217 réponses à ce sujet

[modernfan]

I'm older than a lot of other gamers & I play in casual mode to compensate for my physical limitations (severe arthritis of the hands).  It is a big part of why I play mostly RPGs as opposed to shooters.  My hope is that, as the current gaming population ages, developers will keep in mind that a less physically taxing means of play is necessary for many of us to continue gaming in the long term.  This area of game development deserves ongoing attention & I have complete confidence that BioWare will include these ableness concerns in its design/decisionmaking process.

[Gtdef]

Rant time.

 

What is accepted as difficult?

 

Difficult is something that strains the ability of someone that has adequate knowledge of that something. If you don't play piano, then playing the C scale is difficult. You can't possibly judge something as difficult when you lack the ability to perform even the simple functions. After the overall difficulty is established, then we go into the details. Learning to do A is more difficult but once you get the basics down, everything else comes naturally. Learning to do B is easier to learn but doing end game stuff is very involving and intimidating. And so on. For example FPS tend to be A, rpgs tend to be B. For fps the basics involve being accurate and knowing the maps. It's hard to maintain a 25%-30% overall accuracy rating and learn the map. Once you get the basics down, anticipating campers, flanking, capturing flags suddenly becomes easier. For rpgs, it's the other way around. The only thing you are required to know is the skillset of your character. That's pretty easy to do. But high level pvp and raiding require timing, extraordinary awareness and knowledge of what you are facing.

 

How this translates in DA games.

 

Both DAO and DA2 are pretty difficult to get into. DAO more than DA2, but still, both games do a poor job introducing you in the mechanics and what "getting stronger" means. Also comparatively they have very difficult encounters early in the game and the later it goes, they become easier. Redcliffe for example, defending the town against the skeleton swarm is difficult. Clearing the castle is easy. This happens because you can be methodical in your approach with the castle, do things right, but can't do the same with skeletons so it becomes a matter of bringing the right spells and having good gear. This is acceptable as long as the game continues this path till the end. But it doesn't. Once you get past the "hard points", the rest of the game plays itself and beats itself. Nightmare fails because the same things you are required to do in normal, transfer into Nightmare. There is nothing else. It's like playing normal with a bit less gear. If you beat normal easily you do the same for Nightmare.

 

DA2 has the problem of tying difficulty to scaling. As long as your upgrade your gear, your relative power is the same among all levels. But the game doesn't take into account how strong the party becomes by getting new abilities. This is painfully obvious and it's why Nightmare is ****** easy. Because the party becomes so strong that can literally stomp bosses without a single thought about the mechanics of the fight. The only instance where DA2 becomes difficult is when it swarms you with assassin elite npcs. If you can't keep them at check, then you will wipe because armor is useless against them. If you take damage you die. That's good, but it's the only thing in the game that provides challenge. It forces you to expend your cooldowns and your abilities to deal with them. A fight with 3-4 assassin npcs is way more difficult than any boss the game provides. If the game had good testing and every battle had it's niche to deal with, then it would be great. Instead you can find the hardest battle of the game dealing with a random sidequest. It fixes the DAO problem because the difference between Normal and Nightmare is huge, but the vast majority of the encounters just require better gear. If you have it you win, if you don't you lose.

 

On gamer vs non gamer, casual vs hardcore and challenge.

 

You either have an understanding of the game or you don't. Doesn't mean you are an idiot, doesn't mean you are a genius. But playing a game involves interacting with the actual mechanics. You can't play football and complain when someone tackles you because you are there just to burn calories. If you only care about what the npcs say and want to skip everything else, then you don't play a game, you watch animated pictures. If the game has you as a target audience, then it should have an easy mode that helps you through this. But any other mode should exist for gaming challenge. A game that tries to please everyone with higher difficulties is laughable and suffers from an identity crisis. Even those games that don't test your reaction times and coordination should still give you a hard time. Have you listening and reading between the lines. Giving you huge bonuses when you do things right and contemning you when you do them wrong. Having you play investigator and testing your trivia knowledge. Usually the games that test your reaction times are either multiplayer on don't have difficulty settings. Because that's the point of the game, to be fast and precise.

 

Of course this is difficult to do, especially when the developer in question doesn't like making games where you can lose and they have stated this. And it's even more difficult when you want to release games every year to make money. Not enough development time. They have to focus on qualities that attract a broader audience instead of creating something with character. This is problematic for both casual and hardcore gamers.

 

Zzzzzzz

[Dan Fango]

I also have zero interest in a challenge (at least, let's say, for my first few runs). I don't get the elitism behind this or the point of it; just because you think the game should be challenging, having an easy option will not affect your challenge in any way.

The thing is, not everybody who plays on 'easy' feels the same way. My sisters eldest for example is someone who alternates between playing games on casual and default difficulty settings and derives a great deal of joy from navigating challenging combat encounters, whatever his choice. So, to suggest that everybody who finds advanced gameplay settings a little too testing for their tastes are not looking for challenging combat encounters - pitched at their level - on the skill setting of their choice, is to assume a little too much I feel.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think this reputation exists because DAO was a bit more challenging on lower difficulties and more likely it was a lot like D&D in that there were a bunch of crap, trap abilities and easy ways to create a **** build or weak party that made the mid to late game harder.

I still maintain that that's part of the fun.

In a well-documented game, there is no such thing as a trap ability.

I do agree that DA2 was easier at difficulties below Nightmare, largely because of the lack of friendly fire, and more difficult on Nightmare, largely (I would argue) because of the combination of friendly fire and the asymmetrical hp numbers.

[Silent Rogue]

Yeah that's pretty elitist. Your definition of difficult must be different from other people.

Your definition of elitism must be different from other people. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

An RPG should be playable, at any difficulty level, by a quadriplegic. The difficulty should arise from decision-making, not player reflexes.

[AutumnWitch]

A gamer is a gamer hun, I'm a gamer and so are you, elitists that throw around the "non gamer" tag make me sick...not to mention incredibly angry.

 

 

I play two video game DAO & DA2. Haven't played any others ever and I'm over 30 years old so Ive had a lot of time to play in my life. I don't think playing 2 games qualifies me as being "a gamer". Not that there is ANYTHING wrong with gamers mind you. I think me calling myself a gamer would like some one who cooks one meal out of a cook book calling themselves a chef.

 

Sorry up if my previous post upset you.

[Schmonozov]

Origins on normal was easy, you didn't even didn't even have to be smart at building your character or in combat for that matter, anyone could steamroll trough that.

 

I hope Inquisition provides much more challenge.

 

That said, the easiest difficulty should be fine, I'm sure they'll tune it for people who don't want to worry about combat too much.

[NedPepper]

I'm not particularly looking for challenging combat either. But I am looking for non-dull combat, and that generally requires at least some difficulty.

No, I agree with you on that.  A good varied combat system requires the player to adapt.  I look at the Corypheus battle as one of those.  Until you figure out HOW to beat him, it can be a challenge.  But part of the fun is figuring out how to beat him.  I'm all in favor of more of those type battles.  I don't think any game should play exactly the same in every encounter.  That's where it gets repetitive and boring.  (I believe Destiny is getting that thrown at them, right now.) 

[Jaison1986]

OP, I understand the sentiment. I also thought DA:O could be hard as hell at times. I think there is an fine line in an game between a truly challanging difficulty and an cheap one. The problem with DA:O in my view for example, wasn't so much the game was just hard and I couldn't win, but more that enemies often used overwhelming attacks and cheap tatics. How I am supposed to fight while archer after archer drain my health and stun the entire team with an row of scattershots? How I am supposed to beat an mage that instantly starts combat with an cone of cold and then spam stuff like fire balls and chain lightining? In Origins, it wasn't even about being hard, the enemies were just made of cheese at times. I'm hoping that Inquisitor won't follow that road. At least give us fights that are viable to win by allowing us to outsmart enemies.

[Ajna]

I play two video game DAO & DA2. Haven't played any others ever and I'm over 30 years old so Ive had a lot of time to play in my life. I don't think playing 2 games qualifies me as being "a gamer". Not that there is ANYTHING wrong with gamers mind you. I think me calling myself a gamer would like some one who cooks one meal out of a cook book calling themselves a chef.

 

Sorry up if my previous post upset you.

I think you got the wrong end of the stick, I wasn't bashing you...I was bashing people who treat casual gamers (to me, anyone who plays games is a gamer but if you don't identify then that's cool) like they're the scum of the earth.  It's an attitude in gaming that has angered me for a while.  Also when it comes to age...I'm 41.  I certainly wasn't expecting to offend anyone by calling them a gamer, so my apologies if this was the case.

[Silent Rogue]

Be nice.

 

My brother-in-law needs to play video games on easy mode because he is severely disabled. His motor skills are there, but they are not as strong as the average gamer's. So... maybe some people need a game to be easier for story reasons, but there are others out there who would prefer to lower the difficulty setting for disability reasons - giving them a little extra time to respond to challenges. 

Are you implying that I think everyone should only play on high difficulty? This is not what I said, at least it wasn't my intention. For those who really don't want to or can't play on hard mode or whatever then so be it. There is of course nothing wrong with that. I was trying to get my point across that challenging gameplay does not always equal not having fun and people shouldn't be afraid to, you know, give it a shot. But I think that went over everyone's head.

 

As for the disability comment I would argue that it doesn't even apply in a game like Dragon Age. It's a pause and play style game where you give orders to your character and party members and the difficulty lies not in responsive motoring skills, hand-eye coordination, etc but in being tactical and methodical. 

[AutumnWitch]

I think you got the wrong end of the stick, I wasn't bashing you...I was bashing people who treat casual gamers (to me, anyone who plays games is a gamer but if you don't identify then that's cool) like they're the scum of the earth.  It's an attitude in gaming that has angered me for a while.  Also when it comes to age...I'm 41.  I certainly wasn't expecting to offend anyone by calling them a gamer, so my apologies if this was the case.

 

I wasn't saying anything negative about games, I was actually saying I am "not-qualified" to be a gamer because calling me a gamer would be insulting gamers.  As far as people who think "gamers" are a bad thing, that says way more about their own insecurities than it does gamers.

[NedPepper]

Origins on normal was easy, you didn't even didn't even have to be smart at building your character or in combat for that matter, anyone could steamroll trough that.

 

I hope Inquisition provides much more challenge.

 

That said, the easiest difficulty should be fine, I'm sure they'll tune it for people who don't want to worry about combat too much.

 
You say "anyone" but that's not true. Not in the people who I know who rage quit. (And if I know three or four people who rage quit, is it possible that others have the same statistics?) But, as I said earlier, they weren't accustomed to playing a game like Origins and the game itself didn't explain to them how to play it.  Bioware probably realized after Origins that they suddenly had a much larger and varied fanbase than their traditional RPG following.  If they didn't, Mass Effect certainly opened their eyes. More people, of all different backgrounds, are playing games than ever before.  I've always wondered though if maybe Dragon Age lost some of those people for good. Look at Origins sales, then look at Awakenings.  Then there's DA 2.  But it's hard to gauge that game, because so many people crapped on it from the start.  Inquisition's sales will be telling.  (I want Inquistion to have the same hype/excitment as, say Destiny, or even Mass Effect, but it's not there.  Although I do my best to hype it as much as I can, probably to the point where I become annoying.  ) 

[Ajna]

I wasn't saying anything negative about games, I was actually saying I am "not-qualified" to be a gamer because calling me a gamer would be insulting gamers.  As far as people who think "gamers" are a bad thing, that says way more about their own insecurities than it does gamers.

I know you weren't being negative, I'm not quite sure what's happened here with this exchange lol.

[CENIC]

I usually try to play a game on Normal difficulty and drop the difficulty level if I start dying repeatedly and become frustrated. I play games to relax and unwind, not to feel frustrated

 

I also think I might underestimate myself somewhat. I've heard a LOT of comments about how difficult Dragon's Dogma is, and I managed to beat that game several times before they patched in difficulty levels. I didn't start abusing OP mechanics until NG++++, either (as I recall, I switched from exclusively melee to using a bow and pre-Dark Arisen Invisibility because I wanted to grind on the Ur Dragon)

[Geth Supremacy]

I play two video game DAO & DA2. Haven't played any others ever and I'm over 30 years old so Ive had a lot of time to play in my life. I don't think playing 2 games qualifies me as being "a gamer". Not that there is ANYTHING wrong with gamers mind you. I think me calling myself a gamer would like some one who cooks one meal out of a cook book calling themselves a chef.

 

Sorry up if my previous post upset you.

How did you come to play dragon age in the first place?  What makes you refrain from expanding to other games....Mass Effect for instance.

[Silent Rogue]

The pause and play style is optional. And some people opt not to play in that style, regardless of their abilities. 

 

Your post seemed ....angry. Maybe like you were offended in some way. I guess you were offended, because you find higher difficulty levels fun. But some people don't find them fun, and the fact that they know they aren't fun is likely because they have tried them and failed. Anyway, the point I was making was that some people need lower difficulty in order to enjoy the story, and some people need lower difficulty for motor skill reasons. And some need both. 

 

Bottom line: Everyone plays the way they want, given the options. I don't see the reason to judge or be prescriptive. If there's an easy option, then easy should be easy. It would be unfair if "nightmare" was too easy, just like it would be unfair if "easy" was too hard. 

If you thought I was offended because of a difference in opinion, then you've misinterpreted my post. 

[sophisticated shepard]

I normally play on the normal (default) difficulty. If I run in to trouble in an area that I can't handle I will turn it down until its finished then retore it to the previous one.

 

On a side note I think that the in game ''pause'' option is a good idea so you can plan out tatical advantages not necessarily having to alter the difficulty. 

[Mr.House]

 

Whereas in DAO mobs used diferent tactics in normal and further, t

Uh huh, don't know what game you played, but that never happen in my copy. Unless you mean they used abilities more often then yeah, but they never used new tactics.

[Giant ambush beetle]

Fear not, Bioware always includes an easy setting which is usually so outrageously easy that it is difficult to die. 

[Geth Supremacy]

Fear not, Bioware always includes an easy setting which is usually so outrageously easy that it is difficult to die. 

I would also be shocked if the game didn't offer regeneration as equipment bonus.  And im sure mana regenerates so you can keep a healing spell on.