Future of the Dragon Age franchise

[meomao]

I've read Abercrombie. The First Law Trilogy was great, Best Served Cold even better. The latest one, The Heroes, is a little weaker, mostly because the character takes a lot longer to develop and come into their own (partly due to there being too many viewpoints). It got a bit better in the second half, when the characters got more developed. So yeah, I like Abercrombie.

 

It's funny because The Heores is my favourite one. Probably that explains our respective positions on setting and charachterization: just a matter of tastes in the end . Btw, Abercrombie is a gamer and post games impression in his blog from time to time. It was interesting to read what he had to say about ME3 ending.

[GhostofAnakin]

 

It's funny because The Heores is my favourite one. Probably that explains our respective positions on setting and charachterization: just a matter of tastes in the end . Btw, Abercrombie is a gamer and post games impression in his blog from time to time. It was interesting to read what he had to say about ME3 ending.

 

Out of curiosity, what did he say?

[HoonDing]

It's funny because The Heores is my favourite one. Probably that explains our respective positions on setting and charachterization: just a matter of tastes in the end . Btw, Abercrombie is a gamer and post games impression in his blog from time to time. It was interesting to read what he had to say about ME3 ending.

 

Out of curiosity, what did he say?

"I

Edited April 14, 2012 by virumor

[Monte Carlo]

He makes a pretty good point - expecting a great ending from a game akin to one you'd get from a book is a big ask. Endings are tough to write, especially awesome multiple endings.

[Orogun01]

He makes a pretty good point - expecting a great ending from a game akin to one you'd get from a book is a big ask. Endings are tough to write, especially awesome multiple endings.

Yeah, low standards towards a genre it's not helping the cause buddy. Specially when most of the people involved try to use art as an excuse but apparently not a goal.

[Gorgon]

You can get radically different endings with just dialouge and a cutscene. That's not really resource demanding. All you need is a good idea, but yes, good ideas are hard to come by apparently.

[Tale]

He makes a pretty good point - expecting a great ending from a game akin to one you'd get from a book is a big ask. Endings are tough to write, especially awesome multiple endings.

I dunno. Ending galactic civilization and maybe ending all life in the known galaxy seems like a misstep, regardless of how hard your medium is to work with.

[GhostofAnakin]

He makes a pretty good point - expecting a great ending from a game akin to one you'd get from a book is a big ask. Endings are tough to write, especially awesome multiple endings.

 

Expecting a great ending might be a tall order, but expecting an ending that makes sense, and that fits with 99% of the game up until that point, shouldn't be.

[Orogun01]

You can get radically different endings with just dialouge and a cutscene. That's not really resource demanding. All you need is a good idea, but yes, good ideas are hard to come by apparently.

Not really, getting good ideas it's easy. The problem comes when "idiaots" think their ideas translate solely on the basis of their conception and don't work on translating them into an actual finished piece.

[Hurlshort]

A lot of these complaints about the ending come down to how you interpret it. The problem is the ending is extremely vague, which means you get all sorts of odd conjecture about what it really means.

 

Ending galactic civilization and maybe ending all life in the known galaxy seems like a misstep

 

See I didn't get that at all from any of the endings.

[Calax]

A lot of these complaints about the ending come down to how you interpret it. The problem is the ending is extremely vague, which means you get all sorts of odd conjecture about what it really means.

 

Ending galactic civilization and maybe ending all life in the known galaxy seems like a misstep

 

See I didn't get that at all from any of the endings.

It's from the basis of "Mass relays exploding take out the local stars... and intergalactic travel".

 

Realistically what'd end up happening is a jury rigged version fo the mass relays being put up in a few generations (after people blew the **** out of each other)

[Tale]

Ending galactic civilization and maybe ending all life in the known galaxy seems like a misstep

 

See I didn't get that at all from any of the endings.

The series makes a point to tell you that galactic civilization is only possible because of the relays.

Arrival makes a point to tell you that destroying relays destroys the system they are in.

 

And there is nothing anywhere in the franchise, let alone in Mass Effect 3 or its ending, to indicate that the ending is a special circumstance.

 

I can totally understand not getting that out of the ending. Because the ending itself doesn't give you anything to get. But with information the series has provided elsewhere, it's a very bad day. This information from elsewhere being the only information available to parse it with.

[Hassat Hunter]

And back to ME we are again...

I have no problem with players cheating or playing on easy. In fact I think a majority who actually finish the games probably do play it on easy or cheat. There are only a few sadists in the world afterall...me included among them occasionally, especially on FPS games.

Dunno. I do think there are many players playing hard. If I can do it with DA:O and ME2 everyone should be able to .

It's not like hard these days is like it was in the past. If I start any pre-2000 games I seriously need some learning up since they aren't so forgiving as present games, and generally a lot harder, so I can't play as I gotten used to with modern games...

Imagine how much harder that would be if only playing on easy too!

[Volourn]

Oh, please. old games were easy as well. Theyw ere so easy that little kiddies 9which mo9st of us were at that time if even alive) and yet managed to complete. At owrst, theyw ere all trial and error. Like any other game.

[Gorth]

Oh, please. old games were easy as well. Theyw ere so easy that little kiddies 9which mo9st of us were at that time if even alive) and yet managed to complete. At owrst, theyw ere all trial and error. Like any other game.

 

 

Ok, I'll bite. How many times to you fetch the Amulet of Yendor in Rogue?

[Humanoid]

Just because I can do something on a harder difficulty, doesn't mean there's any extra enjoyment to be gained from it. Prime example is DAO's first Ogre in the tower in Ostagar. Just about everyone employed the run around in circles while shooting it strategy, and so did I on the first time around. Wasn't compelling gameplay in any way shape or form though. So next time through I set the game to easy right from the beginning to bypass the tedium.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Humanoid

[Gorth]

Just because I can do something on a harder difficulty, doesn't mean there's any extra enjoyment to be gained from it. Prime example is DAO's first Ogre in the tower in Ostagar. Just about everyone employed the run around in circles while shooting it strategy, and so did I on the first time around. Wasn't compelling gameplay in any way shape or form though. So next time through I set the game to easy right from the beginning to bypass the tedium.

Heh, wasn't until finishing ME3 it occurred to me that I could have changed the difficulty to save myself the aggravation of the last mission

 

I don't seem to remember any particularly "hard" battles in Dragon Age, but then I usually play on default settings. I think tedium is a natural consequence of the way most developers approach "difficulty", especially the antiquated anachronism called "boss battles", which is usually just a big cheater with a gazillion toughness, stamina and resistance to everything. First a lot of trial and error, then a lot of tedium once you figure out which way to run around in circles while taking potshots at "boss". It worked fine in 'Space Invaders' in 1978, but it grew stale as a concept already two decades ago.

 

I know there are people out there (Tigs?) who love those improved encounter mods for old IE games. I tried one once by a guy named Blucher or some such. Got my ass handed to me and wondered how people can enjoy that stuff

 

Fun challenging combat is something without a "pre-determined" solutions. An enemy that can only be beaten by one particular pattern of attack is not fun.

 

Anyway, games today seems "generally" (there are notable exceptions, but they are exactly that, exceptions) way more forgiving towards players. No looming insta-deaths without warnings. No letting you almost complete a game just to tell you, you made a bad choice somewhere in the beginning, easy modes, cheat codes, hand holding, tutorial levels etc.

[Bos_hybrid]

I don't think I've ever played an RPG that's had rewarding enough combat to spike the level up above hard, except the F:NV. The only reason for that is because of the change in rules. To me, adding 10,000 hp and a bunch of buffs to enemies, doesn't make combat more interesting,

 

Strategy/RTS and racing(F1) are really the only games worth playing on the extreme difficulties. FPS is hit and miss.

[Nepenthe]

Ending galactic civilization and maybe ending all life in the known galaxy seems like a misstep

 

See I didn't get that at all from any of the endings.

The series makes a point to tell you that galactic civilization is only possible because of the relays.

This is actually wrong, the point is that the relays shape galactic civilization to be a certain way, not that it wouldn't be possible without them. The relays just mean that nobody else than reapers ever has had to develop longer-distance FTL.

[greylord]

I don't think I've ever played an RPG that's had rewarding enough combat to spike the level up above hard, except the F:NV. The only reason for that is because of the change in rules. To me, adding 10,000 hp and a bunch of buffs to enemies, doesn't make combat more interesting,

 

Strategy/RTS and racing(F1) are really the only games worth playing on the extreme difficulties. FPS is hit and miss.

 

Racing games are fun as long as they don't have the rubber bands in effect. I absolutely LOATHE the rubber band that some of them decide to put in to make it "challenging." That's not challenging, it's either letting me cheat like a dog...or if I'm ahead the game is cheating like a dog!!!!

 

FPS games have gotten a lot harder in my opinion. I occasionally go back and play old games, Doom, Quake, Quake II, all seem a LOT easier than many modern FPS games. Of course you then hit a spike in difficulty around the end of the 90s and beginning of the 00s of which many are more difficult than many (and those that they aren't harder then are about on par with them) of those that come out today.

[Calax]

I don't seem to remember any particularly "hard" battles in Dragon Age, but then I usually play on default settings. I think tedium is a natural consequence of the way most developers approach "difficulty", especially the antiquated anachronism called "boss battles", which is usually just a big cheater with a gazillion toughness, stamina and resistance to everything. First a lot of trial and error, then a lot of tedium once you figure out which way to run around in circles while taking potshots at "boss". It worked fine in 'Space Invaders' in 1978, but it grew stale as a concept already two decades ago.

The two MASSIVE difficulty spikes that I remember were the Ogre fight (where, in theory, you're supposed to beat the bejesus out of it and have Alister stun it when it picks somebody up), and one of the side missions where you've got like three mages and a dozen archers plinking away at your team before you have time ot blink.

 

One of the issues with encounter design in open world games is you have to either A) provide a very directed course of where the players should go (with going "out of order" being a challenge mode) or B) design everything to auto-scale to the players.

 

Personally, I think that the best "boss" would be one that both challenges you, but also isn't based around one character in particular. For example, charging into a fight with a head assassin, mid fight they leap away and a number of weaker assassins show up to try to kill you.

[Bos_hybrid]

Racing games are fun as long as they don't have the rubber bands in effect.

 

That is the single greatest crime in any video game genre.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Bos_hybrid

[Hassat Hunter]

Strategy/RTS and racing(F1) are really the only games worth playing on the extreme difficulties. FPS is hit and miss.

One of the issues with encounter design in open world games is you have to either A) provide a very directed course of where the players should go (with going "out of order" being a challenge mode) or B) design everything to auto-scale to the players.

Heh, I never do with RTS/Stratego. Not really good at these genres. Don't really like much RTS (especially these days, the olden had far more likeable's), stategy is better. Do try to keep my RPG to the hardest (even though I am not really good at it either). Mainly to stretch time, challenge and to have equipping properly have a reason instead of just for fashion. Can't remember having a hard time on Nightmare against that Ogre.

The hardest I remember where a fight with 3-face statues in Dwarven town, damn, that was the hardest battle. Generally the entire place kicked my ass, I changed my bossfight to fighting the dwarf instead of killing her just because the battle that way was waaaay easier . And then swapped around my decision when the battle was done (since I could). Confused the crap out of the game with NPC speech and achievements though, most saying I did the opposite of what I did based on the apparently meaningless decision before the battle rather than the actual decision after the battle. *sigh* BioWare.

Another hard fight was one random where you were just surrounded by mines and attacked by various ranged enemies. I kinda had to load until I didn't get it, then crushed it when being higher leveled.

And yes, auto-leveling can be off since after these hard Dwarves I visited the Mage tower (considering the major free upgrades there, bad game decision) and everyone snapped like a twig, even the bosses, since they appeared not really doing auto-leveling well. Oh well... :/

[HoonDing]

Hardest fight was with blood mage overlord in Denerim... if that guy managed to set off Blood wound, your party was gone. It was made harder because of cutscene teleportation, too.

[Tigranes]

It has a lot to do with whether you play for more than one playthroughs - for me the first time DAO was kind of challenging but not really on Hard, then on second, Insane was actually easier, though still had a few decent fights.

 

However, I do have to say that there are some good things from difficulties that just up HP/etc. For many such complex mathematical systems there are points where quantitative change brings qualitative change. Easy-to-imagine examples: disabling and buff/debuff abilities become more and more important as enemy HP goes up, as you can't just hit them with direct damage and hope to get it over with. Fireball + haste is the greatest cheese in, say, Normal or even Core difficulty BG1/2, but on Hard upwards, that gets you killed. Higher HP enemies means it's more about finding an 'equilibrium' where you can maintain your own HP/buffs while dealing decent damage - this is pretty much how all boss battles in FF6-9 work, and the better boss encounters in those games always make sure that you can never reach 'perfect' equilibrium where you can just repeat the same pattern of moves over and over. (e.g. Ruby Weapon in FF7 can blow party members out of the battle; Ozma in FF9 can inflict so many status effects at once you can never guard against all of them.) There are new tactical challenges and ways of playing that come from higher HP or enemy damage.

 

Again, that is not to say doubling everything's HP works all the time without problems, or that everyone should play on hard. But sometimes, I think the 'default' difficulty actually does disservice to the combat gameplay, by encouraging players to just stick to a few abilities that get the job done, and never discover half the tactical options the system might have provided.