109 réponses à ce sujet

[kasanza]

I think if they make Awakening have a global cool-down on useable items and if enemy mages would start battles buffed (like in Baldur's Gate) things would be more difficult. Also, it would be nice if all spell-casting required line of sight on enemies to activate. It's way too easy to cast Storm of the Century in a room a room away and kill everything before it can even get to you. Random monster enhancements ala' Diablo 2 would help keep every playthrough or even restart frantic too. I really hope BioWare sees this thread but it won't be in time for Awakening.

[EJ42]

This game is not a tactical fight simulator. It's an interactive story with RPG elements attached. It's a pity that you want it to be something that it isn't.

[EvilIguana966]

In my experience there are two major issues with the difficulty. The first is that a number of mage spells are simply so good as to trivialize many of the battles. Balancing some of those spells (I'm looking at you Mana Clash) would go a long way towards ensuring fights actually require some effort. The second issue concerns the actual difficulty settings, specifically that nightmare does not increase the challenge enough over the hard setting. Nightmare really ought to be the setting that forces veteran players with years of RPG experience and several DAO playthroughs under their belt to have to put in some effort.



I would like to take a moment to register my dissent against using IWD2s Heart of Fury mode as a model. HoF was awful because it totally ruined any semblance of balance. Tank characters were made useless except for a few unintuitive ultra cheese builds. Many spells were made nearly useless while others, monster summons especially, were made godlike. Item balance was stood on its head as well. Towards the end of the game on HoF many fights were only winnable by abusing the AI, using a very select set of overpowered character builds, and having good luck on your die rolls. High difficulty settings should not completely invalidate half of the game's classes and abilities, rather they should require more planning, better execution, and a deeper understanding of game mechanics.

[Upper_Krust]

EJ42 wrote...

This game is not a tactical fight simulator. It's an interactive story with RPG elements attached. It's a pity that you want it to be something that it isn't.

Is that why a large part of the game centres around setting up your parties 'tactics' in the tactics section?

Its pretty clear that the combat in the game is primarily tactics based. Combat encompasses about a third of the entire game - therefore its a fairly big part of the whole. In fact having a party based game without any tactical nuances would seem to be totally redundant.

[Upper_Krust]

simplificationizer wrote...

By the way, I feel that one of the things that made BG2 great, especially on your first playthrough, was those enemies that made you crap your pants. I'm talking about liches, beholders, illithids, powerful mages etc. They made the world feel dangerous and more believable. DA feels too much like a game.

I never played BG2 (though I play D&D so I know what you're talking about).

But I don't think the issue is necessarily that DAO doesn't have scary monsters (although it could certainly do with more). I think its more a case that those scarier monsters are used sparingly and rarely if ever in conjunction with other scary monsters, just with weak minions or normal monsters.

What about battles with:

- Arcane Horror + Ash Wraith + 2 Revenants
- Branka + Jarvia + 4 Golems
- Genlock Forgemaster + Genlock Necromancer + Ogre Alpha + Genlock Master Assassin
- 4 Hurlock Generals
- Desire Demon + Pride Demon + Rage Demon + Sloth Demon
- Dragon + 3 Drakes
- Cult Leader Mage + Ser Cauthrain + Ser Landry + Master Ignacio

[EJ42]

Upper_Krust wrote...

EJ42 wrote...

This game is not a tactical fight simulator. It's an interactive story with RPG elements attached. It's a pity that you want it to be something that it isn't.

Is that why a large part of the game centres around setting up your parties 'tactics' in the tactics section?

Its pretty clear that the combat in the game is primarily tactics based. Combat encompasses about a third of the entire game - therefore its a fairly big part of the whole. In fact having a party based game without any tactical nuances would seem to be totally redundant.

Having tactical elements does not make the game a tactical fight simulator.

You calling this game a tactical fight simulator is about like me calling Galaga a flight simulator.

It is what it is.  Stop trying to make it be something else.

[Upper_Krust]

EJ42 wrote...

Having tactical elements does not make the game a tactical fight simulator.

You calling this game a tactical fight simulator is about like me calling Galaga a flight simulator.

Actually I never called it a tactical fight simulator, you did.

I said that combat was a big part of the game (you spend about a third of the game in combat) and 'that' combat is inherently tactical, as all single player games where you control a party of characters must be.

It is what it is.  Stop trying to make it be something else.

I fail to see why you deny the tactical aspect of the game? Do you also deny that in the game you can preset a companions 'tactics'?

[Raphael diSanto]

The flipside to that is however, if you are not challenged, then the reward for success is reduced.

Not if my reward for success if seeing the next bit of plot. I play on easy because I could care less about being challenged by a computer game. I get enough challenge in my RL life and my job. I want to come home and smack some hurlocks and watch the pretty little pixels fall over and then see my character move onto the next stage in the story.

I'm one of those players that hardcore gamers hate. I play this game like an interactive movie. I don't want to be challenged. I want to watch 70 hours of CG movie. (repeatedly, for different alts, and with different stories based on different RP decisisions)

That's what I paid my money for.

I have to admit. I have -never- felt a greater sense of achievement in a computer game from spending 2 weeks doing something because it was difficult or spending 2 minutes doing it because it was easy. It's just entertainment. It's there to entertain me.

Maybe that's not true. Maybe I did, ten years ago. These days? I'm too old and life's too short.

[Sliveris]

Your mom = too easy

[EJ42]

Upper_Krust wrote...

EJ42 wrote...

Having tactical elements does not make the game a tactical fight simulator.

You calling this game a tactical fight simulator is about like me calling Galaga a flight simulator.

Actually I never called it a tactical fight simulator, you did.

I said that combat was a big part of the game (you spend about a third of the game in combat) and 'that' combat is inherently tactical, as all single player games where you control a party of characters must be.

It is what it is.  Stop trying to make it be something else.

I fail to see why you deny the tactical aspect of the game? Do you also deny that in the game you can preset a companions 'tactics'?

You may want the game to be chess, but it's designed to be checkers (at best).  You need to learn to accept that.  This game is about storytelling, not about an incredible tactical challenge.

If you want that, then play RTS games.

[Bibdy]

Accepting a game the way it is, is the first step towards disappointment in the sequel.

It calls itself the spiritual successor to BG, so it should, at the very least, strive towards a combat system of similar depth and diversity. But you can't expect it all in the first go, particularly when DA:O improves on damn-near every other facet that the BG series touched on. But we should expect it to get better as time goes on.

Modifié par Bibdy, 01 février 2010 - 05:35 .

[Monica21]

Upper_Krust wrote...

EJ42 wrote...

Having tactical elements does not make the game a tactical fight simulator.

You calling this game a tactical fight simulator is about like me calling Galaga a flight simulator.

Actually I never called it a tactical fight simulator, you did.

I said that combat was a big part of the game (you spend about a third of the game in combat) and 'that' combat is inherently tactical, as all single player games where you control a party of characters must be.

It is what it is.  Stop trying to make it be something else.

I fail to see why you deny the tactical aspect of the game? Do you also deny that in the game you can preset a companions 'tactics'?

Spending one third of the game in combat hardly makes it a tactical game and having a tactics options (that I would venture to guess most players never touch) hardly makes it a tactical game. It's an RPG with combat elements and that's pretty much it. Story-driven, yes. Combat-driven, no.

[SuperMedbh]

Raphael diSanto wrote...

The flipside to that is however, if you are not challenged, then the reward for success is reduced.

Not if my reward for success if seeing the next bit of plot. I play on easy because I could care less about being challenged by a computer game. I get enough challenge in my RL life and my job. I want to come home and smack some hurlocks and watch the pretty little pixels fall over and then see my character move onto the next stage in the story.

I'm one of those players that hardcore gamers hate. I play this game like an interactive movie. I don't want to be challenged. I want to watch 70 hours of CG movie. (repeatedly, for different alts, and with different stories based on different RP decisisions)

That's what I paid my money for.

That's fair much where I'm at, too.  I do like making tactical decisions in combat, but really, in terms of game play I just want an edge of "best watch yourself or you'll be chomped by darkspawn".  So, I want some tension, but I don't want to be reloading a saved game all the time.  I also don't like pausing every blessed move--  it stops the movie.

That's why there are different difficulty levels--  so everyone can play.  Again, I only got through my first run by playing on Easy.  But even though my subsequent runs were done on Normal, truthfully, I had the most fun the first time.  I mean, I cried buckets during some scenes, and had this genuine sick to my stomach tension during the final battle (the one about which there are a number of "last boss = too easy" threads).

I think a fairer thread subject would not be "Game = too easy" but "Nightmare mode = not tough enough"

Final comment--  does anyone else hear Morrigan's voice saying "Toooooo easy" when they read this thread title?

[kosarev]

Upper_Krust wrote...


I was thinking that maybe each time you used a health potion or lyrium potion that you would partly become addicted to it and its effects would be lessened each time you took another one.

Say maybe 2% (cumulatively) less effective each time you take one.

I was also thinking that you should maybe only be able to equip a single poison on a weapon at a time, as well as only using one salve at a time.

No poultices  is what should be done (or only extremly rare and costly ones).
Only problem of difficulty of the game are mages and  healing. Mages have always been op in nearly all games, but limited spells made them op only for a short time.  If the fight was long, you had to rely on other classes. Here, with stacks of 100 liryum pots very cheap, they are op all the time. This could be fixed if you didnt had any of those poultices. If the more powerful spells left your char whithout nothing to do rest of the battle they would be balanced. 
Example: Mana clash instakills an enemy mage, but lets say it used 3/4 of your mana (and without pots, you cant recover it). The rest of the mobs would give you trouble, and without many heals cause of no mana and no pots you would have a hard time.
So what im saying is pots in easy without friendly fire, normal pots with friendly fire, hard 1/2 of pots (effectvity of each, double cooldown, less mats on merchants...), nightmare nearly no pots and no mana regen on combat. Each difficulty would be what the name represented, and everyone would be happy.
Thanks god PC players at least can use difficulty mods. 

[SuperMedbh]

I read somewhere that there was in fact an addiction mechanic for lyrium in the earlier versions of the game (pre-release), but they dropped it as too cumbersome and non-intuitive. It would have fit in with the game universe, however, as lyrium addiction is a big part of certain storylines. Seeing characters skirt it would be interesting.



But if you just object to lyrium pots being too available and making mages too powerful, then....don't use them. Alternatively, you could give yourself a self-imposed maximum of x number in the quickbar at any given time.

[kosarev]

SuperMedbh wrote...

I read somewhere that there was in fact an addiction mechanic for lyrium in the earlier versions of the game (pre-release), but they dropped it as too cumbersome and non-intuitive. It would have fit in with the game universe, however, as lyrium addiction is a big part of certain storylines. Seeing characters skirt it would be interesting.

But if you just object to lyrium pots being too available and making mages too powerful, then....don't use them. Alternatively, you could give yourself a self-imposed maximum of x number in the quickbar at any given time.

Already done. I also dont use mana clash, storm of the century, most of the  spell combos, poisons or the other items (dont know the name on english) that buff resistances and so. But limiting myself (like only using a max of 5 tactics per party member) is a little bit dull. When i enter nightmare mode, i expect having to use the last bit of resources ingame to beat it. Not  avoiding said resources so i dont rush trough game.

[Bibdy]

You can always use a mod to bump up the difficulty. Then you can use all the crazy overpowered stuff to your heart's content, and still occasionally get your ass kicked

[Aathis]

This problem of the game being too easy (once you get to know  it) is simply a fact of the limitations of machine intelligence. Even if Bioware or modders were to design different ai routines (which would be a good thing) players would quickly figure them out and beat them.

A computer is not intelligent; Its performance is limited to its code.

Also Bioware have to make the game playable for beginners.
I have read reviews slating the game by people who clearly did not understand that combat is tactical. People used to shooters where all you do is point a crosshair and push a button to fire, and the only interaction is to kill everything, will find DAO frustrating at first. Many dont have the patience to stick with it.

Any computer game will eventually be too easy for clever humans. Solution? Find another game; another challenge; or mod if you can.

[kosarev]

I dont have a problem with AI. I know its limited. Imo the AI on nightmare is sufficient to give problems, if there werent certain op features in your party (mages and pots) who can overcome any trouble you find.



And the game on easy is easy even for begginers. You can do it naked. So easy difficulty and normal to an extent are well done. Hard and nightmare arent (except for city elf origin, always had problems there), and no increase of AI, as the previous poster said will fix that. The only way of solving it it is reducing the op mechanics that may be good for the easier modes, but not for the most difficult ones. And they are all related to mages and pots. Mayble doubling cd of spells and pots per increase on difficulty may help?

As easy normal cooldown, 2x on normal, 4x on hard, 8x on nightmare.



Or maybe a shared cooldown of same family spells? All primal spells sharing a minimun cd of 20 secs...

[Dlokir]

Thallet wrote...
....
I think that a lot of us though have played through so many times now that certainly we feel that the game is too easy, but remembering my first playthrough I for one didn't feel it was too easy.

The more you play the game, the more you know the tricks, the better you the strongest characters build, the more best items you know, the better you know each type of oponent and how manage them, the more you add mods that all tend make the game even easier, the more DLC are added in the game that add even more ggreat items and more experience.

The solution, try one of those mods making the game harder. I think that soon I'll have to try that, well I'll have to siwtch to nightmare first.

[Sylixe]

Dlokir wrote...

Thallet wrote...
....
I think that a lot of us though have played through so many times now that certainly we feel that the game is too easy, but remembering my first playthrough I for one didn't feel it was too easy.

The more you play the game, the more you know the tricks, the better you the strongest characters build, the more best items you know, the better you know each type of oponent and how manage them, the more you add mods that all tend make the game even easier, the more DLC are added in the game that add even more ggreat items and more experience.

The solution, try one of those mods making the game harder. I think that soon I'll have to try that, well I'll have to siwtch to nightmare first.

Except when i played through on the first time i set it to hard and had to switch to nightmare an hour into play just to give them a chance to kill me.  It's not like anything they did was all that innovative.  The games AI followed a bare bones script of tactical options that never allowed it to really make choices based on what was going on in behind the scenes.  So subsequently playthroughs were about how badly i could handicap myself and still beat the AI.  The answer is that you can setup your groups script and watch it beat the in game AI on hard. 

The secret to understanding the games easy of combat lies in the fact that you can actually "Esc" through the dialogue in game and still log more time plowing through the games text than you will in combat.  So in the end we have a glorified "choose your own adventure" with some combat thrown in to try and get the gamers money. 

People complain about the D&D rule set in RPG's of the past but look at the path they are heading down now.  Hell even D&D is jumping on the MMO combat bandwagon.  The days of difficulty in an RPG are long gone in favor of easymode to get more units of a product sold.  I guess we either have to adapt to this change or just find something else to play that has some relative difficulty to it.

My earnest hope for the future is that Bioware takes this great RPG game and really tricks out the combat system in a sequel.  They have a good solid base system started that just needs to be taken to the next level.  At the very least make the Hard and Nightmare settings be more combat driven than story driven.

Modifié par Sylixe, 01 février 2010 - 07:47 .

[purplesunset]

The reason that people like the OP are getting flack is the poor choice of words for the thread title.

There are a few people here who think that any criticism of the game is akin to spitting in their food, so with a title like "Game=too easy" you're just asking them to go into "Combat mode" so to speak.

However, if we look past the unfortunate title, we will see that  you guys are NOT really saying that the game is too easy. You mean that the game lacks tactical nuances and variety. You're saying that once one figures out what works, it becomes a matter of wash, rinse, repeat on auto-pilot. This seems like a valid criticism to me, if it's true.

Someone above mentioned the mages in BG 2. It's quite clear to me how having pre-buffed mages with different combinations of spells would lead to a more opportunities for tactical variety. This is not possible in DA, however, unless you want to allow enemy mages to wear multiple persistent buffs (which would be cheating on the A.I's part).

I understand that rather than simply giving more hitpoints to enemies, what you guys really want is more intelligent enemies.

Enemies with more special abilities to do random things like the ogres with their "bad breath special move" or the spiders with their "face eating goodness."  More enemies with special or unpredictable abilities would definitely open up more opportunities for a varied tactical experience.

[SuperMedbh]

Sylixe wrote...

The secret to understanding the games easy of combat lies in the fact that you can actually "Esc" through the dialogue in game and still log more time plowing through the games text than you will in combat.  So in the end we have a glorified "choose your own adventure" with some combat thrown in to try and get the gamers money. 

I think this game can be different things to different people, but at the same time, it doesn't sound as if you're the sort who the DA:O is targeted at.  This is a narrative focused game in which combat plays a significant part, but as part of the story, not as the main story.  If you just hit esc after esc in order to get to the fight scenes, skip all the codex entries, and think of character interaction as just a way to get those various attribute bonuses, well...you're missing over half the game.

Mind you, I *like* the combat.  There's lots of colour and explosions and all that dramatic stuffs.  But if you just think of it as a sort of electronic chess, I suppose you might be disappointed if you're already super good at this sort of game.

[Upper_Krust]

[quote]Raphael diSanto wrote...

[quote]

The flipside to that is however, if you are not challenged, then the reward for success is reduced.[/quote]

Not if my reward for success if seeing the next bit of plot. I play on easy because I could care less about being challenged by a computer game. I get enough challenge in my RL life and my job. I want to come home and smack some hurlocks and watch the pretty little pixels fall over and then see my character move onto the next stage in the story.

I'm one of those players that hardcore gamers hate. I play this game like an interactive movie. I don't want to be challenged. I want to watch 70 hours of CG movie. (repeatedly, for different alts, and with different stories based on different RP decisisions)

That's what I paid my money for.[/quote]

Thats what easy difficulty is for, playing without having to think.

Dragon Age has such a wide appeal. It is simultaneously a roleplaying game, an interactive movie and has somewhat tactical combat at its centre. Thats why i think it does a great job of hooking different types of gamers. Casual gamers such as yourself, as well as those who love a bit of a mental challenge.

But I'm only addressing the games difficulty indirectly. My problem with the game is with the variety in combat. Variety in monster tactics and encounter composition.

[quote]I have to admit. I have -never- felt a greater sense of achievement in a computer game from spending 2 weeks doing something because it was difficult or spending 2 minutes doing it because it was easy. It's just entertainment. It's there to entertain me.[quote]

If you weren't being entertained by something would you spend two weeks on it? 

[quote]Maybe that's not true. Maybe I did, ten years ago. These days? I'm too old and life's too short.
[/quote]

GAH! Your only as old as you feel mate.

I agree with much you have said which is why I personally don't want to make the game statistically harder. Thus, easy difficulty would still be 'easy'.

However, where I strongly disagree is on making the game laterally more varied, primarily increasing the variety of monster tactics and secondly the composition of encounters. With many of the monsters in the game adopting the exact same tactics (or seeming lack of tactics) they feel the same, they all fight the same (relatively) which means I don't have to think about how to beat them. Which means I can be lazy.

Now thats okay for someone who doesn't want to have to think (ie.someone playing on easy), but for someone wanting to be challenged by the game its somewhat frustrating.

[Sylixe]

SuperMedbh wrote...

Sylixe wrote...

The secret to understanding the games easy of combat lies in the fact that you can actually "Esc" through the dialogue in game and still log more time plowing through the games text than you will in combat.  So in the end we have a glorified "choose your own adventure" with some combat thrown in to try and get the gamers money. 

I think this game can be different things to different people, but at the same time, it doesn't sound as if you're the sort who the DA:O is targeted at.  This is a narrative focused game in which combat plays a significant part, but as part of the story, not as the main story.  If you just hit esc after esc in order to get to the fight scenes, skip all the codex entries, and think of character interaction as just a way to get those various attribute bonuses, well...you're missing over half the game.

Mind you, I *like* the combat.  There's lots of colour and explosions and all that dramatic stuffs.  But if you just think of it as a sort of electronic chess, I suppose you might be disappointed if you're already super good at this sort of game.

Don't get me wrong about the story of DAO.  I liked it a great deal but the replayability factor once you have gone through it multiple times drops off sharply.  Once you have seen or gone through all the different text plots it's not really any surprise or an achievement per say.  At that point a better scaling of the combat system becomes the games real replayability factor that keeps people coming back even after they put it on the shelf for a while.