46 réponses à ce sujet

[Matheau]

Sabresandiego wrote...

Dont get me wrong, I think this is a great game. The only problem is that gameplay is very poor. The game is mainly just an interactive movie that you watch. The graphics, storytelling, artwork, sound, voices, are phenomenol. Unfortunately the gameplay is poor. There is very little skill involved in this game, and combat is mundane. Sustained abilities are especially stupid and take away even more of the little interactivity there is with combat in this game.

So you are complaining that a game made as the spiritual successor of "Baldur's Gate" is like "Baldur's Gate." I don't think that is really all that shocking. The point of this style of game has never been about gameplay. "Planescape: Torment," if I remember correctly, had four required fights in the entire game, one of which was the tutorial fight at the very beginning.

This would be like complaining that Halo is a bad game because it doesn't have a level up system. If you are going to criticize a game, you shouldn't do so for following the style of game it is supposed to be.

[soteria]

I remember having this same discussion even before the game came out. First, I have to say that I laugh whenever someone says "WoW doesn't take any skill," since it's so obviously and demonstrably false. Why don't you go register for the next PvP tournament, and see how you do. Or, try to get into a competitive raiding guild. The OP obviously recognizes that WoW DOES take skill to play, which brings me to my second point.



DA:O does involve skill. Tell me, how do you think I and many others played this game for the first time on Hard or even Nightmare, and were still able to finish, when others have struggled on Easy? It involves skill in building characters, imaginative thinking in applying your abilities and setting up tactics, and the ability to assess and process a large amount of information in real-time. Sure, you can pause the game, but that doesn't stop the floating combat text or tell you which archer activated Scattershot 1.5 seconds ago.



Now, it's true that certain builds can just auto-attack and win. DA:O has some serious balance issues that a number of us have brought up in other threads, but I disagree that the problem is sustains. It's your own fault if you played the game in a way that was boring to you--no one held a gun to your head and told you to activate so many sustainable abilities that you couldn't cast anymore, and I have no sympathy for you if that's how you played. The Cleric was very similar in D&D--cast a bunch of buffs and auto-attack. Sustains are clearly superior because you no longer have to cast buffing spells for two minutes before running in. The real problem is that it's possible to build an invincible character.

[Finch204]

Everyone brought up some good points on this topic. My best advice though, if you're coming from a WoW background, is to simply stop comparing other games to it. If it is not an MMORPG, don't compare it to WoW, it simply is not fitting a comparison. You cannot enjoy other games if you're constantly seeing how it differs from WoW while you play. And don't confuse the RPG in MMORPG with traditional RPGs, they are quite different in gameplay really.

[dwanedibbley]

2OP: try not to like boost 10lvls via elfroot and u can be more satisfied of fights, lvl20 group cs lvl10 mobs is bad mmmkay. Also easy mode is just boring autoattack.

Modifié par dwanedibbley, 10 février 2010 - 10:02 .

[DJ0000]

Soteria is right. It does take ability, the ability to look forward at what talents will be useful and then thinking of how they are best implemented. Hence why some people find easy too difficult, becuase they don't sut up tactics correctly or they don't level effectively.

[soteria]

Everyone brought up some good points on this topic. My best advice though, if you're coming from a WoW background, is to simply stop comparing other games to it. If it is not an MMORPG, don't compare it to WoW, it simply is not fitting a comparison. You cannot enjoy other games if you're constantly seeing how it differs from WoW while you play. And don't confuse the RPG in MMORPG with traditional RPGs, they are quite different in gameplay really.

Actually, if you played WoW, you'd realize the gameplay is really pretty similar. The significant differences are controlling a party and having the option to pause. Otherwise a lot of gameplay concepts are the same. They even have the little sparkles off lootable items, just like WoW.

[Sarielle]

soteria wrote...

Everyone brought up some good points on this topic. My best advice though, if you're coming from a WoW background, is to simply stop comparing other games to it. If it is not an MMORPG, don't compare it to WoW, it simply is not fitting a comparison. You cannot enjoy other games if you're constantly seeing how it differs from WoW while you play. And don't confuse the RPG in MMORPG with traditional RPGs, they are quite different in gameplay really.

Actually, if you played WoW, you'd realize the gameplay is really pretty similar. The significant differences are controlling a party and having the option to pause. Otherwise a lot of gameplay concepts are the same. They even have the little sparkles off lootable items, just like WoW.

No, it's better, because you don't have to deal with prima donna tanks (or healers...but I almost always play a healer in MMOs, so I don't have to put up w/ that) or crappy tanks/healers/dps. If somebody's not taking properly or not healing properly or pulling aggro all the time, it's all your OWN fault.

Also, no lfg.

...okay, so I didn't play WoW. But something tells me those things I just mentioned are MMO universal truths, heh.

[DraconisCombine]

Sabresandiego wrote...

Dont get me wrong, I think this is a great game. The only problem is that gameplay is very poor. The game is mainly just an interactive movie that you watch. The graphics, storytelling, artwork, sound, voices, are phenomenol. Unfortunately the gameplay is poor. There is very little skill involved in this game, and combat is mundane. Sustained abilities are especially stupid and take away even more of the little interactivity there is with combat in this game.

Combat is also not fluid, and there are alot of bugs and quirks that can be annoying. Combat decisions at the highest level simply amount to positioning and minor spell and ability choices. Although I am no longer a fan of WOW due to it being a teenager cartoon fantasy world, alot can be learned from the gameplay elements of Blizzard games. Look how WOW plays, how skills work, and how the game is balanced. It is leaps and bounds above what this game offers in gameplay. This is a great game, but gameplay needs alot of work.

Opinion on your part.I disagree.WoW sucks in my opinion but im not going on their forums to talk about it do i?Nope.Its unnecessary.After playing MMOs for 7 years straight,ill be happy to go back to RPGs.Dragon Age is a pleasant change from dealing with some of the idiocy in MMOs nowadays.There are enough RPGs out there that i havent played that i will be playing in the future.This an RPG not an MMO.Your comparison is pointless.

[Realmzmaster]

dkjestrup wrote...

Realmzmaster.

There's nothing wrong with the difficulty of easy. Just because I want the game harder on Nightmare, doesn't mean I want the other difficulties harder too.

And Easy mode wouldn't need changing. For example, the battle against the Shrieks on the bridge in Bownammar. Really really really really really easy battle. It's a great moment, and would be great tactically, but they just aren't strong enough, or in enough numbers. There's like what, 5-6 from each end? That's fine on easy, but on Nightmare, perhaps continuous waves of 10-15 per end would be better. I solo'ed one end with my mage. Paralysis Explosion + Cone of cold + Virulent Walking Bomb + Stonefist. Done.

It shouldn't be so easy.

The point is that in your initial post you did not mention the dificulty level. But since you are talking about Nightmare I have no problem with a more intense tactical battle. But instead of more darkspawn maybe stronger, more hp and more spell resistant would be better. (same number of foes but tougher i.e. Super Shrieks or the new and improved darkspawn).

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 10 février 2010 - 11:19 .

[Sabresandiego]

There is some skill in this game, but not much. Skill in this game basically amounts to game knowledge and how well you know how the game works. But I enjoy this game for what it is, an interactive movie. It does not have the gameplay of something like WOW or Diablo or an FPS, but apparrently it wasn't designed to. I'm fine with that.



I am playing a warrior, and I never run more than one sustainable because I really don't enjoy watching my character just auto attack. I try to leave as much stamina available as possible for activated abilities. I am on my second playthrough now, and for this run I am using a mod called combat tweaks which has improved the game quite a bit in the bugs and balance department.



I am also running several other mods, and have all the DLC. This makes my character extremely overpowered even though I am not using any cheat items. I had to install several mods to make the game far more difficult, as once you reach the higher levels with the best equipment the game because ridiculously easy even on nightmare. So far I am running 3 difficulty mods at the same time, nightmare plus, combat tweaks difficulty patch 2, and monster max level cap removed. Oddly, I just installed the 3rd mod which removes the monster max level cap, and difficulty is finally starting to be at least somewhat harder. I also had to nerf myself down with rules such as no potions, and no armor over 20 on my main. The game is not balanced well and is alot harder level 1-10 than it is 10-20 or 15+.

[orpheus333]

when it comes to speed and co-ordination you might also like to play without pause. That way you will have to control a 4 member group in real time. That should at least give your micro abit of a workout.

[soteria]

I wish I could be as awesome as you. Then I could go make a bunch of threads about how stupid soloing is (and easy, despite having to reload constantly) and how I had to install 20 mods and play with one hand behind my back, blindfolded, to get a challenge.

[Sabresandiego]

Soteria, stop being annoyingly sarcastic. As I said before, the game doesnt require alot of skill. Its not my skill making the game easy as heck when you are level 15+ and geared with DLC items and the best items in the game. Its just the poor game balance. Go be sarcastic with someone else, Im not here claiming Im the god of gaming. The game is easy because of bad game design, not because of my immense skill in a game with a very shallow skill threshold.

[High Magus]

Sabresandiego wrote...

Perhaps you are correct in stating that the game is simply designed for a different audience than what I am. I prefer games which require timing, speed, coordination, critical decisions, a little keyboard and mouse dexterity, tactics, and more. I love using reactionary abilities like interrupts, stuns, charges, overpowers, in addition to overall battlefield tactics.

I do not like things being automated for me. The less automation there is in a game, the more interactive it is for me. And interactivity is the basis of skill. Perhaps the game is working as intended and is just not my cup of tea in terms of gameplay. Its still a great game however.

I guess if building up an arcane warrior, loading up a bunch of sustains, and then just right clicking every few seconds while watching your character autoattack is your definition of fun, then the game is working perfectly. Me personally, I prefer to be making multiple combat decisions every second I am in battle.

Or you could play a rogue solo, where you have to use all the interrupts and tactical abilities that ARE in the game to win.

If you're saying the game is too easy because you played a fully geared Arcane Warrior... Everyone knows that's easy.

Play a solo, then talk about tactics and autoattacking. Unless you pumped DEX like a madman, in which case only the begininning will be hard...

EDIT BUTTON! So you're playing a Warrior unarmoured at the moment with difficulty mods? Still finding it easy too? The Solo suggestion still stands, but really the challenge in this game is going to be what you make it.

Just don't use any DLC items if they're making the game stupidly easy, they aren't even normal items, they're bonus rewards for buying the game a certain way (some of them). You don't have to use them.

Modifié par High Magus, 11 février 2010 - 01:00 .

[Realmzmaster]

The OP is entitled to his opinion. I do not agree with him. So we agree to disagree. I find action-rpgs, mmorpgs and FPS boring. But that is my opinion. And yes I beat Diablo (along with the Hellfire expansion), Diablo II, Dungeon Siege 1 & 2, Silverfall(what a joke), Dungeon Lords etc.



Give me the likes of Planescape Torment, BG1 & BG2, Icewind Dale I & II and DA:O any day of the week. I like exploration, a good story, combat that involves strategy (yes I play computer wargames also. I can give a list of those too) and tactics, not how fast I can click a mouse, punch a joypad button or hit a key. I left those days behind with Pac Man and Space Invaders.

So if DA:O is an interactive movie you will have to excuse me as I get back to enjoying the show.

[maxernst]

This reminds me of a post I made a long, long time ago when there was a discussion of whether game x (diablo perhaps?) was a roleplaying game. Someone used the facile argument that "you play a role through an avatar, therefore it's a roleplaying game." But by that argument, even something like Doom or a Formula One Racing is arguably roleplaying. The problem is that single player games can never be roleplaying games in quite the same sense as a pen and paper game; the single player CRPG will always be a different animal. In practice, you can divide up the computer gaming genres by the way obstacles for overcome, although some games are clearly hybrids.



Suppose you have an open pit that you need to cross. If the way cross it is by backing up, hitting the run key and then the jump key at just the right time to make it across the pit, it's an action game. Obstacles are overcome through a players reflexes and dexterity.



If you cross it by going back through the rooms behind you and finding a dead sheep and a loom and you spin the sheeps wool into a rope and use it to cross the pit, it's an adventure game. In adventure games, obstacles are overcoming by solving a puzzle.



If you cross it by casting a fly spell or using your character's special leaping skill, then you're playing a roleplaying game. In roleplaying games, obstacles are overcoming using the skills that the character in the game has acquired.



It's pretty clear from the OP's comments that you've mostly played action games and hybrid action games, not what I would call pure RPG's. Obivously you like action games, but many people (and I would guess a lot of bioware fans) don't. I'm tempted to say that I'd rather test my reflexes and physical skills with tennis than computer games. I play shooters only if they have RPG or adventure elements, and usually play them on easy these days. I hate almost all RTS games--in strategy games, I like to stop and plan thoughtfully, not be frantically clicking away.



Traditional RPG's don't depend on reflexes and often didn't depend heavily on tactical combat. Actually, DA:O is much more tactical in some respects than previous BioWare games in that flanking, backstabbing, knockdown and stun moves are rather important. This is quite different from AD&D-based games where an attack was pretty much an attack and only in spellcasting was there a lot of strategic thinking beyond blocking doorways and halls to protect weaker party members. The important strategy in these games is the decisions you make in skill development, not so much on the battlefield. As somebody pointed out, some RPG's can be played with very little combat. In games like Fallout, Fallout 2, and Planescape: Torment, you can choose to have very few combats, but fans of these games (and I am one of them) would certainly deny that they lack gameplay.



I find it hard to believe you don't think what skills you pick matter very much. I can say from personal experience that I made poor decisions that made my characters have a very rough time around levels 6-8 in Redcliffe--decisions that prioritized direct damage dealing and passive abilities over incapacitating attacks. I emphasized the electricity spells for Morrigan, which meant that I didn't have good crowd control spells. I didn't pick dread howl for Dog. My PC was a rogue and I spent a point or two on archery and others on dual wielding. As a result, some of the battles--espeically the one to save the village--were very challenging. Especially in the early part of the game, choosing the right skills and spells makes a huge difference. Really, since I dropped Morrigan after the Circle in favor of Wynne (who is offensively limited), I didn't have a good crowd control spell until I got cone of cold around level 12...which makes the game a great deal easier. Now (level 16) I'm often finding myself checking to make sure I didn't accidentally change to easy mode--I found the boss fights in the Brecilian forest were bizarrely trivial.



So I now see why people complain about the game being "easy" and being unbalanced, but I also think that people who's gaming experience lies mostly in other genres may not realize that the games are generally designed not to be too hard, because part of the fun of a roleplaying game is choosing to do things your own way. What that means in practical terms is that RPG gaming companies plan for people to be able to get through the game even while making non-optimal, or even deliberately counterproductive choices (soloing for example). I remember when Might & Magic VI came out one of the game designers making the comment that they had one group of play testers playing an all warrior team just to make sure the game was still beatable without spells. The more difficult a game becomes the fewer ways there are to approach it successfully. I remember in Civ 3 that after reading some strategy guides, I realized that I would have to completely change my style of play to succeed above Emperor level, and that I didn't find playing the game that way appealiing.



That's not to say the game couldn't use some tweaks to its A.I., but it hardly lacks gameplay.

[Sabresandiego]

Good post maxernst and you are correct in most everything you write. I tend to think in terms of action RPGs where skill is measured by things such as quick decision making, hand dexterity, game knowledge, tactics and strategy. The games which most represent this type of skill are first person shooters. I really like RPG elements as well, and that is one reason I like games which blend FPS skill factors with RPG elements. WOW is pretty good in this regard, due to its extensive PVP base. Skill in WOW comes from ability to think, move, react and plan quickly, and make good decisions. Should I cast a heal? Or should I fake a heal so that my opponent wastes his interrupt. Should I cast mortal strike, or should I intercept and interrupt the mage behind him? Multiplayer mmorpg's with PVP can be very skill sensitive if they are designed properly, almost to the level of first person shooters.

I am used to this type of action rpg game, and you can tell that although DAO is a single player RPG, it does try to take elements from action and mmo based RPG's like WOW. When I was saying gameplay is poor I was comparing it to WOW and first person shooters. If the intention of the game was to play more like an interactive movie, then gameplay is actually very good. It actually is far more interactive than most story based RPG's and that is awesome. I just hope the next DAO gives players who want more action elements present to have a chance to do so. Perhaps an option to automate certain combat tasks, or to manually control them would be good.

Modifié par Sabresandiego, 11 février 2010 - 03:46 .

[Finch204]

Was just thinking, you should give Mass Effect 2 a try Sabresandiego. It has more of the gameplay elements you're looking for I think.

[dkjestrup]

Well, to be fair Realmzmaster, if I was complaining about it being to easy, I wouldn't be talking about normal difficulty.



There is skill in these games, even purely turn based games. There are two parts of this skill.



There is Knowledge, such as how to build your characters, your strategy, etc. This takes up about half of the battle.



Then there is your ability to react. Things never go 100% to plan. Someone always gets scattershotted/crushing prisoned etc by accident. It's your ability to react to that which makes you good at the game.



Also, if you want skill, go play COD/MAG etc.

[soteria]

Soteria, stop being annoyingly sarcastic. As I said before, the game doesnt require alot of skill. Its not my skill making the game easy as heck when you are level 15+ and geared with DLC items and the best items in the game. Its just the poor game balance. Go be sarcastic with someone else, Im not here claiming Im the god of gaming. The game is easy because of bad game design, not because of my immense skill in a game with a very shallow skill threshold.

You'll have to forgive me for not believing you, considering the number of threads you've created saying how easy the game is, how stupid (and easy) you think soloing is, how many mods and self-imposed restrictions you play with to get a challenge. If you had just said, "This game is too easy once you get the hang of it," I would have agreed. It's from your insistence on bringing this up in what, 4, 5 threads now, that brings me to the conclusion that you're bragging.



I'm not sure how you can make a post saying, "This game takes no skill--I had to install this mod, this mod, and this mod, restrict potion use, stop using good gear, and then install that mod and the other mod and FINALLY notice a *slight* increase in difficulty," and not come off as claiming you're a "god of gaming" as you put it. Especially when I can easily find a dozen threads from people complaining the game is too hard and x, y, or z boss is impossible.

[ModerateOsprey]

I have got a shelf full of the all the obvious XBox games - Halo, GoW, multi CODs, GRAW, etc. A few weeks ago I bought ME1 for the XBox and loved it, still shooter like, but I thought Bioware's treatment of the RPG elements were just fantastic, so I checked out DAO and bought the PC version.



I love it. Sometimes I want to play with my adrenaline pumping like you get with MW2 on veteran, but sometimes I want some chilled tunes on and take my time and after a hard days fighting (that can be paused and considered), stare into Leliana's eyes or have an argument with Morrigan. For me DAO simply cannot be beaten in this regard, except by sitting round a table with some mates, paper and dice



When I first played it was not what I was expecting, but it is what it is and if there is anything else like this out there that is even close to being this good, please will someone tell me about it.

[Janni-in-VA]

"RPG's with good gameplay use multiple reactive abilities, timing based abilities, critical decisions which must be made quickly, tactical choices, etc."

Complete the last half of the quest for Andraste's Ashes with NO health poultices and then come back and talk to me about the lack of a need for tactics.

I would be interested in knowing what difficulty levels you have played. I freely admit I'm playing Easy, but I accomplished the above BEFORE installing the patch which lowered the difficulty of the Easy setting. Frankly, before the patch there wasn't that much difference between Easy and Normal other than the possibility of friendly fire from AoE spells. Would you like for me to try to remember how many reloads it took me to defeat the ogre at the top of the Tower of Ishal before installing the latest patch? Even after moving the slider DOWN from normal to easy?

Perhaps, though, I simply approach games differently. I want a story that holds my attention and a world where I can make a real difference (one of the major problems I had with Oblivion). I tend to immerse myself in a game and want it to hold up for multiple play-throughs (one of the things I loved about Morrowind). I like Neverwinter Nights, but found it a bit too linear for my tastes, so I only played it through about three times. Baldur's Gate II was interesting. I enjoyed the Diablo series. I've also played through Sacred (not Sacred 2) a few times. Right now, this game and Morrowind are the ones I'm going back to again and again simply because the storylines are engaging.

As you've probably noted, I prefer fantasy RPGs (don't care for shooters at all). You'll also note that my games are older, which is a reflection of the fact that I'm an adult with real-life bills and such to pay. I don't have a lot of disposable income, so I'm very choosy about which games I buy.  And no, I'm not throwing off on younger folks, merely stating factual reality.

What all this comes down to is that each game requires a different approach, and if you find yourself drawn to a particular genre, stick with it.  Don't like the game you're playing?  Stop playing, sell your copy, and go do something that makes you happier. 

EDIT:  It just occurred to me today that perhaps those players who like more "tactical" games (for lack of a better term) might try turning off the tactics option and taking control over the entire party.  Since no one would be on auto-pilot, so to speak, you'd be busy keeping up with attacks, working out strategy, keeping up with health/mana levels, postioning your party members, etc.  Wouldn't this satisfy some of what you feel is missing from the combat system?

Modifié par Janni-in-VA, 12 février 2010 - 07:57 .