Dragon Age

[Purkake]

So basically it's super special hard and more causal people will get steamrolled and then thrown to the wayside.

 

 

No one knows how hard it is. Or how people will react.

 

Some games are hard, some games are easy. That's the way its always been.

 

What I said was in response to alanschu, who has actually played it.

[Slowtrain]

So basically it's super special hard and more causal people will get steamrolled and then thrown to the wayside.

 

 

No one knows how hard it is. Or how people will react.

 

Some games are hard, some games are easy. That's the way its always been.

 

What I said was in response to alanschu, who has actually played it.

 

 

Ah OK. Sorry, without a quote I wasn't sure.

[mrmud]

Considering about every single RPG released in the past decade is stupidly easy, I'd appreciate if people stopped complaining about the game's difficulty. It's not like they don't have any options. Not every game has to appeal to the same people.

 

In any case, I seriously doubt Dragon Age is any harder than, say, BG2.

Difficulty levels are your friend.

There is no reason for a game to be overly hard on the easy setting as long as there is an option to have it be hard on the appropriate setting.

Having a game that is to hard regardless of setting is just a way to make less money.

[alanschu]

There is no death in game so who cares if the game is hard?

 

It's not like there is any penalty for failing.

 

 

This is an absurd statement and true of any game that lets you save anywhere.

 

 

Not really. In a crpg where party members can die, you not only have to win through an encounter, you have to win through keeping everyone alive. Unless you are willing to just write them off and move on. Which is always an option, but not one many are going to take. Plus eventually you'll run out of party members.

 

In a gamer where party members can't die, you no longer have to concern yourself winning and keeping everyone alive, you only have to concern yourself with winning.

 

Combat becomes much easier in that situation, and difficulty becomes less of an issue.

 

That's quite a stretch from "there's no penalty for failing" compared to "not having to worry about party death makes the game less difficult." It is still very possible to fail in Dragon Age. And most games for that matter.

 

There's no penalty for your party members dying in Baldur's Gate. You just reload the game. Just like there's no penalty in Dragon Age when your party wipes out. You just reload the game.

Edited October 19, 2009 by alanschu

[Bos_hybrid]

Difficulty won't be a problem on PC, god mode and trainers will take care of those that find it difficult. If your playing it on a console, they've basically made it easier due to console limitations(less combat NPCs).

 

But if easy is extremely difficult, Bio has failed to recognize what easy means. Easy is for people that just want to breeze through the game, if people want a difficult game then they up the difficulty level.

Edited October 19, 2009 by Bos_hybrid

[alanschu]

So basically it's super special hard and more causal people will get steamrolled and then thrown to the wayside.

 

 

No, but some fights are hard.

 

More casual people are more than able to lower the difficulty setting of the game. In fact, I think the easy difficulty setting is even called "Casual."

[Slowtrain]

Having a game that is to hard regardless of setting is just a way to make less money.

 

 

This is what I don't get.

 

This is Bioware we are talking about. The longtime king of mass market userfriendly crpgs. Don't you think they've thought about this issue?

[Wrath of Dagon]

There is no death in game so who cares if the game is hard?

 

It's not like there is any penalty for failing.

 

 

This is an absurd statement and true of any game that lets you save anywhere.

 

 

Not really. In a crpg where party members can die, you not only have to win through an encounter, you have to win through keeping everyone alive. Unless you are willing to just write them off and move on. Which is always an option, but not one many are going to take. Plus eventually you'll run out of party members.

 

In a gamer where party members can't die, you no longer have to concern yourself winning and keeping everyone alive, you only have to concern yourself with winning.

 

Combat becomes much easier in that situation, and difficulty becomes less of an issue.

So why not just make it harder to win? It's all a question of balance. With permadeath, they have to make the fight easier because you're only as strong as the weakest link, plus you're more at the mercy of randomness. Like the Dukes in MoW, I don't know how anyone would win that if you had to keep everyone alive. Sometimes you just have to sacrifice some pawns. Permadeath just requires different (not necessarily better) tactics and balance that's all.

[Oner]

Difficulty won't be a problem on PC, god mode and trainers will take care of those that find it difficult. If your playing it on a console, they've basically made it easier due to console limitations(less combat NPCs).

I heard console enemies will be tougher to keep the difficulty up.

[Slowtrain]

There is no death in game so who cares if the game is hard?

 

It's not like there is any penalty for failing.

 

 

This is an absurd statement and true of any game that lets you save anywhere.

 

 

Not really. In a crpg where party members can die, you not only have to win through an encounter, you have to win through keeping everyone alive. Unless you are willing to just write them off and move on. Which is always an option, but not one many are going to take. Plus eventually you'll run out of party members.

 

In a gamer where party members can't die, you no longer have to concern yourself winning and keeping everyone alive, you only have to concern yourself with winning.

 

Combat becomes much easier in that situation, and difficulty becomes less of an issue.

 

That's quite a stretch from "there's no penalty for failing" compared to "not having to worry about party death makes the game less difficult." It is still very possible to fail in Dragon Age. And most games for that matter.

 

There's no penalty for your party members dying in Baldur's Gate. You just reload the game. Just like there's no penalty in Dragon Age when your party wipes out. You just reload the game.

 

Jagged Alliance 2 would be a much much easier game if after a battle where 17 mercs "died" they were all better again afterwards.

 

Reloading a game and having to replay through a major battle again is a lot more difficult than just being able to plow while losing most of your party members in the process.

 

Understand, I'm not in any way criticising Bioware or Dragon Age here. My guess is that they know what they are doing and it will be a fun game.

[Slowtrain]

So why not just make it harder to win? It's all a question of balance. With permadeath, they have to make the fight easier because you're only as strong as the weakest link, plus you're more at the mercy of randomness. Like the Dukes in MoW, I don't know how anyone would win that if you had to keep everyone alive. Sometimes you just have to sacrifice some pawns. Permadeath just requires different (not necessarily better) tactics and balance that's all.

 

 

I'm not defending any one system or way of doing it over another. I've played lots of different games that used different battle systems and a lot of them were fun.

[Amentep]

There's no penalty for your party members dying in Baldur's Gate. You just reload the game. Just like there's no penalty in Dragon Age when your party wipes out. You just reload the game.

 

Or, in BG, when you lose a party member you can go back to the church and have them resurrected.

 

Only to find out you don't have enough gold to pay for it.

 

So you go out to try and play wack-a-monster to get the gold.

 

And you get a random encounter with a horde of gnolls.

 

And after killing them you now have enough money to resurrect your fallen comrade!

 

Except now you've lost a second party member fighting the random gnolls and if you resurrect the first character you now have to fight monsters to to get enough money to resurrect the second...

[jaguars4ever]

All RPGs ought to be as difficult as Blade of Darkness, or Demon's Souls. Not only will this provide meaning to l33t pr4nage of w00t proportions (to those capable to snacking on their fallen foes with eviscersauce), but it also serves a barrier to entry separating us elitist vets of hardcore gaming to the simian plebs of casual gaming. After all, only a retarded system rewards spastictude with advancement. If you can't handle the heat, learn to cook or get out of the kitchen.

Unless of course, you're a woman. In that case, make sure my dinner's ready by 7PM.

Edited October 19, 2009 by jaguars4ever

[Bos_hybrid]

Difficulty won't be a problem on PC, god mode and trainers will take care of those that find it difficult. If your playing it on a console, they've basically made it easier due to console limitations(less combat NPCs).

I heard console enemies will be tougher to keep the difficulty up.

 

Well that would make sense. But it would still be easier wouldn't it? Less chance of being swarmed and easier to herd npcs into kill zones.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Console battles will have to be easier since you don't get the top-down view, or the click to move on companions, thus tactically battles will be harder to manage.

[Oner]

Difficulty won't be a problem on PC, god mode and trainers will take care of those that find it difficult. If your playing it on a console, they've basically made it easier due to console limitations(less combat NPCs).

I heard console enemies will be tougher to keep the difficulty up.

Well that would make sense. But it would still be easier wouldn't it? Less chance of being swarmed and easier to herd npcs into kill zones.

Unless tougher=higher attack and defense, yeah.

[Nepenthe]

Aren't most of the Bio boards people pretty casual about combat and tactics stuff? I heard that all they want to do is have romances and give gifts.

 

Nope, you just got to read the 'what makes an rpg a rpg' arguments that pop up every few weeks, then there's a lot of masterbaiting over BG threads, hating of Bethesda.(Hmm that sound familiar...) It's just the romance fans are quite often louder or to put it correctly, post mad. That being said the bio boards probably wouldn't be worth visiting without them.

 

I'd say the major difference between here and there is they have less supercilious geek elitism and a younger average age. Both are insufferable in their own way.

[Purkake]

Difficulty won't be a problem on PC, god mode and trainers will take care of those that find it difficult. If your playing it on a console, they've basically made it easier due to console limitations(less combat NPCs).

 

But if easy is extremely difficult, Bio has failed to recognize what easy means. Easy is for people that just want to breeze through the game, if people want a difficult game then they up the difficulty level.

 

Most people who would have problems with it would rather play another game than search for cheats, let alone trainers.

 

Aren't most of the Bio boards people pretty casual about combat and tactics stuff? I heard that all they want to do is have romances and give gifts.

 

Nope, you just got to read the 'what makes an rpg a rpg' arguments that pop up every few weeks, then there's a lot of masterbaiting over BG threads, hating of Bethesda.(Hmm that sound familiar...) It's just the romance fans are quite often louder or to put it correctly, post mad. That being said the bio boards probably wouldn't be worth visiting without them.

 

I'd say the major difference between here and there is they have less supercilious geek elitism and a younger average age. Both are insufferable in their own way.

 

[Oner]

I'd say the major difference between here and there is they have less supercilious geek elitism and a younger average age. Both are insufferable in their own way.

Hey, it's not my fault they didn't get born in the master race.

j/k

[Syraxis]

I'd say the major difference between here and there is they have less supercilious geek elitism and a younger average age. Both are insufferable in their own way.

Hey, it's not my fault they didn't get born in the master race.

j/k

 

 

They are scum, filth, inferior, unworthy to lick the ground we walk on.

 

 

 

j/k

 

[jaguars4ever]

The only good n00b is a dead n00b.

[Monte Carlo]

I think Slowtrain hit the nail on the head: This is Bioware. Love their games or hate their games, scaling and difficulty is their bread and butter even if it has been at the casual end of the market of late. Played Ascension / Redemption by Dave Gaider? Before the budding David Gemmell schtick, there was a guy who knews how to write a challenging series of tactical battles.

 

The other issue is, what's wrong with 'Casual' as a game setting. Answer = NOTHING. What's wrong with 'Hardcore / Needs to get out more often' as a game setting? NOTHING.

 

What's the argument, there isn't one? I'm in the hardcore camp, admittedly, but I only get bent out of shape when the 'Casual' side of the house wail about how 'Screensaver' should be the default setting of all games.

 

I'm currently playing lots of Company of Heroes. Online. And getting my ass kicked by spammers, smurfs and pros (funny how your gaming vocab expands online!). Guess what? I love the difficulty, I love learning how the works and I love getting better.

 

Conversely, I'm rubbish at FPS games, but see the appeal. Crysis? Hell, I'd play that on casual mode all day along with your Far Cry and HALO. Couldn't care less what anybody else thinks.

 

Cheers

MC

[alanschu]

Jagged Alliance 2 would be a much much easier game if after a battle where 17 mercs "died" they were all better again afterwards.

 

Since you once said something similar to me: Jagged Alliance 2 is not a roleplaying game.

 

 

Reloading a game and having to replay through a major battle again is a lot more difficult than just being able to plow while losing most of your party members in the process.

 

Irrelevant. There's still no penalty for failure. You just reload, right?

 

If you're going to toss around that a game without permadeath has "no penalty for failure" then you're going to have to include every game that allows saving. The lack of permadeath is hardly akin to making games impossible to lose at.

Edited October 19, 2009 by alanschu

[Monte Carlo]

What game was it that gave you an XP or gold penalty every time you died? I liked that idea.

[alanschu]

I think NWN did something like that.