338 réponses à ce sujet

[milena87]

Well I'm thinking on lower difficulties enemies will do considerably less damage, so you wouldn't need to worry much about health?

 

I'm trying to tie it back to Dragon's Dogma, as that didn't have health regen either as I recall. What it did have was a certain set of armor that allowed your health to regen during daytime. I think something like that could work for DA. 

 

Yeah, it's possible that they'll keep the regen on casual, but I'm crazy and I have to play a game at the highest difficulty available. Because reason.

[n7stormrunner]

but wish that people would drop this expectation that games should reasonably be playable for players of every conceivable skill level and gaming disposition.
 

 

 

yeah, it's not like the devs need to eat or anything. or that game publishers and developers are businesses. or gods forbid a game be fun.

[Maria Caliban]

I don't understand.

You realize that different games cater to different audiences, but 'die a little inside' when Mass Effect, something designed to be a blockbuster RPG, is made for broad appeal.

[Susty Randusky]

git gud scrubs

[Susty Randusky]

What?!

devs gotta get the money dolla dolla bill y'all

[dlux]

That's why I die a little inside every time I see developers roll out something as vapid as ME3's storymode or talk in terms of designing their game to meet the widest possible demographic. Urgh!

yeah, it's not like the devs need to eat or anything. or that game publishers and developers are businesses. or gods forbid a game be fun.

What?!

RPGs with individual difficulty levels appeals to a broader audience, which results in higher sales.

[dlux]

I bet the people who bash on casual gamers are the same ones who can't figure out why COD is so popular. The majority of people love it when they can just pick up a game and play it.

I don't really see anybody bashing casuals. They are basically just stating that they don't want gameplay decisions to affect the game, respectively their prefered difficulty level. An aspect which is generally termed as "dumbing down".
 

Most people don't like dying over and over again because this causes frustration on something that's just supposed to be fun. That's why I feel like the fan base is full of masochists half the time. I get the whole challenge sentiment, but not the whole "make every RPG as hardcore as possible" thing. If I wanted something like that, then I'd play dark souls. Bioware games (at least in the current Gen) balance game play and story. I don't want to have to repeat my battle with random gang number 3 a bunch of times just to move the plot along. Its a nuisance fighting trash mobs over and over again.

Your assumption that RPG fans, who play RPGs on high difficulty levels, are simply masochists who love to "die over and over" again, is incorrect. Some people like higher difficulty levels because they enjoy developing intricate tactics and strategies, which are only required in a strongly simplified manner (or not at all) on lower difficulty levels.

I consider myself to be an old school RPG gamer and I hate dying, I hate it so much that I will make very wise choices and develop excellent strategies and tactics to prevent my party from dying. Using the full arsenal of my party's abilites is where the fun comes in; one-button-mashing, while the rest of my party is auto-attacking, just doesn't do it for me, I just don't feel challenged.

[dlux]

Heavens that's some nonsense.

If you would take the time to read this thread, then you would know that this is not the case.

[Spectre slayer]

Get rid of health after combat, it is annoying and doesnt fit into rpg. Learn to work with the resources you have at hand.

I got no problem about saving before a fight, we did it in the past and we can do it again.
A way to approach it, could be done with the difficulty scale. If somebody wants that oh so need health regeneration after combat, fine play it on a easier difficulty. It would also save people the trouble of constantly saving, while stilling leaving room for us who prefere to play it abit more hardcore.

Uh that's what they're doing, the regain thresholds are tied to the difficulty you're playing on.

Mark Darrah
There will be a threshold that you will heal back to after combat. This threshold will change at different difficulties. #DAI
3:57pm - 2 Sep 13

@user no, if you are above the threshold you will not heal.
9:16pm - 2 Sep 13

I have no problem with this either, i've played a lot of games that didn't have much or any regain, so i'm used to doing this and there's some other thing's that they're doing that might ease some concerns people have, like a possible perk/ augment system and 3 tier camp system which is our main base, secondary bases, and camps that your inquisition and you set up from what they've said in the world of thedas panel at pax east.

Well I'm thinking on lower difficulties enemies will do considerably less damage, so you wouldn't need to worry much about health?

I'm trying to tie it back to Dragon's Dogma, as that didn't have health regen either as I recall. What it did have was a certain set of armor that allowed your health to regen during daytime. I think something like that could work for DA.

Yeah there was no regain if you didn't use a certain armour or took an augment that helped out if you wanted some regain, otherwise it's likely somewhat similar to the system DAI is going to do.

Dragon Dogma had a threshold system in place that decreased when you took damage in combat and shrunk, you could use healing spells to reach your threshold but couldn't go over it until you took a healing item, DAI is doing partial regain based on your difficulty and doing something different with spells from what the magazine's and the devs said.

Yeah, it's possible that they'll keep the regen on casual, but I'm crazy and I have to play a game at the highest difficulty available. Because reason.

Not exactly, casual, easy, and normal are going to have limited to no regain based on what you're playing on, casual will have a bigger one, easy will have a smaller one, normal will have a very small one according to Darrah.

I don't think any difficulty will have an outright full regain, but Darrah did say there might be toggle on the lower difficulties to heal fully on his twitter after someone asked him that though if they didn't do that maybe Casual will get the full regain.

@BioMarkDarrah normal difficulty will have none, I hope?
7:11pm - 2 Sep 13

@user likely a very small one so that revived characters aren't literally at 1hp
9:17pm - 2 Sep 13
@user not locked down but likely
9:15pm - 2 Sep 13


Anyway it could be something like.

60% casual
30% easy
15% on normal

Or

75% Casual
50% easy
25% normal

Or something along those lines, people should wait until they release the thresholds.

[Paul E Dangerously]

Honestly, my only real gripe with this is that there's a really, really fine line between honest difficulty and trial-and-error. Another thing, when people keep bringing up the Souls series, an actual RPG is supposed to be about character skill as much (or more, in some cases) than player skill.

 

It also feels like Dragon Age has yet to find it's own niche. DA2 tried some stuff that really didn't work (namely, action game-esque boss patterns and HP inflation), so I'm interested to see what DAI does to try and liven things up. I really want them to move away from the MMO-esque "cycle through hotkeys and wait for them to cool down", but will it be in the right direction?

[Deflagratio]

IMO, i think people exaggerate the difficulty of Dark Souls. I think some gamers just got so used to having their hand held throughout a game. DS is really old school when it comes to difficulty and design. Most modern games usually have health regen, a checkpoint every few seconds, a map or giant map marker telling you exactly what to do or where to go, or invisible walls to keep you from falling of a ledge, DS has none of these. The other things to consider is gamers have different play styles, abilities/skill. I know there are some that just like to run up to a boss(DS) and swing away at the boss hoping for a win(DA equivalent would be, fighting a High Dragon and sending your mage/rogue to fight it head on without using spells or a warrior taking on all the agro).   

 

 Me advancing to the next level in CC: ok, i guess

 Me defeating a boss in DS: dancing or a fist raised in rightous glory. 

 

 

    

 

 

PS: Praise the Sun \o/ 

 

 

I can detatch my own perspective, in which I would agree with you, and say that yes, Dark Souls (Both of them) are extremely difficult. In my experience with Dark Souls 2, there was really only one boss that gave me real trouble, that was the damn Belfry Gargoyles. Something about four enemies gangbanging just does it for me. I had the same issue with Four Kings in Dark Souls 1. (Before I learned how2Darksouls and made a character that could DPS Burn them fast enough)

 

If you're a lifelong gamer, it's very easy to take for granted the finely tuned muscle memory, reaction speed and tactical theory that has developed over the years. Something as seemingly benign as a large enemy pulling back a hammer sends a different message to a verteran. What you read as "GTFO" and translate into the highly coordinated movements to manipulate the character on screen (A feat of spatial reasoning in itself), an amature will see as "Red button?"

 

That's why I always support difficulty settings/sliders, with the caveat that it not just be arbitrary difficulty. Some health and damage scaling is always essential, but a game like The Elder Scrolls uses that as it's only solution. Dark Souls 2 on the other hand, uses it's "Hard" Setting (New Game Plus) to boost damage/health and also redesign encounters entirely. Think the Lost Sinner was hard once? Try fighting it while two Pyromancers are throwing spells at you.

[dlux]

And if you would scuttle off back to the batcave and do some investigating of your own, I wouldn't have to take the time to point out to you that plenty of commercially successful titles approach things very differently.

Well then, please share your endless wisdom with us instead of just saying that a low difficulty level for "casual" players is a bad thing.

Like I already wrote, there are old-school gamers and "casuals" that want to play this game, yet both are not appealed by the same difficulty level. Both sides have written messages in this very thread, so read what they have to say and enlighten yourself.

[Eshaye]

It grew up, got a job, bills, mortgages, kids, and is too tired/busy to keep fighting the same boss over and over again.

 

You're not playing the original EQ or Lineage, you are playing a cinematic single player game. How much hand holding is too much at what point exactly? And read my post again, I have all those things and then some. 

 

 

I think both DAO and DA2 were fair to the various gamers. The casual difficulty was easy enough even for first time RPG players, while hard and nightmare offered a nice challenge for those who wanted it. 

I'm not too worried about DAI's difficulty to be honest.

 

However, I am curious about the no health-regen system and how they're going to balance it, since it mostly tends to be frustrating for me, instead of challenging. We'll see 

 

I honestly don't think it's going to be that big of a deal, though if they nerf it because too many people whine on the boards I will eat my socks, in sorrow. I remember it happening to Origins, which was just fine in difficulty imo. But whatever. (OMG why do we NEED pots?; because it's an RPG....)

[Ianamus]

I don't think it's something to worry about. 

 

It's not like it will be Origins or Dragon Age 2, but with no regenerating health. The encounters and difficulty will be built around it, and it will be possible to sneak past or otherwise avoid encounters that the player does not want to partake in. In some ways this might make it easier, as the very difficult boss fights with Dragons are now optional content, which might help avoid the issue of the boss difficulty spikes Dragon Age 2 had. 

 

I can see more casual players needing to think more about how they will handle encounters or having to invest more in stealth/enemy avoiding abilities, but I don't think it will be more difficult for them, not on the lowest difficulty at least. 

[daveliam]

Different games for different folks, right?

That's why I die a little inside every time I see developers roll out something as vapid as ME3's storymode or talk in terms of designing their game to meet the widest possible demographic. Urgh!

 

Different developers take different approaches.  Some target a specific market and some target a broad audience.  Perhaps, and this is just a suggestion, Bioware game just aren't for you.  Given that you "die" because of their "vapid" decision making, perhaps you should take your own advice and find a game series that targets only players like you.  Different games for different folks, right?

 

Most people don't like dying over and over again because this causes frustration on something that's just supposed to be fun.

 

To be honest, this is why I mostly play on casual or normal settings now.  My real life is stressful enough.  Back when I had little responsibility and life was easier, I liked more of a challenge.  But now, I play games to relax and enjoy myself.  I don't find it enjoyable to lose over and over when I'm just trying to relax.  I'm way too competitive and too much of a perfectionist to be okay with dying in the game, so it actually adds to my stress and makes me not even want to play anymore.  I don't have to tell you how frustrating it is to me that the only achievement that I don't have in either DA game is the stupid "Harvester on Nightmare" achievement.  I must have tried this about twenty times now and just can't get through it.  That's not fun gameplay to me.  It might be to other people, though.  This is why having a variety of difficulty settings is the best approach for a mass appeal game like DA.

[daveliam]

One can both enjoy the games Bioware makes - as I do for the most part - and discuss the things that we do and don't like about them Dave. Feel free to agree/disagree by all means - that's kind of the point of dedicated discussion forums after all!

 

I'm more than happy to discuss things, but when you throw insults like "vapid" around, you're not really setting yourself up to be someone whose opinions are respected. 

 

Your implication was that Bioware was making the wrong decision in your opinion by having options that open up the games for a wider market and then suggested that other players (not you, others) should find other games to play because not all games are for everyone.  I was simply pointing out that, perhaps, you are the one who should be looking for other games because Bioware is, without a doubt, continuing to make their games accessible for other people.  And, frankly, it's not like Bioware games were ever really "hardcore", to be honest.