338 réponses à ce sujet

[Zenbry]

Zenbry -

In the gameplay demo featuring the timed event where you have to save the village or the Keep, didn't Mike Laidlaw mention that the player will have already visited that area? Presumably, they will also have had time for leisurely exploration.
I totally get where you're coming from, but, as an example, when the Inqusitor in the demo was traveling through the cave to reach the Keep and passed those Veilfire markings on the wall, I didn't get the impression that I would not be able to go back and examine them later. The timed event demands priority, but there will be opportunities to "stop and smell the flowers" so to speak.

I will be playing on PC, so if obtaining the outcome I want is difficult, I will shamelessly hack my way through it. Banging my head against a difficulty wall, especially one that says "the way you play may be fun for you, but it's WRONG, git gud" is not my idea of a good time.

 

You make a really good point. I assume/hope you're right. I do still worry about the inability to do everything I "suppose to do" in the allotted time to get the result I want, and I expect I will never be a fan of the "Oh no, oh no, got to go!" feeling of panic I get from timed sections.

[BubbleDncr]

I would really be surprised if the "easy/casual" mode doesn't have health regen in it. Logic being that most game companies want players to play through the whole game, and having people give up because they ran out of health potions in a tough part of the game would stop that from happening.

[n7stormrunner]

True RPGs do not have health regeneration or any level/content scaling. If you say otherwise, then you are obviously a casual and your opinion is therefore invalid. :3

 

But don't fret dear casuals, you will still get your health regeneration and super easy combat; just choose story mode. 

 

 

doesn't this assume there will be a story mode....  as far as I know only me3 had that.

[L. Han]

I thought this was where we were suppose speculate, raise concerns, joyously squee that sort of thing. From the information thus far released I have a few niggling concerns about dying a lot. I thought I would share them and see if anyone wanted to discuss them. Obviously some people did.

 

 

The last thing I want you to think is that I don't want some level of challenge. Accomplishing something hard in a game is a great high, however I also find enjoyment in exploring, collecting, and feeling immersed in a deep world and story. A game with a high level of difficulty in combat, especially one where I die repeatedly, takes away from my enjoyment in those other areas. Let me be clear. This is true for me. I respect people who are good at shooters and fighting games. I am in awe of people who have beaten Dark Souls without throwing controllers through the tv. But that level of hand eye coordination and resistance to frustration are not talents I possess, and not where I find Bioware games shine for me.

 

Those issues are more or less, difficulty spikes which is often just poor design.

[SerCambria358]

why all the logical fallacies, no health regen, no/few potions and neutered healing doesn't more strategic that just not what that word means. at best it means more busy work like BG and the rest button or alot of back tracking.

more strategic elements does. the ice wall is one.

Wouldn't limiting the amount of health potions you can carry along with no health regen, in turn force the player to play strategically rather than recklessly?

[ames4u]

I love it when people take things out of context.

Reserve judgement for when the game or reviews become available. Fretting like this isn't helping anyone.

[GeoGirl2008]

They bumped in up from ME to ME2 and then again to ME3 so much so that they had to include a narrative difficulty.

 

I believe they stated they included the narrative/casual difficulty because they had several fans who were more interested in the story than the combat, and they requested it. I don't think it had anything to do with the actual game difficulty. I found ME3 Insanity easier than ME2 Insanity. 

[nightscrawl]

As someone who does a first play on casual/easy and then moves higher as I do successive plays, I really don't have any concerns about difficulty with DAI.

[Pleonast]

I'm not overjoyed with the lack of regenerating health/potion limits/limits on resources for making potions but I'm hoping those'll be less of an issue on lower difficulty levels. And if all else fails, hopefully DAI will still let you access the console and heal through commands. It's not just you, OP, don't worry.

[brightblueink]

It might just be because I've been a JRPG fan since I was a kid, but I don't see no regen health as necessarily a "difficulty" thing. It's more just about a style. I think the dev comments about them wanting players to be aware of the entire adventure rather than just individual encounters is a good one. It's not there to "punish" players. It's there to change their perceptions.

 

Plus, as someone who IS very story-focused I'm thrilled about features like the no regen health and limited resources because I think that will help me be more immersed in the story. It never made sense to me that characters could be near-death one minute and then jump up and be totally healthy the next (other than an injury that can be cured by just tossing an injury kit at them--which are in plentiful supply in Origins, at least in my experience as I'm replaying the game right now). Nor did it make sense to me that you could find one stalk of elfroot in DA][ and then have an unlimited amount of potions that your contact was supposedly making from that single source. It really feels like the gameplay changes have been made to make Thedas feel less like a game and more like a living, breathing world you have to be mindful of, and that makes me very, very exctied.

 

Regardless I don't think casual players need to be that worried. Dragon Age is not Dark Souls. (Believe me, I've played Dark Souls.) They're two different games with two different goals--neither more valid. Bioware knows what its audience is and it knows some people are just interested in exploring and/or dialogue and they're going to provide a casual difficulty for those people. Just let those of us that like a challenge and thoughtful gameplay get a chance to have fun, too.

[Blackrising]

I understand your concerns and I actually feel much the same way. I always play games on casual, as I'm simply not looking for a challenge when playing video games (excluding some choice titles), but a good story, interesting characters and the ability to shape the main character and the world they inhabit.

Difficult games frustrate me and if it was possible on consoles, I would use cheats. Lacking that, the first thing I do when I get a new game is go looking for any exploits. Some news about DA;I, especially the lack of health regen, do worry me....however, I trust Bioware to make sure that the casual difficulty will be just that - casual.

[Allan Schumacher]

It's more just about a style. I think the dev comments about them wanting players to be aware of the entire adventure rather than just individual encounters is a good one. It's not there to "punish" players. It's there to change their perceptions.

 

 

Yeah this is a big thing.  The feeling of accomplishment, and progression, from being able to make it past that difficult encounter that tended to be costly on your adventuring resources.  It's less to do with a "difficulty" thing, and it also means that during combat design, smaller encounters can still be meaningful.  We don't need to throw a dozen bad guys your way because a combat doesn't need to be threatening to the player outright to be a meaningful combat.  This means that a 4v4 fight can still provide some level of strategic challenge (or even a 4v1 fight), whereas in a game with more aggressive health regeneration, it's a minor speed bump.

 

That said, we do know that there's a variety of skillsets that our audience has.  We do have difficulty levels again, and there will be a variety of things that we can juggle around with to ensure the game experience is enjoyable for what people want out of a particular difficulty level.

[Zjarcal]

Yeah this is a big thing.  The feeling of accomplishment, and progression, from being able to make it past that difficult encounter that tended to be costly on your adventuring resources.  It's less to do with a "difficulty" thing, and it also means that during combat design, smaller encounters can still be meaningful.  We don't need to throw a dozen bad guys your way because a combat doesn't need to be threatening to the player outright to be a meaningful combat.  This means that a 4v4 fight can still provide some level of strategic challenge (or even a 4v1 fight), whereas in a game with more aggressive health regeneration, it's a minor speed bump.

 

I love reading this, it's exactly what I want from the game's combat.

[n7stormrunner]

Wouldn't limiting the amount of health potions you can carry along with no health regen, in turn force the player to play strategically rather than recklessly?

 

nope, most will just end up heading back to base alot. in fact now that there is no more level scaling that will be the best way to play, other wise you run the risk being to unleveled to finish a main quest. or the content will be so easy the limited healing/regen will not matter. yes alot of people on this forum will ran down every side quest they can, I myself do every side quest I can before the next main quest. but not everyone does that.

 

there is no way to "force" a player to play strategically. or more accurately in this case cautiously. you can reward cautious play more but you can't make a player who plays aggressively to act against their prefered style. more to the point  trying to make them will just cause a bunch of frustration for everyone.

[jtav]

I certainly hope Easy/Casual/Narrative will be easy. I have a minor nervous breakdown every time I start DAO because I worry over whether I'm building the character properly and whether I can afford to make certain decisions. It's not fun, it's just stressful. And yes, I've played every BW game since BG.

[Wulfram]

Lack of regenerating health means that the developers have to step back the difficulty for individual fights, and thus is likely to result in a less difficult game, even if it may encourage a little more concentration for minor fights.

[In Exile]

Lack of regenerating health means that the developers have to step back the difficulty for individual fights, and thus is likely to result in a less difficult game, even if it may encourage a little more concentration for minor fights.

Or an uneven difficulty spike for hard or nightmare. It's very possible to curbstomp DA2 battles on nightmare - in fact, in that game you pretty much have to do that because any encounter might lead to a full party wipe if any real enemy gets a hit in.

[FilthyPlebianN7]

nvm

[CronoDragoon]

Yeah this is a big thing.  The feeling of accomplishment, and progression, from being able to make it past that difficult encounter that tended to be costly on your adventuring resources.  It's less to do with a "difficulty" thing, and it also means that during combat design, smaller encounters can still be meaningful.  We don't need to throw a dozen bad guys your way because a combat doesn't need to be threatening to the player outright to be a meaningful combat.  This means that a 4v4 fight can still provide some level of strategic challenge (or even a 4v1 fight), whereas in a game with more aggressive health regeneration, it's a minor speed bump.

 

How often will we be able to skip combat, given this? I love this idea if it means, for example, we can plausibly avoid that bandit camp at the beginning of the forest level to save our resources for what might be coming later in the level.

[Allan Schumacher]

How often will we be able to skip combat, given this? I love this idea if it means, for example, we can plausibly avoid that bandit camp at the beginning of the forest level to save our resources for what might be coming later in the level.

 

 

Skipping combat is part of the idea of dealing the strategic challenge, so to speak.  I couldn't speak in absolutes, but some combats can be missed, some won't be able to for a variety of reasons.  Combats can serve as a gate, for example, and stuff like that.

[AlanC9]

Or an uneven difficulty spike for hard or nightmare. It's very possible to curbstomp DA2 battles on nightmare - in fact, in that game you pretty much have to do that because any encounter might lead to a full party wipe if any real enemy gets a hit in.

In my old PnP group we used to talk about "boolean" character builds; you'd either immediately win or immediately lose any given fight, with no intermediate outcomes. We considered them anti-fun and tried to house-rule them out as best we could.

I thought it was a little weird that DA2 went even further in this direction than DAO did.

[In Exile]

In my old PnP group we used to talk about "boolean" character builds; you'd either immediately win or immediately lose any given fight, with no intermediate outcomes. We considered them anti-fun and tried to house-rule them out as best we could.

I thought it was a little weird that DA2 went even further in this direction than DAO did.

 

I agree with you there, though to be honest I prefer "boolean builds" (to borrow the phrase) to the typical RPG HP hack-away on both sides like DA:O. 

[kheldorin]

In my old PnP group we used to talk about "boolean" character builds; you'd either immediately win or immediately lose any given fight, with no intermediate outcomes. We considered them anti-fun and tried to house-rule them out as best we could.

I thought it was a little weird that DA2 went even further in this direction than DAO did.

I don't think you should judge DA2 by it's nightmare mode. It's meant to punish the player for making mistakes. In the other difficulty levels, combat is actually very forgiving. The penalty for playing poorly is just lengthier combat.

 

There's also other factors such as party setup. Obviously if you set up your party to be "glass cannons", the outcomes are going to be extreme.

[AlanC9]

Is DA2 really all that forgiving? In my experience a DA2 battle can go to pieces quite a bit faster than a DAO battle. There are a lot more things that can one-shot a character; the only equivalent issue in DAO is everyone getting stunlocked by chain lightning et al.

There are also far more ways to screw up a DA2 build, I think.

 

I'm not saying DA2 is particularly difficult as RPGs go, mind. Though it's got a little bit of that IE feel, where a lot of the challenge is getting past all the noise in the spell lists.

[KaiserShep]

Is DA2 really all that forgiving? In my experience a DA2 battle can go to pieces quite a bit faster than a DAO battle. There are a lot more things that can one-shot a character; the only equivalent issue in DAO is everyone getting stunlocked by chain lightning et al.

There are also far more ways to screw up a DA2 build, I think.

 

I agree with this. DA2 definitely had harsher enemies overall. In my first playthrough, I was surprised by how potent certain enemies could be, like that dwarf swindler you encounter in the Miracle Makers quest in Act 1. Bartrand was a total pain in the ass because he had extremely high health, can one-shot kill anyone, was stealth most of the time, and was almost as resistant to force mage attacks as the gorram Arishok! It took me a while to figure out how to combat him with little risk of being backstabbed to death. And then there were the magical enemies that could kill the entire team if you don't take them out first, like the arcane horrors, darkspawn emissaries and the saarebas. Even the pride demons were worse because of that vortex of doom that they do.