge that requires at least some degree of skill.
 
In the case of Dragon Age I don't find that argument compelling, because the story is such a large element of their appeal.  But there are other games that I'd make it for.

The way I see it, there are reward systems they could use for substitute. Like the way the achievements worked in the first ME. It encouraged me to try out, and actually finish, the highest difficulty, even though playing at anything above normal usually never even enters my mind.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't think it's wholly unreasonable to oppose a narrative mode.  There is something to be said for making completing the game a challenge that requires at least some degree of skill.

I completely disagree.  It's a roleplaying game - there aren't even supposed to be winning conditions.

 

If there is an argument for making "completion" of the game a challenge, I'd like to hear them.

[Realmzmaster]

I don't think it's wholly unreasonable to oppose a narrative mode.  There is something to be said for making completing the game a challenge that requires at least some degree of skill.

 

In the case of Dragon Age I don't find that argument compelling, because the story is such a large element of their appeal.  But there are other games that I'd make it for.

 

Why would you care how somebody else plays his/her single player game? It is roleplaying game. If gamers want more challenge that is is why there are higher levels. 

[Amfortas]

I have no problem with this as long as the game is balanced around a normal difficulty setting where the enemies play with the same rules as the player.

I'm sure DAII was balanced around an easy difficulty setting without friendly fire and the game suffered because of it.

A problem would be fights with mechanics (puzzle mechanics for example), since those can't be won by repeatedly pressing A, no matter how low enemy damage is. I'm not sure how would that would work in story mode, and to be honest, I hope the game has some fights that don't involve just hitting the huge monster until it dies.

Apart from that, the game can have an autoplay mode for all I care.

[JCFR]

Why would you care how somebody else plays his/her single player game? It is roleplaying game. If gamers want more challenge that is is why there are higher levels. 

That's exactly why i think easy-difficulty is enough.  if you don't wish for challenge, then that's your pick. Why degreasing the gameplay even more?

It makes the whole work of the developers  for a balanced tactical/action combat system futile.

 

I mean... geez, i always thought fans of a series ask for MORE in the sequels. More classes, more races, more skills, more weapons, more Variation!

I never thought there would come a time when fans ask Less.  I'm completly baffled.

[Stelae]

I mean... geez, i always thought fans of a series ask for MORE in the sequels. More classes, more races, more skills, more weapons, more Variation!

I never thought there would come a time when fans ask Less.  I'm completly baffled.

They're asking for more; more facility for exploring different narrative choices, companion combos and alliances without having to wade through a bunch of cookie-cutter combat to get to the good stuff, more emphasis on story and less on hitting things.  They're not asking for what you want, and perhaps you are having trouble understanding what other people want in a game.  But what they want is not degrading anything; it's an added option. 

 

And asking for one more Mode of play is not asking for Less - not even numerically.  It's just asking for Different. 

[Realmzmaster]

That's exactly why i think easy-difficulty is enough.  if you don't wish for challenge, then that's your pick. Why degreasing the gameplay even more?

It makes the whole work of the developers  for a balanced tactical/action combat system futile.

 

I mean... geez, i always thought fans of a series ask for MORE in the sequels. More classes, more races, more skills, more weapons, more Variation!

I never thought there would come a time when fans ask Less.  I'm completly baffled.

 

You believe that easy difficulty is enough others that have posted in this thread think differently. If someone wants a super easy narrative mode it does not affect me if I am playing on Nightmare. The developers are still going to balanced the combat system for Normal play. The game would still have to be tweaked for Easy, Hard or Nightmare. So adding super easy I do not believe would be difficult. It would have Allan doing more QA.

[thats1evildude]

And just what is it you think you are losing out on?

Yes, asking for a thing --voiced nug companions, non-sexist dialogue, a cooking minigame, non-lethal damage-- is asking Bioware to put time and effort into making that thing. And not everyone will care about the extra thing, and some will say "well, I'm not going to use the non-lethal damage option, so Bioware shouldn't have bothered putting it in because they could have spent that time making something that I wanted, like voiced nugs." Bioware gets to determine what is possible, and what constitutes a good use of their time, and they also get to make a game with as much broad appeal as they think is.

Yes, and ultimately what I think on the matter doesn't amount to a hill of beans if Bioware decides it's worth it. I just don't see it as being worth the resources they would need to devote to it. We constantly hear "because resources" why X and Y can't happen, so how could I not see this as a potential threat to things I do want?

My feelings on the matter tie into a larger discussion of what constitutes a game. In my mind, a game needs at least some kind of failure condition, even if Easy difficulty reduces that condition to something only a six-month-old baby could screw up. There needs to be some sense of achievement beyond "Well, I put a whole 40 hours into that." Narrative mode just seems to reduce the game to an elaborate LP that (assuming you bought new) you paid $60 for.

Are there not a multitude of other better stories that you could consume passively? I'm not saying the story in the Dragon Age games is bad - I've spent my fair share of time defending it - but I do recognize it faces certain constraints by virtue of being an Action RPG. Fights sometimes occur because Action RPGs need fights and there's a lot of stories that don't really fit in quest form.

[Stelae]

Yes, and ultimately what I think on the matter doesn't amount to a hill of beans if Bioware decides it's worth it. I just don't see it as being worth the resources they would need to devote to it. We constantly hear "because resources" why X and Y can't happen, so how could I not see this as potentially stealing from something I want?

Narrative mode just seems to reduce the game to an elaborate LP that, assuming you bought new, you paid $60 for. Are there not a multitude of other better stories that you could consume passively? I'm not saying the story in the Dragon Age games is bad - I've spent my fair share of time defending it - but I do recognize faces certain constraints by virtue of being an Action RPG. Fights sometimes occur because Action RPGs need fights yo, and there's a lot of stories that don't really fit in quest form.

Well, first of all, because it was already done with ME3, so presumably Bioware has already worked out how to approach the task, and would only have to apply the procedure to the new engine. 

 

I take your point that resources are finite, but just because resources are spent on a feature you aren't interested in, doesn't follow  you'd have gotten your way if it were not there.  For a variety of reasons from time and resource constraints to cultural ones, like the devs deciding it wasn't a direction they wanted to take the game in, things that some people (me included) would like to see won't happen, and wouldn't happen even if resources were infinite.  This game is on a deadline and only has a finite number of hands working on it.  Like I said before; was ME3 multiplayer (or Narrative Mode, for that matter) stealing from me?  No; I got the same game everyone did and I played it in a way that suited me. 

 

As to whether it's "worth" playing a game when the combat is minimised, well, not for you.  And you won't have to.  And not for me, at least the first couple of runs through.  And I won't have to.  But for a lot of people, it's worth sixty of their Earth dollars.  They are not inferior or less worthy than you, or me, or anyone else who pays their money and takes their chances. 

 

ETA:  playing with combat minimised is not "consuming [a game] passively" -- you make choices and decisions, you control your party.  It's not like watching a movie where you get no say in what happens. 

[Bugsie]

Yes, and ultimately what I think on the matter doesn't amount to a hill of beans if Bioware decides it's worth it. I just don't see it as being worth the resources they would need to devote to it. We constantly hear "because resources" why X and Y can't happen, so how could I not see this as a potential threat to things I do want?

My feelings on the matter tie into a larger discussion of what constitutes a game. In my mind, a game needs at least some kind of failure condition, even if Easy difficulty reduces that condition to something only a six-month-old baby could screw up. There needs to be some sense of achievement beyond "Well, I put a whole 40 hours into that." Narrative mode just seems to reduce the game to an elaborate LP that (assuming you bought new) you paid $60 for.

Are there not a multitude of other better stories that you could consume passively? I'm not saying the story in the Dragon Age games is bad - I've spent my fair share of time defending it - but I do recognize it faces certain constraints by virtue of being an Action RPG. Fights sometimes occur because Action RPGs need fights and there's a lot of stories that don't really fit in quest form.

In regard to resources, yes they are finite but your argument of ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’ robs you of content you say you would otherwise have, goes both ways – people asking for a narrative gameplay version could equally argue that ‘robbing Paul to pay Peter’ robs them of content they might otherwise have.

 

Vian has outlined why I also think it’s viable for Bioware to look at this option.   I never played multiplayer either because I couldn’t give a stuff about it, but I got the same single player everyone else did.  I have no idea whether it detracted from the SP or not, I got a game that I liked, for the most part.

 

In regard to ‘what games people should play who prefer narrative over combat’ - I’m sorry, but you don't get to choose what games people play based on the difficulty level they prefer to play at or the fact their definition of a good game and or gameplay is different to yours. Maybe people are willing to pay $60 for a game because they like the rich lore, characters and storylines.   Maybe it’s a waste to you, but they’re not you.  Maybe they are physically disabled and love the idea of creating their own Warden/Hawke/Shepard and see them play out on the as they play but the combat is out of reach for them.  They are also allowed to make requests, just as you are, about what they prefer in the game.

 

Ultimately, Bioware will decide to put their resources  where they see the best value.  All the rest of us can hope for is that some of our suggestions may be realised in the game.

[Allan Schumacher]

It's not punishing you for playing bad, it's rewarding you for playing a higher difficulty. 

 

These are actually two sides of the same coin.

 

It's why people will feel rewarded for getting, say, DLC for preordering early, while there are some that will feel that they are punished for being responsible consumers and waiting a bit.  Especially if both pay the same price.

 

 

Though I'm not too keen on narrative differences based on game difficulty.  Game difficulty is best served for those that find challenging combat enjoyable and maybe some level of achievement pursuit for those types, in my opinion.

[KaiserShep]

When I first started DA:O, I was totally green to these sorts of games. I had no idea about how to properly build a character and didn't really have a feel for the combat yet, and playing on normal, I found it to be considerably difficult. As a result, I died a good few times during the prologue, and I reduced the difficulty until I got my bearings. I love when people on Youtube or wherever say "The high dragon is easy even on Nightmare". All I can say to those people is "screw you, goofballs" lol. As one who focuses more on story than combat, I find greater reward in the outcome of the plot based on my choices than I do killing the dragon or slaughtering a swath of darkspawn or Cerberus mooks. One of the biggest high points for me in DA:O was actually succeeding in getting all of the nobles to side with me in the Landsmeet, and all it required was that I pay attention to what they were saying and be thorough with my quest finding, rather than finding some tough enemy to kill.

[kheldorin]

I love when people on Youtube or wherever say "The high dragon is easy even on Nightmare". All I can say to those people is "screw you, goofballs" lol.

Then don't fight the high dragon. He's optional. I don't mind there being a mode to skip combat for critical bosses but for optional bosses, why is there a need to? Players should get rewarded for beating a boss but if they skip the combat, they technically didn't beat him and thus shouldn't be rewarded. Imagine a game where you're playing a game where you get bonus rewards for finding secret passages but in the easy-mode you get the bonus rewards for free. It cheapens the experience for those players who took the time and effort to find those secret passages.

[KaiserShep]

It's just an example of how some players find parts of a game very easy, while others might find it frustratingly difficult. The enemy in question being optional is besides the point.

[Darth Krytie]

Then don't fight the high dragon. He's optional. I don't mind there being a mode to skip combat for critical bosses but for optional bosses, why is there a need to? Players should get rewarded for beating a boss but if they skip the combat, they technically didn't beat him and thus shouldn't be rewarded. Imagine a game where you're playing a game where you get bonus rewards for finding secret passages but in the easy-mode you get the bonus rewards for free. It cheapens the experience for those players who took the time and effort to find those secret passages.

 

It actually does nothing to one player if another player does it another way. It's a single player game. So, the only game that you can do anything to is your own. So, if Dude McEasy Mode wants to kill a boss on easy, I will never know unless he tells me. It has no affect on my game. None. Who cares if someone gets a bonus in their game that you worked harder for? How does it even matter? It doesn't. Now, you can argue that only people that beat that boss on hardcore can get a cheevo or a special weapon as was with the Varterral and Harvester in the Origins DLC. But if someone wanted to use a kill code on it in their super-easy game play, it's really not anyone's business but their own.

[KaiserShep]

It seems to me that this is more a matter of principle than something that actually affects the game. Otherwise, there's no real reason at all for people to care if a game has an easy mode if they have no intention to use it.

[Bugsie]

Then don't fight the high dragon. He's optional. I don't mind there being a mode to skip combat for critical bosses but for optional bosses, why is there a need to? Players should get rewarded for beating a boss but if they skip the combat, they technically didn't beat him and thus shouldn't be rewarded. Imagine a game where you're playing a game where you get bonus rewards for finding secret passages but in the easy-mode you get the bonus rewards for free. It cheapens the experience for those players who took the time and effort to find those secret passages.

How someone else plays cheapens the experience for you? That sounds a bit... well... silly. Given also that the 'rewards' in Bioware games aren't even combat dependent. Who cares how others play their game or what difficulty, or by what means they get an achievement? I sure as hell don't care. By the same argument you could say those who played at easy difficulty in DAO or DA2 didn't deserve the same ending as those who played at higher levels. What difficulty you play at is irrelevant to how the story generally plays out. If it were combat dependent and only on higher difficulties I doubt it would have the kind of fan base that it does.

Oh and that high dragon in DA2 #%^*\ you! LOL

[kheldorin]

It actually does nothing to one player if another player does it another way. It's a single player game. So, the only game that you can do anything to is your own. So, if Dude McEasy Mode wants to kill a boss on easy, I will never know unless he tells me. It has no affect on my game. None. Who cares if someone gets a bonus in their game that you worked harder for? How does it even matter? It doesn't. Now, you can argue that only people that beat that boss on hardcore can get a cheevo or a special weapon as was with the Varterral and Harvester in the Origins DLC. But if someone wanted to use a kill code on it in their super-easy game play, it's really not anyone's business but their own.

But you're not doing it "another way". You're entirely skipping it. What's the point of a bonus objective if all you have to do is select the easiest difficulty and not do anything. I'm pretty sure people will mind if Bioware implemented a mode where you don't have to figure out how to harden your companions, how to make the nobles agree with you or how to romance your companions. You can just skip all the dialogue and when you do accept the quest and all you have to do is select the outcome of the quest from a dropdown box without actually doing it. Romance Leliana succesfully? Choose Yes/No.

 

People have different standards to what a game should adhere to, and like it or not people do impose these standards on the developer even if it doesn't affect them personally. What if Bioware's marketing department research concludes that in order to maximize sales they need to make an option for Vivienne to be a blue-eyed overly-sexualized busty blonde? It'll just be an option and it won't affect your game but the fact that Bioware officially implements it will create an uproar.

[Darth Krytie]

But you're not doing it "another way". You're entirely skipping it. What's the point of a bonus objective if all you have to do is select the easiest difficulty and not do anything. I'm pretty sure people will mind if Bioware implemented a mode where you don't have to figure out how to harden your companions, how to make the nobles agree with you or how to romance your companions. You can just skip all the dialogue and when you do accept the quest and all you have to do is select the outcome of the quest from a dropdown box without actually doing it. Romance Leliana succesfully? Choose Yes/No.

 

People have different standards to what a game should adhere to, and like it or not people do impose these standards on the developer even if it doesn't affect them personally. What if Bioware's marketing department research concludes that in order to maximize sales they need to make an option for Vivienne to be a blue-eyed overly-sexualized busty blonde? It'll just be an option and it won't affect your game but the fact that Bioware officially implements it will create an uproar.

 

There's a difference between encouraging racism or sexism and allowing people to skip combat. Hell, people already do skip parts of the game and get bonuses and get items they haven't 'earned': it's called modding. PC players have tons of it.

 

I just don't care at all how other people enjoy their game. I think everyone would be a lot happier if they just focused on themselves instead of other people. And, by the way, most of your examples were extreme hyperbole and entirely unnecessary to make your point. Which seems to be: I want people to play the game the way I want them to and I want BioWare to only include features that benefit me alone. 

[Bugsie]

There is no 'bonus objective' in DA! The objective is finishing the story and it plays out the same way for everyone (dependent on the story choices you make, but not the combat!). The level you play at is irrelevant!

Strawman strawman strawman etc etc etc.

(In reference to the post by kheldorin.)

[Ieldra]

@kheldorin:

Odd, then, how I'm feeling satisfied for having completed a gameplay challenge independently from how others play. Something must be wrong with me. Or I'm just more accepting of the fact that I'm not competing with other players here, but if anything, playing against the developers. As I've repeatedly said, the mindset that a roleplaying game is a competition is at fault here. So the other player got the same awesome superweapon with no effort? Now, in an MP game, I would be very much annoyed. In an SP game? *shrug*. If anything, it's the other one's loss. It certainly takes absolutely nothing away from my achievement.

 

I think it would behoove the elitists here to adopt more of a "live and let live" mentality.