96 réponses à ce sujet

[mikeymoonshine]

DA:O's nightmare was fun and you didn't need to have like a massively specialized build you just had to think about your build a bit and how you approached battles. I found DA2's nightmare to be annoying and pretty unplayable though tbh so I played on hard. I will be playing Inquisition on hard and If I do ok on that mode I will try nightmare out. 

[Jouni S]

In combat-heavy games such as the Dragon Age series, difficulty detracts from gameplay at the point where combat requires too much player attention.

 

I prefer games, where combat is smooth but requires minimal player intervention. I want to develop character abilities into directions that feel interesting and reasonable, regardless of how well it works in that particular game system. I want the characters to fight well with the default scripts based on their roles, without having to micromanage the AI every time they gain levels. In routine battles, I want to sit back and watch as the characters fight, while giving occasional commands as the tactical situation changes. Boss fights should still be challenging, but there should not be too many of them.

 

DA:O combat was quite enjoyable on hard, after I learned that melee fighters are supposed to be decoys instead of the guys who handle the real fighting. In DA2, combat was too tedious and slow-paced for my taste, and I would probably have enjoyed the game more without any fighting.

[Chuvvy]

When the challenge is no longer fair. Meaning, when the game begins to cheat (not sure how pervasive this is now but it was somewhat common back in the day) or when the enemies are buffed to a ridiculous degree, and you are nerfed to a ridiculous degree. Ideally it has a nice curve to it, but never becomes unbalanced. Also, the enemy AI getting better, and using different tactics is always a nice way to increase the difficulty without it becoming unbalanced.

 

Basically you want to toe the line between frustration and challenge. Off the top of my head a game that does this well is Dustforce, but it's a platformer and not very relevant to the difficulty in a RPG.

[aeoncs]

I mean, I hear what you're saying, but I honestly find it a little hard to believe that you could get through DA:O on Nightmare without really specialising beyond optimising NPCs in their natural direction... not unless you were hardcore using exploits and kiting.

 

Ehm... what? In a party-based RPG where solo-runs on Nightmare are a possibility, you don't need optimized builds when using a full party, not even close. I'm not trying to be a jerk or something but DAO really isn't a hard game.

[l7986]

While I may hate on multiplayer, I found working myself up to gold and platinum on for ME3 made even the hardest modes in single player a complete cake walk. Still had a bit of a problem in certain areas when multiple Banshee's were around, but it really taught me a lot. So I'd say if you're having trouble on hard or insanity, go into multiplayer and get good.

[Rawgrim]

When it goes from fun to being a chore.

[Nefla]

The only useful skill in ME2 on the highest difficulty was Reave. That skill was so good you could go most of the game without shooting a single shot. Just find cover and duck your head out for one second to cast Reave and then immediately hide back in cover again. Rinse and repeat.

That doesn't sound fun at all :/

[Almostfaceman]

When the gameplay is divorced from the game world and the player's expectations. So mobs with ridiculous hp and damage output.

 

Or having potions magically heal players instantly but disallowing actual magic from healing. That's stupid.

 

Stop whining about the healing, we get it already. It's entertaining at first then a person wants to go

 

[Almostfaceman]

At what point does difficulty detract from gameplay?

 

When you're doing this...

 

 

Instead of this...

 

 

Honestly that's probably the hardest part of making a video game, trying to find "universal" difficulty levels for a lot of people. 

[Original_Bars]

With BioWare games i usually care more about the story, companion interaction, lore and the RPG elements if anything. which is also reflected by me not picking (or sticking with) higher difficulties on a first playtrough.

 

I usually start off (dependent on the game obv) with a difficulty that is slightly harder than normal, never the hardest though.. and dial it down if i feel that i'm dying to much for me to enjoy the game.

 

Might just be because im not the kind of gamer that absolutely strives to complete a game at the hardest difficulty, i rarely ever do that.. can only remember one instance of doing so which was Call of Duty 2..

[TheTurtle]

When every battle feels like they're Shao Kahn levels of cheap.

[ResistanceKnight]

Depends on the game.  I'll only allow myself to play Xcom: Enemy Unknown on Insanity with Long War installed.  Anything less just feels wrong, and I can usually get pretty far before the attrition takes too much of a toll on my soldier count. 

 

DA: Origins however?  Ate me up and spat me out.  Only beat the game cause I went down to easy, and I'm still not exactly sure where I went wrong.  Never had a problem with any of the Mass Effects on Insanity, might have died here or there sure, but never had any real problem.  Origins just destroyed me for some reason.

[Brelakor]

I think Bioware is pretty good at providing a range of difficulties from easy to really damn hard, which I like because it means people can play however they want to... my first playthrough of any game I play on the lowest difficult because I'm mostly just in it for the story. My second, third and so on playthroughs I change the difficulty to hard or nightmare to make it different from my first playthrough and more exciting I suppose. I dunno about having to use optimized builds though to defeat the harder difficulties, I just figured out what worked as I went along... when I did my first nightmare playthrough of DA2 I did it with a Spirit Healer Hawke, Fenris, Merrill and Isabela. I had Fenris, Hawke and Merrill specced so they could combo off each other (stagger/lightning combo I think), rarely used any AOE which had friendly fire without micromanaging it (I used the primal AOE mage talents a lot because they only target enemies) and had Isabela's tactics configured so she would run around nuking the enemies with the lowest health... It worked pretty well apart from against Qunari because I think they were resistant to electricity or something oh and a few times at the start, before I changed his tactics, Fenris would do his scythe charge attack thing and 1 shot one of my party members... It was usually Hawke so I just pretended it was in character for him because I was rivalmancing him as a mage at the time haha!

I've done nightmare with a rogue as well which worked a lot better then I thought it would because Anders' healing tree is crappy compared to Hawke's Spirit Healer. I had rogue Hawke go melee and stun lock any mages in combat, she could literally just nuke them down herself by interrupting them constantly. I had Anders, Merrill and I can't remember if it was Aveline or Fenris (I think it as Fenris) basically doing the same stagger/lightning combo to AOE down all the mooks

I've only ever been able to kill the Arishok on nightmare with a mage and that was by kiting him all over the damn room like an idiot ._.

[Aurok]

I think Hard is the one you'll want, OP. It usually strikes a good balance between having to pay attention during combat, while still giving you the flexibility to mess around with your party. I think Normal will be too easy for you.

[ewauksonian]

That's what the "Easy" (or Casual, depending on the game) Difficulty is for. For my first games, I almost ALWAYS play on that first. After I get a handle of it after I finished the game, I increase the difficulty to Normal. If I still have later plays, I'll up to Hard and the Nightmare. 

 

I'm not one of those guys that believe I, myself (not claiming anyone else here) is able to do Nightmare on the outset. I think that actually defeats the purpose of the difficulty setting actually. If you can do it easily from the get go, they've made the game too easy.

[Shahadem]

 

Stop whining about the healing, we get it already. It's entertaining at first then a person wants to go

 

 

Then just don't post a reply. Wow that would have been easy. You're like one of the fools who complains about complaining. Look in the mirror once in a while.

[Almostfaceman]

Then just don't post a reply. Wow that would have been easy. You're like one of the fools who complains about complaining. Look in the mirror once in a while.

 

You're like the guy at the table who says the same thing over and over. It's pretty much a given that the other folks trying to talk are going to ask you to change the subject eventually. We'd like to hear you talk about something else, so you don't come across as an obsessed weirdo. 

[DAJB]

For me, and I openly admit to being a casual gamer, how difficult a game is has a huge impact on how enjoyable it is. When game reviews seem to agree that a game is difficult (e.g. Ninja Gaidan) I don't even bother to try it. Why waste money on a game which I know I'm not going to be able to finish and which - for the few hours I do play it before giving up - it's going to be a long tedious slog of die/try/die/retry/curse and repeat?

 

As others have said here, for me, the story and characters are vital and having to constantly die and respawn ruins the immersion in the game. As a general rule, therefore, I tend to play games on the easiest difficulty setting possible for my first play through. If I enjoy the story and do actually find it easy, I'll then step up to a higher difficulty setting for subsequent playthroughs.

 

I loved DA:O (as I'm sure everyone here does!) but, for gamers like me, the broodmother is ridiculously difficult for a mini-boss half-way through the game. Any challenge which can potentially stop you in your tracks so that you can't finish the game is seriously bad game design and tantamount to selling half a game at full-game price. 

 

Having difficult "optional" bosses is another matter. The Andraste-dragon in DA:O, for example, or the lightning-dragon in DA:O(A), are good examples of how difficult enemies can be included in a game for those who really want them, without stopping casual players from progressing.

[Blackstork]

Hey but those bossies are beatable on nightmare even with 2 people in a party! You just think about every potion, granade and micromanage movement and position. Its a part of game that provides challenge. Without it it would have much less value as a game.

[hexaligned]

I can't speak to DA2, I didn't play much of it, but you 100% did not have to min max to get through DAO on Nightmare.  That is the only difficulty I played on, and I had to purposely gimp myself to get any sort of challenging game play out of it.  

 

I think it depends a lot more on how the game is increasing difficulty.  If it's actually the games AI  complexity and competency that is getting better as I increase the difficulty, then I don't really have a point where I will get bored or sick of it.  I will always find that sort of difficulty ramping engaging.

 

If it's just a matter of stat bloat as you increase difficulty, then I most times can't even be bothered.  There is a bare minimum in that regard though, even in DAO on Nightmare you run around one shotting most enemies in the game, especially after level 17ish, as that's when enemy scaling caps out.  I find that far more off putting than encountering a fail state if I fail at understanding or playing a game well.

[DAJB]

Hey but those bossies are beatable on nightmare even with 2 people in a party! You just think about every potion, granade and micromanage movement and position. Its a part of game that provides challenge. Without it it would have much less value as a game.

They are beatable, yes, and I have beaten them several times in subsequent playthroughs but, as per the title of the thread, I'm simply saying that - for me - they don't add to the value of the game, they detract from it. 

 

I'd love to go dragon-hunting in DA:I but, from what I've seen of the gameplay trailers, I suspect I won't bother to try it more than once or twice. If it takes an hour-plus to defeat a dragon (and even then it may fly away before you finish!) then, frankly, it becomes a bit of a chore and I'd rather let it live and get on with the story. 

[finc.loki]

If a game becomes frustrating or it feels like enemies are cheating, it is very bad game design.

 

I see it this way, I want to be really powerful and wipe any low level "plebs" almost instantly. They should NOT be on my level even when (higher levels).

Some mini bosses and specialized enemies should present a challenge. But the minor enemies should be easily dispatched.

 

It annoyed me seeing some party members in DAI playthroughs dropping 20% health for each hit a same level MINOR archer did in some fights. Yet you as the quizzy would have to put 10 basic arrows into them and a special ability. Things like that is ultra stupid, artificial difficulty to make the fights last longer.

 

A HUGE mistake making the hero (aka the player) feel weaker than standard enemies. It is easy to see why they did it. Every single group of enemies you meet is almost always 4, just like your party. So you don't steamroll through them, they make them as "good as your hero and party", well almost.

I find that stupid. It really makes you feel like your hero is nothing special. I rather have the larger waves of enemies ala DA2. In that one you FELT like you could dispatch the enemies like you were a HERO/Pro.

 

It is just so boring watching videos and see the archer just shoot basic after basic doing PITIFUL damage in waiting for a special that STILL doesn't kill the target, A MINOR enemy.

I know some of the plays are early level so that can change a lot, but I worry with the new system they set up and limited potions.

 

The frustration to get to your UNLIMITED stash of potions didn't change ANYTHING. You still have as many potions as you want, just you have to get back to camp and then run back out in the SAME FN AREA you already explored facing the now respawned SAME FN ENEMIES.

It is beyond idiotic as a system.

 

Would have just been better to be able to loot health potions here and there along the way. Not in huge quantities, but on occasion, it would make it feel valuable and you can progress in the world instead of the constant need to run back to camp gameplay. 

 

 

The one AOE we have as archers, The explosive shot is one of the weakest in damage at 200% damage. Will it be effective or a waste of stamina?

[Blackstork]

I completely disagree with last two posters. This also means that while obcourse I respect their view, it is their personal and subjective. I do not think that game should be butter and offer only story. There should be challenge. The challenge of DA:O was not detracting player from the game. Opposite - player counted each bottle, greanade and potion. He counted resources. This add to immersion, tension and experience game provided. I hate to feel like my PC mighty unstopabble cheater hero. Truly epic stories should provide true struggle.

[Eudaemonium]

When it becomes infuriating instead of enjoyable. Pretty simple answer.

[ewauksonian]

There are four difficulty sliders. Just use them and play on the lower difficulties if things get too tough. That's what I would do.