189 réponses à ce sujet

[Blue_Shayde]

I'm mostly worried that a good topic might get froze if things turn into a huge arguement. Seen it many times.

 

But I do agree. The regen would be to much, cause its no fun if there is still not a little danger at least. Scaling enemies and item drops based on your level would be nice to. The only issue then is if certain areas are meant to be harder, but the player goes early while the levels are low. But that could be balanced by the item drops being scaled. Go to early, miss out on the really good loot. That sort of thing.

 

I just think that if you are lvl 12, fighting a lvl 12 dragon, with a party of lvl 12 people on casual mode, you should be able to win. Right now, I think I need to lvl to 15+ in order to hand that dragon a new one.

[NoDoubtsAtAll]

I'm mostly worried that a good topic might get froze if things turn into a huge arguement. Seen it many times.

 

But I do agree. The regen would be to much, cause its no fun if there is still not a little danger at least. Scaling enemies and item drops based on your level would be nice to. The only issue then is if certain areas are meant to be harder, but the player goes early while the levels are low. But that could be balanced by the item drops being scaled. Go to early, miss out on the really good loot. That sort of thing.

 

I just think that if you are lvl 12, fighting a lvl 12 dragon, with a party of lvl 12 people on casual mode, you should be able to win. Right now, I think I need to lvl to 15+ in order to hand that dragon a new one.

I see what you mean. ie. Bum rushing a dragon scaled down to level 3 or whatever and beating it down as oppose to having a more difficult battle with it, true to how it -should- be.  What about keeping the mobs that are meant to be harder at a default level and scaling it up as they surpass it? Say dragon is defaulted at 12, but you tackle it at 15, on anything but casual the dragon scales with you, but harder mobs like that stay at the preset level for casual?

 

Forgot to add this; with all difficulties having the loot scale more with the level (with still perhaps a random lower chance for lower tier stuff.) And casual could still get the higher look while fighting the easier mobs?

 

If I worded that poorly, please tell me. Juggling a few things here at the moment, but I can probably phrase it better if needed.

[Blue_Shayde]

I see what you mean. ie. Bum rushing a dragon scaled down to level 3 or whatever and beating it down as oppose to having a more difficult battle with it, true to how it -should- be.  What about keeping the mobs that are meant to be harder at a default level and scaling it up as they surpass it? Say dragon is defaulted at 12, but you tackle it at 15, on anything but casual the dragon scales with you, but harder mobs like that stay at the preset level for casual?

 

Forgot to add this; with all difficulties having the loot scale more with the level (with still perhaps a random lower chance for lower tier stuff.) And casual could still get the higher look while fighting the easier mobs?

That would work well. That way casual people can overlevel a boss if they need to or feel like it, but harder difficulties can avoid the threat of overleveling by having enemies scale to them.

 

Of course, when I said I should be able to win against a lvl 12 dragon with a lvl 12 team, I still expect it to be a fight. Just a possible fight. Not end up with the dragon half dead and unable to win because all potions are gone and you can't heal your tank anymore. And oh look, it's summoning dragonlings.

[NoDoubtsAtAll]

lol, true on that.  And you also don't want it so easy that it feels like you're fighting a stuffed animal .

[Blue_Shayde]

lol, true on that.  And you also don't want it so easy that it feels like you're fighting a stuffed animal .

yeah...that would take away the fun of setting things on fire.

 

But no, if I fight a dragon, I want to fight a dragon. I love dragons. My single most favorite mythological creature. I want a dragon in all its glory. I do LOVE the way DAI has gone about introducing dragons. The fight between the Dragon and the Giant was "badass" as Iron Bull put it. And when I ran into the Hinterlands Dragon, the way it crashed through that mountain and actually destroyed bits of it..............YES.

 

I want it to be a challenge, but not an impossible one or one that leaves me thinking I need to overlevel to succeed.

[NoDoubtsAtAll]

Which the removing of healing spells takes a lot of that away. It is more outleveling and tactics on some is avoid the boss while fighting at a distance (or baiting with one character). Which I have done for a couple on nightmare. Since the traditional tank is now more building up guard and waiting for a mage to put that barrier up.  And oh **** I ran out of potions, or forgot to set one of the characters who drank all of them like he wanted to get drunk to not use beyond a certain point. 

[Blue_Shayde]

Nah, worse on my end. Half the time, the character that needed to be drinking the potions wouldn't. *eyes Iron Bull* While Dorian decided he was tank and Varric abandoned his Bianca to go dagger rogue all of a sudden (which I don't know how he does that, considering he doesn't have daggers equipped). Sometimes these three...I swear....

[King Dragonlord]

Aw but now you're derailing. You aren't trying to go based off your initial argument and picking at something else. Did you run out of things to say? Don't let me get bored with you so fast. lol

 

 

 

Didn't you want me to stop beating the dead horse? I was trying to add variety to the proceedings.

 

But if you must.

 

I used to think combat was vital to RPGs. Then I played a DnD campaign where we went three months without any combat. It was all negotiations, intrigue, stealth, etc. One of the best campaigns I've played. It led to me looking more and more for the fun I could have outside of a fight (hint to enchanters, common npcs have much lower will saves than the guy you're actually trying to mess with. Also, illusions, at least  in 3.5 DnD and prior, could create anything you could imagine. Loads of fun to be had with that.)

 

I think the way RPGs focus on the combat leads to us not thinking as much about actually playing a role. Or when we think "role" now, I fear an entire generation is going to reply "Oh right 'role' you mean like healer, tank or DPS right?" 

 

Now to be fair, games do a really solid job of simulating combat and not so well at simulating other things but its disheartening when it seems like games aren't really trying to break out of that box. 

[Blue_Shayde]

Didn't you want me to stop beating the dead horse? I was trying to add variety to the proceedings.

 

But if you must.

 

I used to think combat was vital to RPGs. Then I played a DnD campaign where we went three months without any combat. It was all negotiations, intrigue, stealth, etc. One of the best campaigns I've played. It led to me looking more and more for the fun I could have outside of a fight (hint to enchanters, common npcs have much lower will saves than the guy you're actually trying to mess with. Also, illusions, at least  in 3.5 DnD and prior, could create anything you could imagine. Loads of fun to be had with that.)

 

I think the way RPGs focus on the combat leads to us not thinking as much about actually playing a role. Or when we think "role" now, I fear an entire generation is going to reply "Oh right 'role' you mean like healer, tank or DPS right?" 

 

Now to be fair, games do a really solid job of simulating combat and not so well at simulating other things but its disheartening when it seems like games aren't really trying to break out of that box. 

Hmm...But I think that also depends on the rpg. Some games have that stealth and political aspect heavily given to it, while other games lean more towards traditional. DA is one of the ones leaning towards more traditional.

 

Or you get a happy medium where you fight some battles and talk your way out of others.

 

We need to remember that games are no longer black or white when it comes to genres. You get main genres, then their subgenres, and then those subgenres having more subgenres. Really, the lines are getting blurry.

[Sylvius the Mad]

All of this except the health regen. You should still be able to die if you afk or something in battle.

I disagree. Simple neglect should be survivable on casual.

[Nefla]

You do realise I am stating that he shouldn't ask the game to completely change the genre, no? Keeping the combat is in part of the genre, and casual modes do make the means to the end rather simple and straightforward, making that even more simplistic is silly and not true to the genre. Which is why I suggested one that caters to that type of fan. Fact is these games do not cater to the pure Adventure style players that want nothing to do with that, and they shouldn't expect it to change for that reason. So you did miss that point it seems. Because nowhere did I say he couldn't play the game that way with mods or anything else, i stated that trying to get them to change to cater to people who just want a glorified adventure game is "gonna have a bad time" and that if they want to play that sort of game, there is a whole genre for that.

 

Those same things are key in most any RPG, you do realise that? A lot of people play RPGs for that mix. And people play other types of games for those different styles that they offer. 

The definition of RPG varies wildly from person to person with some claiming that putting stat points into attributes is what makes and RPG and without that the game isn't an RPG, others claim that the ability to create and role play a character they want through story is an RPG and anything with a set protagonist doesn't qualify. Give me ten people and I will show you ten different definitions. Clearly the game appeals to more than just fans of combat already. They already changed the game by making the previously extremely easy casual mode much harder than it had been in other games. Your snide comments and "go elsewhere" remarks are unnecessary.

 

Maybe if they'd actually made the combat fun instead of a repetitive barrier and guard spamming chore with bloated enemy HP, "streamlined" tactics, crappy ai, and the requirement to constantly backtrack to a camp to refill your potions(seriously, you can't even get them from shops or enemies) people wouldn't want to skip it. Go play with your combat and get off your high horse.

[Blue_Shayde]

I do agree that combat in this game isn't all that fun. If you're not babysitting a rift, you're slowly beating down an enemy with a rediculous armor bar.

 

And don't get me started on mages. God, I miss the spells I had back in DAO. What I would give to have back those huge aoe spells near the end of a skill tree. Or to be able to choose between being elemental, blood, or spiritual. It feels like mages have been reduced to almost nothing these days...

 

Its like my grocery store. If I like something and they notice, they stop stocking it.

[Thrillian]

I will ignore those trying to dictate what others should enjoy in the Game as well as those trying to shame people for not enjoying and/or not being great at the combat aspects of the game.

I agree with you OP, sometimes I just want to play the game and experience the different outcomes to certain decisions without having to slog through hours of combat. I mostly enjoy Bioware games for the story, companion interactions and reactivity. Does that mean I should pick a new genre to enjoy? No! Developers that provide the things that I enjoy in Bioware games are few and far between (meaning almost only Bioware). I love their games! Yes I will engage in the combat necessary to advance in the game but I would also welcome a mode where I don't have to.

I can't imagine that such an optional mode would have any negative effect on those that enjoy challenging combat.

[Blue_Shayde]

I think the most fun I had battle wise was against the Hinterlands dragon...and then my potions ran out...and dragonlings were summoned.

 

But that could be because I'm biased and love dragons, so dragon means instant happiness for me.

[NoDoubtsAtAll]

Didn't you want me to stop beating the dead horse? I was trying to add variety to the proceedings.

 

But if you must.

 

I used to think combat was vital to RPGs. Then I played a DnD campaign where we went three months without any combat. It was all negotiations, intrigue, stealth, etc. One of the best campaigns I've played. It led to me looking more and more for the fun I could have outside of a fight (hint to enchanters, common npcs have much lower will saves than the guy you're actually trying to mess with. Also, illusions, at least  in 3.5 DnD and prior, could create anything you could imagine. Loads of fun to be had with that.)

 

I think the way RPGs focus on the combat leads to us not thinking as much about actually playing a role. Or when we think "role" now, I fear an entire generation is going to reply "Oh right 'role' you mean like healer, tank or DPS right?" 

 

Now to be fair, games do a really solid job of simulating combat and not so well at simulating other things but its disheartening when it seems like games aren't really trying to break out of that box. 

 

Because if you don't add anything and go on and on for the same things, I get bored. Would rather have an actual discussion rather than little nitpicks at things without anything to back it up. 

 

That most likely won't happen, there are a lot of different genres and sub genres. Life sims (Harvest Moon and such), Stealth Shooter/RPG (ie Deus EX.) and so on and so forth. The thing is though, what you give and take changes what the genre or in some cases sub genre is. Take out combat completely, but have choices there for how the story progresses. You could have a Visual Novel or an Adventure game. Or add but not need the ability to have combat, but add features such as building a business and plotting against rivals (With the option to attack them) Then you have  dynasty builder with RPG elements such as The Guild 2. 

See I agree with what Blue said, on how it depends on the RPG. Could you for instance see this game without combat? Being the inquisitor and have everything just be dead and not fight a single thing? True the combat needs work, and I do miss the old NWN style that Origin had, but certain elements you take out, based on the game makes it lose what it is. Another example being if you removed combat out of Skyrim, but you were still the dragonborn....Who just didn't slay dragons, and kinda just made daggers all day. It kind of loses its charm from that games perspective. Same thing with Dragon Age. 

 

Traditional ones benefit from having some combat as well, since it does show the character struggling to get up to the point and build themselves up. You follow them on that journey to do that. I don't really want to put spoilers so I will say from when the hero was weak in the beginning to where he could overcome it in the end. That is the kind of game these are more layed out as. Not as life sims or stealth games which tend to give you more options on how to proceed. But like I said there is a lot of variety for different genres and sub genres. That the 'role' bit shouldn't be an issue.  

 

If this is a jumbled mess, I apologize, I am actually fairly tired now since it is going on almost 2 am here. So I may call it a night soon. 

[Blue_Shayde]

Nah, I think you nailed it. I can't imagine being the Inquisitor without combat or politics. That's just what it means to be the Inquisitor and lead the Inquisition in this world. Order can be won in the dinning hall with politics, but not everyone out in the fields and towns will accept words. A sword must be taken up.

 

I couldn't imagine this game as a stealth rpg game......unless you played an assassin working in the shadows. But again, that's not what this game is.

[finc.loki]

Some people like a game with a steap difficulty myself I play RPG's for the story and exploration so combat is hardly of interest.  Casual difficulty however is not much of a step down from normal or hard from what I'm seeing.  After experimenting its right on par with normal I dont care about combat I think the combat in this game is god awful and the tactical is quite worthless I can not believe were dealing with a system thats a step down from origins...Origins tactial you could make since of this is just crap and so is getting pwned on easy.

If you're facing enemies at your own level or just above. Casual mode is facerolling, you kill enemies so fast. I tried it and my archer wiped out a band of enemies before the rest of my party engaged. Or close to it.

 

You can even face higher level enemies and actually win.

[Thrillian]

Yeah, while I overall enjoyed combat well enough (aside from the lack of an auto target, which was singlehandedly the biggest annoyance I had with this game), I felt for Casual combat took way too long at times, even for easy battles. To save me grind time on my second playthrough, I used Cheat Engine to greatly boost my damage rating. On my second play I did skip a couple of smaller sidequests, but overall did the same general things and did the majority of the same dialogue. ... My second playthrough was about 20 hours shorter than the first. :\ Casual's not too difficult, it can even be fun, but it still feels more "grinding/dragging" at times than it probably should for what's supposed to be a more narrative focused setting.

I always do my first playthrough cheat free, but as I am starting my second playthrough, all bets are off! You said you used Cheat Engine to boost your damage rating, I can't seem to do that. Is there a specific address I can enter?

[lordmorbus]

What are the chances of Bioware working on this? They seem to have long list of bugs as it is.

[Arppis]

I wonder how it is so difficult for some people to understand, that not everyone plays this game for the combat. They just want to remove the combat from the experience, because they don't simple find it enjoyable.

 

I like the game's combat, but it has it's flaws. Still, normal difficulty imo is the most enjoyable for me.

[Sartoz]

lol and the OP is the kind of blueberry you kick from your party in multiplayer

 

what, are you trying to beat the entire game without using tactical cam once or something?

 

I agree, this game is NOTHING without the Nightmare difficulty. That's why I love it so much, because the fights are more intense than almost any game I ever played.

That's why everyone likes options.....

[DalishRanger]

I always do my first playthrough cheat free, but as I am starting my second playthrough, all bets are off! You said you used Cheat Engine to boost your damage rating, I can't seem to do that. Is there a specific address I can enter?

 

Yeah, I did my first one cheat-free too, but I just wanted to save time on combat on the second. I used the table from the top of this page, as I recall. Newest version of CE. I only modded my Inquisitor's damage rating, so I can't really vouch for how well the other lines work.

[Sartoz]

What are the chances of Bioware working on this? They seem to have long list of bugs as it is.

Don't hold your breath.

 

First patch is all about fixing high severity bugs, which take time to resolve, especially hardware related ones. Bioware tech support teams need to co-ordinate problem diagnostics and resolution with the console game companies. Same for the PC nVIDIA/AMD driver teams

 

Good luck

[King Dragonlord]

Because if you don't add anything and go on and on for the same things, I get bored. Would rather have an actual discussion rather than little nitpicks at things without anything to back it up. 

 

That most likely won't happen, there are a lot of different genres and sub genres. Life sims (Harvest Moon and such), Stealth Shooter/RPG (ie Deus EX.) and so on and so forth. The thing is though, what you give and take changes what the genre or in some cases sub genre is. Take out combat completely, but have choices there for how the story progresses. You could have a Visual Novel or an Adventure game. Or add but not need the ability to have combat, but add features such as building a business and plotting against rivals (With the option to attack them) Then you have  dynasty builder with RPG elements such as The Guild 2. 

See I agree with what Blue said, on how it depends on the RPG. Could you for instance see this game without combat? Being the inquisitor and have everything just be dead and not fight a single thing? True the combat needs work, and I do miss the old NWN style that Origin had, but certain elements you take out, based on the game makes it lose what it is. Another example being if you removed combat out of Skyrim, but you were still the dragonborn....Who just didn't slay dragons, and kinda just made daggers all day. It kind of loses its charm from that games perspective. Same thing with Dragon Age. 

 

Traditional ones benefit from having some combat as well, since it does show the character struggling to get up to the point and build themselves up. You follow them on that journey to do that. I don't really want to put spoilers so I will say from when the hero was weak in the beginning to where he could overcome it in the end. That is the kind of game these are more layed out as. Not as life sims or stealth games which tend to give you more options on how to proceed. But like I said there is a lot of variety for different genres and sub genres. That the 'role' bit shouldn't be an issue.  

 

If this is a jumbled mess, I apologize, I am actually fairly tired now since it is going on almost 2 am here. So I may call it a night soon. 

 

Actually yes, I could see you being the Inquisitor with little to no direct participation in combat or possibly really easy combat (which would actually help reinforce just how badass your team is) Your Inquisitor is a commander first and foremost. Its actually a video game conceit that has you both being the commander and being the front line hero in so many games (Mass Effect being another example. Then again Star Trek was also often guilty of it.) 

 

And I'm going to quibble with your words. "That role bit?" 

 

Role is everything. All the stats, the combat, the conversations, the character customization (class, race, appearance), moral choices, faction and reputation tracking, karma meters, crafting and building, open worlds, its all there to try to give you ways to express your character. Or it should be.

 

And Dragon Age actually has a fair bit of it. I can spend a long time between fights doing other stuff if I want.  

[NoDoubtsAtAll]

Actually yes, I could see you being the Inquisitor with little to no direct participation in combat or possibly really easy combat (which would actually help reinforce just how badass your team is) Your Inquisitor is a commander first and foremost. Its actually a video game conceit that has you both being the commander and being the front line hero in so many games (Mass Effect being another example. Then again Star Trek was also often guilty of it.) 

 

And I'm going to quibble with your words. "That role bit?" 

 

Role is everything. All the stats, the combat, the conversations, the character customization (class, race, appearance), moral choices, faction and reputation tracking, karma meters, crafting and building, open worlds, its all there to try to give you ways to express your character. Or it should be.

 

And Dragon Age actually has a fair bit of it. I can spend a long time between fights doing other stuff if I want.  

 

He is a commander, but most of the ones in that setting lead the charge, which is a direct involvement. Being also with the power he possesses that furthers his need in the front line to close the rifts and be an inspiration to those around. From the beginning his presence and power was used as a rally point for people to be behind, and acts as the figurehead that leads the charge. If not then he might as well be on his throne all day deciding the fates of those who come in, and then sit at the war table and wait for reports.  That isn't how they laid out these stories for the heroes to play out.