Game News Dragon Age II Forum Activity

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Tags: BioWare; Dragon Age 2

<p>With the preview embargo lifted, some developer tidbits regarding <strong>Dragon Age II</strong> popped up in the Bioforums.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>We'll start with <a href="http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/5490589#5491526" target="_blank">Dave Gaider on friendly fire</a> tied to difficulty and why it can't be toggled seperately:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Because it has a profound effect on the difficulty. Hence it being attached to the difficulty.<br /><br />Or that, anyhow, is what I&nbsp;assume. Attaching things to toggles is great, but if someone flips that on and doesn't know that it will suddenly make their "Easy" game not quite so Easy anymore... well, that wouldn't be good.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It wouldn't? And you assume that said someone will be unable to toggle it off again? Because he doesn't think that far? You might have a point Dave.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><a href="http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/5490589/8#5503753" target="_blank">Peter Thomas, same topic:</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Friendly fire is only on Nightmare. There were discussions on it months ago (including toggles, having it not be toggle-able in certain modes, and even locked difficulty levels) and that was the decision that was reached.<br /><br />For reference, here are our current goals for difficulty balance:</p>
<p><br />Casual - Able to be beaten playing a single character sub-optimally, with the rest of the party using default AI tactics.<br /><br />Normal - Able to be beaten playing a single character optimally, with the rest of the party using default AI tactics.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Hard - Able to be beaten playing the entire party sub-optimally, either controlling directly or using custom AI tactics.<br /><br />Nightmare - Able to be beaten playing the entire party optimally, either controlling directly or using custom AI tactics. Friendly fire active.</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>Warrior basic attacks will have FF on Nightmare, but against party members it will only deal glancing blows (1/10th damage).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So Nightmare is what was normal formerly? Understood. Nightmare-&gt;FF-&gt;1/10th damage-&gt;r00flecopter!</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>And now some bits on introducing characters the PC knows already.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><a href="http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/5514852/1#5515026" target="_blank">John Epler:</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>I'm sure David or another writer will correct me if I'm mistaken, but I can't recall a single instance while working on the game where I saw a dialogue that told me 'THIS PERSON YOU'VE NEVER MET BEFORE IS SOMEONE YOU KNOW WELL, TRUST ME'. In my experience, anyone I'm expected to know about is someone that I, well, know about.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/5514852/1#5515064" target="_blank">David Gaider:</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Correct. On occasion you'll encounter someone who you've "met" before during a time jump, based on whatever you were up to in that time jump (I'm being vague here, but the idea is that you <span style="font-style: italic;">are </span>up to stuff during that time and presumably doing stuff even if it's not earth-shattering). We'll mention the fact that you know them in context, but try not to take too many liberties outside of that. Most people you meet or know about are ones that you will encounter during active play.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>On mutual exclusive companions:</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><a href="http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/5514395/3#5515076" target="_blank">Seb Hanlon:</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>The article is correct. You'll get Bethany if Hawke is a rogue or warrior (regardless of gender), and Carver if Hawke is a mage.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/5514395/3#5515178" target="_blank">David Gaider:</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Not that this is something you're really concerned about, I imagine, but this came down to a design decision. I understand that you're deciding who you like more based on a meta-gaming decision (using information gleaned from previews, along with assumptions as to what Bethany and Carver are about) but someone who's playing the game for the first time won't know these things. How would they make such a decision, based on characters they've only just met? It would feel hollow at best-- and providing a decision that indirectly did the same thing (meaning you weren't directly deciding between them, but whatever decision you did make had the same end effect) might also feel cheap.<br /><br />This did what we needed for the story to work-- and personally I really <span style="font-style: italic;">like </span>the fact that both Bethany and Carver are fully-realized characters, providing you family members that aren't killed off right at the beginning of the story who are also going to work as part of it. I would caution you not to assume the worst about characters you haven't met yet and a story you don't know about... but you are of course free to jump to whatever conclusions you like.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Spotted at: <a href="http://www.gamebanshee.com/news/100815-dragon-age-ii-forum-activity.html">Gamebanshee</a></p>

 

[Excommunicator]

Not that this is something you're really concerned about, I imagine, but this came down to a design decision. I understand that you're deciding who you like more based on a meta-gaming decision (using information gleaned from previews, along with assumptions as to what Bethany and Carver are about) but someone who's playing the game for the first time won't know these things. How would they make such a decision, based on characters they've only just met? It would feel hollow at best-- and providing a decision that indirectly did the same thing (meaning you weren't directly deciding between them, but whatever decision you did make had the same end effect) might also feel cheap.

Wait, what? You force the player to make a decision that they may or may not like, because otherwise you risk putting them in a situation in which they may make their own decision that they may or may not like?

Is this that famous Bioware dialogue-choice logic that people keep talking about?

 

[SerratedBiz]

The friendly-fire toggle part is just decadent. I mean, what functions are required anymore for someone to play a game? Thumb mobility? Reading? Ability to follow instructions like 'go here', 'kill this'?

The bar just goes lower and lower.

 

[deus101]

Offcourse FF is difficult...IT IMPOSSIBLE TO MANUVER YOUR PC'S INTO POSITIONS THAT YOU LIEK!

 

[deus101]

I'm sure David or another writer will correct me if I'm mistaken, but I can't recall a single instance while working on the game where I saw a dialogue that told me 'THIS PERSON YOU'VE NEVER MET BEFORE IS SOMEONE YOU KNOW WELL, TRUST ME'. In my experience, anyone I'm expected to know about is someone that I, well, know about.

WTF IS THIS SHIT?!

 

[Multiple Sarcasm]

WHY IS THIS IN THE RPG FORU-

Oh, wait...

Dave...what are you doing, Dave?

So, I'm curious. How does PR usually work in a high-profile game dev studio? I'm pretty sure no dedicated PR department would be paid actual, real-world money for the partonisingly idiotic bullshit the Codex quotes for comedy value on regular occasion. It just doesn't sound like anything a grown man would believe in himself, or say while sober. They just make no fucking sense.

 

[Jaesun]

 

[Crooked Bee]

Yay, that DGayder quote made it into the news!

 

[Lumpy]

I seriously doubt 10% FF damage would make a difference on any difficulty setting.

 

[Malakal]

I seriously doubt 10% FF damage would make a difference on any difficulty setting.

Depends on damage? Some epic DnD spells deal hundreds of dice worth of damage... But no, most likely no difference.

 

[Krash]

I seriously doubt 10% FF damage would make a difference on any difficulty setting.

The 10% is only referring to the warrior basic attack. Spells will probably deal half or full damage or whatever.


Actually I don't think I've ever seen an RPG where a warrior's sword attacks can hurt your own side. So incline?

 

[Dr. Doom]

5/10
fucking faggot

 

[Overweight Manatee]

Actually I don't think I've ever seen an RPG where a warrior's sword attacks can hurt your own side. So incline?

IIRC all warrior attacks have AoE. This is probably because Bioware can't find a way to balance AoE mage attacks Vs. single target warrior attacks so they just said fuck it.

Diablo 1 had full FF for all characters btw

 

[torpid]

Actually I don't think I've ever seen an RPG where a warrior's sword attacks can hurt your own side. So incline?

IIRC all warrior attacks have AoE.

Wait, how does that work? Flames exploding from a sword's blade? Epic ninja whirlwind attacks?

 

[Overweight Manatee]

Actually I don't think I've ever seen an RPG where a warrior's sword attacks can hurt your own side. So incline?

IIRC all warrior attacks have AoE.

Wait, how does that work? Flames exploding from a sword's blade? Epic ninja whirlwind attacks?

I think its supposed to basically be a cleave-esque attack where all warriors follow through on their horizontal strikes and hit something like a 90 degree area around their target. Stupid concept and balance-wise but at least it avoids the problem of Bioware's shitty sword animations going through 4 enemies and only hitting one.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

IIRC all warrior attacks have AoE.

Wait, how does that work? Flames exploding from a sword's blade? Epic ninja whirlwind attacks?

Warrior swings the sword like a retard. I get hitting friends in the middle of hectic combat happens, but to have all special attacks hit them makes me think they're part of a smalltime gang instead of being actual, trained warriors.

 

[waywardOne]

they're making the electronic equivalent of Hungry Hungry Hippos. aim high, shoot low.

 

[denizsi]

And some retards still cry "DEVS NO LONGER POST AT THE CODEX!!". Hardly any surprise when devs go full retardo as in this fine example.

"Run, DGaider!" And run he did, from the deep waters of Codex, crying and never to look back!

Luckily for them, their fans are even more retarded.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

For reference, here are our current goals for difficulty balance:

Casual - Able to be beaten playing a single character sub-optimally, with the rest of the party using default AI tactics.

Normal - Able to be beaten playing a single character optimally, with the rest of the party using default AI tactics.

Hard - Able to be beaten playing the entire party sub-optimally, either controlling directly or using custom AI tactics.

Nightmare - Able to be beaten playing the entire party optimally, either controlling directly or using custom AI tactics. Friendly fire active.
...
Warrior basic attacks will have FF on Nightmare, but against party members it will only deal glancing blows (1/10th damage).

So Nightmare is what was normal formerly? Understood. Nightmare->FF->1/10th damage-

I can't believe I am defending dragon turd 2, but since I consider the duty to defend the Codex from inane newspost more important than the duty to bash shit RPGs, here it goes:

VoD, "nightmare" has never been the normal difficulty. The key to your misunderstandings lies in the word "optimally", which means the point at which it isn't possible to improve anymore. So what he is saying is that nightmare should be able to be beaten, if you do every single thing right, powergame all your characters, never make a mistake in combat etc. - I cannot think of any oldschool rpg that demands this of the player.

The same for "hard" difficulty; all the games I know of can be beaten with less than perfect ("optimal") play.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Actually I don't think I've ever seen an RPG where a warrior's sword attacks can hurt your own side. So incline?

All Gold Box games. Not by accident, mind you but you can kill your own party-members or allied units.

So what he is saying is that nightmare should be able to be beaten, if you do every single thing right, powergame all your characters, never make a mistake in combat etc.

While your post has merit in the context of that single quote, we all know that DA2 is going to be even easier than DAO and since that game was pretty easy, your analysis fails. It's not about powergaming to the max and never making mistakes, it will - most likely - require the normal amount of brains and effort that, say ToEE requires. So what they are saying is that most of their customer base are so badly retarded mouth-breathers that any sort of logical or tactical thought is beyond them. Dunno if they are right or not, but the fucking useless gaming "journalists" who keep babbling about the difficulty in DAO sure ain't helping at all.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Actually I don't think I've ever seen an RPG where a warrior's sword attacks can hurt your own side. So incline?

All Gold Box games. Not by accident, mind you but you can kill your own party-members or allied units.

That doesn't count, you can choose to hit your own party members in goddamn final fantasy. He meant AoE attacks fucking friends over by accident.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

While your post has merit in the context of that single quote, we all know that DA2 is going to be even easier than DAO and since that game was pretty easy

Yes, most likely

and since that game was pretty easy, your analysis fails

No, not really.

I was not saying "DA2 will have reasonable difficulty levels". I was saying "that particular statement by Peter Thomas is not unreasonable". I wouldn't at all mind if a future party-based tactical version of AoD used the same goalposts for its difficulty levels.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

VoD, "nightmare" has never been the normal difficulty. The key to your misunderstandings lies in the word "optimally", which means the point at which it isn't possible to improve anymore. So what he is saying is that nightmare should be able to be beaten, if you do every single thing right, powergame all your characters, never make a mistake in combat etc. - I cannot think of any oldschool rpg that demands this of the player.

I'm afraid you are the one who doesn't understand.

Here I'll bold it for you:

Nightmare - Able to be beaten playing the entire party optimally, either controlling directly or using custom AI tactics. Friendly fire active.

Yes, you make some custom AI tactics, "optimal" custom AI tactics, and the game will be beatable on nightmare with it. Which, incidentally, fits very well with my experience with DAO. Do some custom AI tactics on nightmare and the game plays itself for 99% of the time. And now ponder how *optimal* a few custom AI commands are in terms of combat efficiency. Not very?

Of course my statement wasn't accurate anyway. Dragon Age nightmare difficulty doesn't resemble normal difficulty of 10 y o Bio games at all. It's much easier.

ps: I just understood why they're removing friendly fire. Using AoE spells in AI commands didn't make much sense since the AI is unable to aim in a sensible manner. In DA2 this will no longer be a problem. Just stick your Mage's AI commands with Fireball, Icestorm etc and you just don't need to bother anymore. You can just watch the particle effects and watch your crew winning, no actual effort on your part required. That's probably where they're aiming at.

 

[Hegel]

VoD, "nightmare" has never been the normal difficulty. The key to your misunderstandings lies in the word "optimally", which means the point at which it isn't possible to improve anymore. So what he is saying is that nightmare should be able to be beaten, if you do every single thing right, powergame all your characters, never make a mistake in combat etc. - I cannot think of any oldschool rpg that demands this of the player.

I'm afraid you are the one who doesn't understand.

Here I'll bold it for you:

Nightmare - Able to be beaten playing the entire party optimally, either controlling directly or using custom AI tactics. Friendly fire active.

Yes, you make some custom AI tactics, "optimal" custom AI tactics, and the game will be beatable on nightmare with it. Which, incidentally, fits very well with my experience with DAO. Do some custom AI tactics on nightmare and the game plays itself for 99% of the time. And now ponder how *optimal* a few custom AI commands are in terms of combat efficiency. Not very?

Of course my statement wasn't accurate anyway. Dragon Age nightmare difficulty doesn't resemble normal difficulty of 10 y o Bio games at all. It's much easier.

Yup, it revolves around the definition of optimal. Optimal in BGII meant abusing simulacrum, wish spells and sorcerers.

DA:O is a tank and spank single player MMORPG.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Actually I don't think I've ever seen an RPG where a warrior's sword attacks can hurt your own side. So incline?

All Gold Box games. Not by accident, mind you but you can kill your own party-members or allied units.

That doesn't count, you can choose to hit your own party members in goddamn final fantasy. He meant AoE attacks fucking friends over by accident.

He didn't say so, so excuse me. Still, Age of Conan has AoE-attacks for melee fighters. Yes, it's MMORPG.