11 réponses à ce sujet

[BridgetBanging]

I want my games to challenge me, preferably enough to just barely beat me sometimes when Im playing it.  This is a moving goal post so this isnt ever expected of a game but rather a desired goal.

 

Most games achieve this by simply having cheating or unfair challenges combined with obnoxious stat buffs to the AI.  HP inflation and damage inflation.  Lame.

 

Dragon Age Inquisition fortunately doesnt fall for this trap.  It falls for a different trap entirely. The trap virtually every RPG ever made falls for. Leveling. Leveling is just a very complicated unnecessary unfortunate math problem added to game balance by the developers for no reason other than tradition and skinner's box.  It adds nothing, anything gained by having scaling levels is solved better by not having it and simply having unlocks.  Say you complete the first chapter of the game, bang, now you get another skill tree to fill out.  Same result but no leveling.  Without leveling you can just make the game challenging. Not challenging for level 6's or level 26's.  No walking into the mountain dragon at the start of the game after completing the zone and finding them to be a pushover that cant even penetrate your mage's barrier. 

 

Unfortunately, Dragon Age has leveling.  So it has to address the problem. Thats the bad news.  The good news is they have level scaling. Yay level scaling!  Content is always challenging, I can explore without being punished by making the game easier!  The worst news is they dont use their level scaling.

 

Whats up? Why is there level 6 red templars level 15 red templars and level 20 red templars of every type but you wont make the level 6 red templars turn into level 15 red templars when Im near level 15? You literally already have them in the game. Just use them. Id understand not taking on the arduous task of level scaling from scratch, but this seems to be just a simple matter of including what already exists to the entire game.  I went to the place thats all flooded with rain and zombies and just turned around and left because Id outleveled the content and everything there was a trivial waste of time to participate in.

 

And dont use the 'But you got stronger than the level 6 red templars!' excuse.  Unless you give me a Rocky Balboa montage video of me training up the steps of capital hill, bollocks on me having gotten stronger than them.  An enemy that cannot threaten you isnt an adversary. Its an annoyance.  You cannot make a player feel suspense and danger and their growth in power without adversity. 

 

So, there's my one and only post Ill probably ever make on a bioware forum.  I doubt anyone important will ever read it and if they do theyll discard it in the garbage bin especially since DA:I is so old now in modern game development standards, but I had to at least try and express how important it is to let players have challenging content.  If DA:I had level scaling, its a wonderful world with a phenomenally well crafted combat system that truly has made what the first dragon age wanted when they took Baldurs Gates combat and made it 3d.  When you fight level appropriate content on hard the game is beautiful.  The only problem is you cant always be level appropriate.  You will outlevel content no matter what order you approach it in if you want to complete the whole game.

 

With a plea for player choice and player challenge,

   One anonymous player. 

 

PS. I feel especially bad for the added content.  The DLC.  Adding more to the game just means you outlevel even more content. Sad day in Frowntown. Id love to buy it all and play it, but I need level scaling to enjoy it because RPG flaws. 

 

PPS. No Quicktime Events.  Thank golly goshes galoshes.  A game without pretending Simon Says is the best game ever made.

[PapaCharlie9]

So, there's my one and only post Ill probably ever make on a bioware forum.  I doubt anyone important will ever read it and if they do theyll discard it in the garbage bin especially since DA:I is so old now in modern game development standards, but I had to at least try and express how important it is to let players have challenging content.  

Without a TL;DR, you are practically guaranteeing that no one will read it, important or not.

 

But you are in good company. There are plenty of complaints about this very topic -- lack of challenge and balance in the game -- in this very forum.

 

BTW, I suggest you avoid the Descent DLC. I don't think you are going to like it's geographical leveling (deeper you go, higher the level of enemies).

[Wulfram]

It's not really an arduous task to include level scaling. It's just done by multiplying numbers, I'm sure.

I agree that it would be nice to have unlimited upward level scaling. At least as an option, or on higher difficulty levels or something.

[capn233]

It was a concious choice because apparently whoever they focus tested thought that different areas should have discreet levels.  Because apparently some rpg people want to bang their heads on enemies in some places, go somewhere else and rofl stomp some weak enemies to level up, then go back to the other area.

 

Personally, I wouldn't have put level caps in any area so that enemies would be at least as powerful as your character.  Especially with the structure of this game where you will probably bounce around different areas, or potentially skip some altogether.

[PapaCharlie9]

It was a concious choice because apparently whoever they focus tested thought that different areas should have discreet levels.  Because apparently some rpg people want to bang their heads on enemies in some places, go somewhere else and rofl stomp some weak enemies to level up, then go back to the other area.

 

Personally, I wouldn't have put level caps in any area so that enemies would be at least as powerful as your character.  Especially with the structure of this game where you will probably bounce around different areas, or potentially skip some altogether.

I'm okay with level caps on random mobs, but what I'd like to see is larger mobs as you level up, or more waves of mobs. Why wouldn't a battle with red templars attract a few random demons, or Freeman, or smugglers, or bears?

 

Just my luck what I get is three waves of two Inquisition dudes with an unopenable chest ...

[Bhryaen]

Setting level caps is the only way to keep the areas realistic. You lose challenge potential for those whose characters exceed the cap, but you gain credibility. Why would the Hinterlands- after you've already tamed, say, 75% of it at lvl8 and are now returning at lvl23- suddenly become supercharged in difficulty for the last 25%? If enemies had been that powerful when you were lvl8, they'd have arguably torn up the NPCs and everything around them. Giselle would've easily been roadkill before you even met Scout Harding. It puts mechanical combat challenge ahead of aesthetics. Acknowledged: underpowered enemies in DAI become tedium. But it can also be somewhat refreshing to go from epic fights to cakewalk. You pace yourself. That's why you keep advancing to new areas, even taking on areas that are easily overpowering to you if you wish. DA2 felt like enemy scaling was a constant, as the OP describes- and as a result every single fight looked exactly the same unless there was a special boss. There was no character to the encounters, just numbers and "OK, where is the second wave coming from this time?" I mean, I could live with it either way. I just see the advantages and strengths for the devs to have gone the route they did in DAI.

 

There is also the whole "soft level cap" thingy not possible without fixed area scaling. Why, after all, should we be getting just as much of an XP bump- or in realistic terms, gaining combat experience- for killing the same ol' red templars or the same ol' wolves that we already killed 300 of so far? Or if they've increased in power to be constantly a challenge as the OP requests, why wouldn't we be getting constant XP for it, naturally learning and adapting from it?

 

And really, is not the story the most salient and appealing feature of DA? It's not the Diabloverse. There are games where pretty much everything is just one long combat "challenge" grind. I found Borderlands 2 like that- bored the hell out of me, kept returning to the game every few months due to the hype about the humor but couldn't stay interested. Making DA4 a grindfest... Not a great suggestion.

 

The one thing I do agree with the OP's criticism on though is the need for balance on enemy risk. Again it's a realism concern. It's the reason that I liked Guild Wars 2 combat a lot as well. You could get your character to the max lvl80 and even procure the best equipment possible, but if you just stand there, a lvl3 Inquest pipsqueak will kill your giant norn character. I don't mind that some enemies become one-hit-wonders when I level up past the area cap. That probably should happen when you become Powerhouse Inquisitor Champion Herald Hero. It simulates not just "strength-" as the OP mocks- but the skill you get through extensive experience using the abilities you have. But it's way better for gameplay when higher levels and better equipment don't make you invulnerable to some portion of potential enemies- able to stand there with little to no risk just because you crossed a threshold. Better to still need to think on your feet somewhat in every fight in order to avoid dying. GW2 achieves this not by making spawns increase in parity with the player's character damage output while not keeping parity on health. It's just that armor in GW2 is only ever so effective, so they add a lot of class options to use buffs, evasion, and disabling or overwhelming offense for the player to choose from- i.e., use the gray matter and coordination. It's just harder to integrate the feel of that in a party-based game that uses a tactical cam and a Pause option. But DAI didn't do too badly on this either, so...

[capn233]

I hesitate to enter a discussion of realism in an imaginary magical setting, but I disagree that removing the level cap would be any less realistic than capped levels in areas.  You are not fighting the same enemies if you were to return to the Hinterlands what amounts to several months later, so why shouldn't the enemy have improved themselves by then?

 

In any case, the bulk of xp should probably come from quests, specifically mainline quests, so that grinding through whatever random mooks or critters really doesn't matter much in the long run.  I am not really sure why in this game you have discretely leveled areas, but grinding through one area can slingshot you past the level of several other areas.

 

Likely the problem stems from the fact that the campaign is more or less perfectly linear with one pseudo fork for Abyss and Wicked Eyes, and relatively short compared to total content in the base game.  7 large areas are more or less irrelevant and can be skipped completely.  It is way to easy to overlevel if you set foot in several of them, especially if you do so more than a trivial amount of time.

 

I am not even entirely sure that having many large side quest areas even makes a lot of sense outside of simply a technical exercise in creating large areas.  They weren't utilized in MP, and DLC added new areas.  Is it to make the world larger?

 

Probably a more Mass Effect like approach would have helped, with a slightly less linear campaign spread out among more of the major areas where the order of the middle of the campaign doesn't really matter.  Side quest areas need not be very large IMO.  Probably though, MEA is going to turn into DAI in space with gigantic areas for the sake of having gigantic areas.

[Bhryaen]

... I disagree that removing the level cap would be any less realistic than capped levels in areas.  You are not fighting the same enemies if you were to return to the Hinterlands what amounts to several months later, so why shouldn't the enemy have improved themselves by then?...

 

This is a fair enough assessment. However, in my case- apparently a candidate for OCD award- I did pretty much everything there was to do in the Hinterlands prior to even setting foot in Val Royeaux. (Some companion side-quests surfaced there.) This means that the area was "fixed" by then: farmers returned to their fields, no more rifts, townfolk fed and fit and feeling safe, travel safe again, folks in various places chatting around campfires in the wilderness with no more concern about a constant threat of nasties. So- later in the game at lvl23 (and even now I haven't gotten to "Wicked Hearts" yet)- supercharged Red Templars stalking the area should be "un-fixing" everything I just did, claiming the area for themselves, able to restock themselves without relying on Corypheus' supply lines- in short, pillaging and wiping everyone out. At the least it should've become another battleground- now between Earl Teagan's Redcliffe forces and the RT Superchargers. What could Redcliffe's quaint lake village realistically do about it? But, no, the scaled-up enemies just pace about some relatively innocuous wilderness pocket out of the way and threaten no one while my "fixes" remain completely solid. So, yeah, an open area level can create a bit of dissonance. If they remain weaker and infrequent with the area, it at least explains why they're less bold and why I still get to polish my laurels about my accomplishments there.

 

I suppose the devs could contrive some sort of narrative reason that supercharged RT's roaming the area don't attack anyone other than the Inquisitor's party- orders to simply scout perhaps or to fan out across every possible area in southern Thedas just in case the Inquisitor strolls by (now there's a strategic use of resources). Hard to see how they'd work it into NPC interactions to somehow make it seem legit (realistic). ("Hey, are you the Inquisitor? These totally overpowered dudes were out looking for you!" "Where are they?" "Um... like, everywhere... except the towns or farms, of course... They totally leave us alone... But they just keep hunting for you out there forever!") Or they could just let the dissonance sit there like an elephant in the room and maintain the same level of scaled challenge in the Hinterlands as in the Hissing Wastes. Now there's story immersion for you...

 

They already gutted the narrative integrity to generate more combat adversity by suddenly removing all healing magic from mages in Thedas (except for healing the injured in cutscenes anyway). There are only so many such narrative sacrifices you can make before your game feels more about the grind than about the story.

[PapaCharlie9]

I hesitate to enter a discussion of realism in an imaginary magical setting, but I disagree that removing the level cap would be any less realistic than capped levels in areas.  You are not fighting the same enemies if you were to return to the Hinterlands what amounts to several months later, so why shouldn't the enemy have improved themselves by then?

Nevermind improved. You cleared out the underbrush, so now the real heavies move into the ecosystem (if you'll pardon the mixed metaphors). Instead of smugglers and rogue templar/mages in the Hinterlands, now you get Red Templar assassins, rogue Avvar, Venatori spellbinders, wandering Despair demons, etc., etc. Small fry move out, big fry move in.

That probably wrecks the balance of mats for crafting, but since crafting and the mats economy is already broken, it's not that great a loss.

I didn't read all the walls of text so this might have already been said, but I agree that "realism" isn't the right word. Complaints about lack of "realism" are often about two different things: integrity of the game system (e.g., balance, evolution of challenge, risk, etc.) or integrity of the canon (e.g., what friends or foes might reasonably be found in the Hinterlands?) Once I've figured out which meaning is really intended, the discussion gets a lot easier to understand. I never have a problem with the "realism" of flying dragons or FTL space travel, because in the context of the game canon, those are established as baseline reality. You can have a meaningful discussion about the "realism" of uncapping leveling the Hinterlands (game integrity) or about why spirits would appear in the shape of, and act like, demons in a physical visit to the Fade (canon integrity).

[AnUnculturedLittlePotato]

 

They already gutted the narrative integrity to generate more combat adversity by suddenly removing all healing magic from mages in Thedas (except for healing the injured in cutscenes anyway). There are only so many such narrative sacrifices you can make before your game feels more about the grind than about the story.

Actually this was restoring the narrative integrity as in lore healing magic took extreme concentration and is incredibly hard if not impossible to perform in the heat of battle.
At least that's what I remember from codex entries.

[PillarBiter]

I get your point of levelling. 

 

You just unlock skills and possibilities to tackle more difficult enemies instead of just gaining more stats. 

 

I for one, like it.

[Wulfram]

Setting level caps is the only way to keep the areas realistic. You lose challenge potential for those whose characters exceed the cap, but you gain credibility. Why would the Hinterlands- after you've already tamed, say, 75% of it at lvl8 and are now returning at lvl23- suddenly become supercharged in difficulty for the last 25%? If enemies had been that powerful when you were lvl8, they'd have arguably torn up the NPCs and everything around them. Giselle would've easily been roadkill before you even met Scout Harding. It puts mechanical combat challenge ahead of aesthetics.

How is it realistic that already experienced and powerful characters like Cassandra and Vivienne would struggle against bandits at first, but then come back a few months later and find them a complete cakewalk?

The levelling system isn't realistic. Having level scaling helps restore some sense of realism to the world, by taking away the consequences of it.