Obsidian dumbs "downer"

[Pop]

[Cantousent]

Ah, how sweet. :Cant's bemused but happy icon:

[metadigital]

Is that an albino xenomorph?

[Pop]

It's a large, anthropomorphic lump of sugar.

[mkreku]

I wish Obsidian would take a leaf out of Piranha Bytes book when it comes to game difficulty. Who in their right mind think that auto-resurrection is a good design choice? I know for a fact that I've never once reloaded the game (Neverwinter Nights 2) because I died in combat. The only times I ever reload is when I want to try different dialogue options that are not immediately reachable. And you know a game has hit the right game difficulty when the werewolf drama queen whines about the game being the worst game ever a full five years after trying it..

 

About the Duergar: I want the game to kick my butt! I want to be able to fail. That makes winning so much sweeter.

[Spider]

While I generally agree that the difficulty of NWN2 was kinda low, I hardly think it's a good thing to make the first encounters you have in a game be extremely difficult. Some time to adjust to the rules, interface et al is preferable. So leaving the beginning duergar as is (or replacing them with goblins or whatever) is probably the right call.

 

I mean as much as I enjoy getting my ass kicked by Improved Illyich whenever I'm playing BG2 these days (which is rare, but it does happen), had that been the default difficulty of the game, I probably never would have made it past the first dungeon before giving up on it in despair. A bit of an extreme example, I know, but given how much experience counts for in these games I think enlarged, invisible duergar would have a similar effect on newcomers.

 

Having only played Gothic 3, and on a computer that wasn't exactly happy about it, I can't say their approach is all that excellent either. The beginning was incredibly difficult, any creature that could go hostile would kill you if you made even a single misstep. Although once you got used to the controls and had your character level up a little, it quickly turned around and became very simple instead. At the point I was when I stopped playing, any fight with fewer than 5 opponents was fairly simple. Unless there were archers involved, that could change things around a bit (but usually not).

 

I think Stalker was ok in the beginning. Difficult as hell, but still entertaining. It also got a bit to easy in the end (I haven't finished it yet, but I'm close) but it's still a decent challenge (playing on Veteran, by the way). So had NWN2 been something like that, I would have been happy with the difficulty. But it wasn't.

[Tigranes]

Well, there are specific points at which I think the areas in general were way too easy. The most blatant is the fire giant mountains - you look at that, then the TOB ones, and wow, the TOB ones are harder, no matter how much munchkin epic level abilities you might have. Ammon Jerro demons at Shandra's farm were pathetic too, as were most encounters within Neverwinter itself, the outdoors of Arvahn's Ruins, OOW orc clans...

[metadigital]

^^ That agrees with my summation.

 

I think there was a general assessment made to make the game easy for novices to play ... perhaps as a gateway for those who never played the original game (and expansions and community content), with the idea that once people had learnt how a game plays they would be hooked and play the community content and sequels ..?

[Sand]

I want the CRPG equivelent to Ninja Gaiden Black for the PC.

[Dark_Raven]

I want the CRPG equivelent to Ninja Gaiden Black for the PC.

Ninja Gaiden for the NES.

[Sand]

I want the CRPG equivelent to Ninja Gaiden Black for the PC.

Ninja Gaiden for the NES.

Whatever. I just want a really hard CRPG that the critters' AI use the full abilities and solid tactics.

Edited June 1, 2007 by Sand

[Dark_Raven]

Play IWD, IWD2 in HoF mode.

[Slowtrain]

For most gamers grueling difficulty does not equal fun.

[Cantousent]

I agree with the basic idea, Spider, but this statement only gets it half right: "So leaving the beginning duergar as is (or replacing them with goblins or whatever) is probably the right call." No, replacing the duergar with goblins is the right call. Disabling basic monster abilities to lower difficulty is not a good call. Sawyer said why they made the decision, and I take him at his word, but I agree with Sand completely as regards the basic idea.

 

Since I don't care about bragging rights, it all comes down to a balancing act. What is difficult enough to challenge me without being so difficult that it seems like work? From what is the difficulty derived? Is it difficult because I have to fight through a horde of little beasties boring in every way except for their toughness? For example, a lot of folks really enjoyed Wizardry 8. I thought it sucked. making it so that I had to fight through monsters every inch of every map didn't make the battles more difficult so much as it tried my patience. I hated it. I thought the ramped up random encounters detracted from the game. On the other hand, I don't like the fact that my NPCs get up unscathed at the end of battle. The reason for that isn't so much that it makes death "meaningless" so much as it seems like they never die. I'd rather reload on an in-party death, which I often do in most games, than think to myself, "Wow, she just took almost 200 points of damage, her icon turned into a skull face, and now she's up and has her spells and equipment." It's the disconnect I hate, not the idea that it offends my computer game pedigree bragging rights.

 

With all that in mind, I like winning hard battles too. I sometimes like to be able to say, "eat on that, *********[expletive]********!" So, bragging rights are cool sometimes.

[Spider]

I agree with the basic idea, Spider, but this statement only gets it half right: "So leaving the beginning duergar as is (or replacing them with goblins or whatever) is probably the right call." No, replacing the duergar with goblins is the right call. Disabling basic monster abilities to lower difficulty is not a good call. Sawyer said why they made the decision, and I take him at his word, but I agree with Sand completely as regards the basic idea.

 

I'm not a huge fan of D&D in general and FR in particular. So exactly what abilities duergar have or don't really couldn't matter less to me, hence I wrote the way I did. You're right though, the right call is to replace the duergar with goblins. But what if that option isn't available? What if we only get to chose between duergar with or without their abilities? Canon should never supersede fun (although when I care about canon, adherence to it typically equals fun).

 

The main point still stands, let us learn to swim before throwing us off in the deep end. And while a lot of the players on this board certainly know how to swim in regards to D&D crpgs, a lot of people (including those who played the first game) don't. I basically think the game had the right difficulty up until Neverwinter. But from that point on, it certainly would have benefited from tougher opponents (and tougher opponents is not the same as more opponents, the warehouse level is considered one of the most difficult ones due to all the respawning, but that makes it tedious not challenging).

 

In the end, what I want is difficulty sliders that actually make the game more challenging, through improved AI and such, rather than just beefing up hit points. Again, opponents with more hit points that are still stupid adds tedium, not challenge.

[Cantousent]

Sand might be arguing from a canon standpoint. I'm arguing from a mechanic standpoint. If you fight the same monster later in the game, will it suddenly regain it's powers? It's a matter of consistency for me, not one of canon.

[Spider]

Fair enough. As far as internal consistency goes, that is very important. I wasn't really thinking about the fact that duergar were encountered later on as well.

[metadigital]

Sand might be arguing from a canon standpoint. I'm arguing from a mechanic standpoint. If you fight the same monster later in the game, will it suddenly regain it's powers? It's a matter of consistency for me, not one of canon.

Maybe the earlier ones are the rarer, smaller and feeble cousins of the traditional Duegar.

[taks]

if you were talking about the duergar immediately after the tutorial, they were thralls. that meant they were not acting on their own will, and it is conceivable that they would not use all of their powers/abilities in a fight they personally did not have any stake in. thralls are sort of unwilling participants, being forced to do their master's bidding, and maybe not trying as hard as they would if the fight were personal.

 

taks

[Sand]

Sand might be arguing from a canon standpoint. I'm arguing from a mechanic standpoint. If you fight the same monster later in the game, will it suddenly regain it's powers? It's a matter of consistency for me, not one of canon.

There's that to. I am a bit of both.

[Cantousent]

Really, how lame? The only thing that might make sense is taks' idea that the first duergar were thralls and, as such, were weaker. Not for the exact same reason he cited: "thralls are sort of unwilling participants, being forced to do their master's bidding, and maybe not trying as hard as they would if the fight were personal." They'd fight for their lives with just as much vigor anyhow, I'm sure. However, the real key is if the creatures had different names. I don't know, but did the originals spor the name "thrall?"

 

I mean, these aren't insignificant powers at that level. Not only that, but most games present some rhyme or reason for a significant change in powers. It might be subtle, but there must be some logical reason for the same creature to have different abilities in the game. Otherwise, the complaint is legitimate.

 

Now, let's get to the license. I'm not really a canon sort of guy. I'm not going to go crazy over a chain shirt. Nevertheless, DnD states the characteristics for chain shirts. You want to make one medium armor, folks will complain.

 

Listen, it's not like this is a huge deal. But it is the deal you face when you agree to develop a licensed game.

 

Overall, Sand's statement that they should have used level appropriate creatures makes perfect sense to me.

 

...And I'm not attacking anyone. I'm just saying that, from my perspective, Sand has a point as it regards this particular issue. I don't think the encounter should have been harder. I think the creature's should have been level appropriate.

[mr insomniac]

While the name above the duergar, when clicked upon or highlighted, may not have been "thrall", in one encounter,

when you first meet Elanee

, the bladeling they are with refers to them as "stupid thralls" (I believe), or at least thralls.

 

Just pointing this out.

[Deraldin]

While the name above the duergar, when clicked upon or highlighted, may not have been "thrall", in one encounter,

when you first meet Elanee

, the bladeling they are with refers to them as "stupid thralls" (I believe), or at least thralls.

 

Just pointing this out.

 

Doesn't the injured duergar in the starting village mention something about being a thrall?

[Gromnir]

if josh had renamed gray dwarves following tutorial as "gelded duergar," would everybody ha' been happy?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Volourn]

The duergar should have had their full powers. That is all.