Arbitrary Difficulty Settings

[red36]

There are easier ways. For istance Ultra weapons. While they suck in PvP, they can permastunlock 90% of the enemies in PvE. However there are still times on certain bosses, like Sir Alonne, that using a faster weapon would be "easier'. DS does not have an easy mode. It wants to search and find yourself what makes each fight easier, to create your own easy mode if you wish. But this is silghtly off topic.

I'm not sure i consider, say, the greatsword to be an easy mode version of a warrior even against normal PVE. I have played both strength and dex build(with only the lion warrior armor) characters in DS2 with relative success but I'd hardly consider the strength one an easier experience.

but who knows, personally I have only tried to play ds2 once with a magic character and I didnt particularly find it easier than a warrior. perhaps in this regard i disagree with the video as well. but I'm not sure so I wouldn't really make a full statement about it as such.

 

[dragonbird]

Personally I simply dont believe this statistic. For instance, one may source the fact that most players never finish the games they buy. Something like 80% of games dont get finished. This, like many, is a skewed statistic that fails to reveal its source. For instance, a good health percentage of games bought are in fact COD or battlefield or other games its like. MANY gamers never beat its single player. Why? because its a multiplayer game. I bet the percentage of players who beat mass effect 3 was far larger.

This is where DRM comes in - the statistics tend to come from sources like Steam that "call home", so there's info on whether or not players finished the game.You've noticed that there's almost always achievements for reaching milestones in the games? It's not 100% accurate, of course, there will definitely be some players who never go online again after they start (I'm often one of them), so they may get logged incorrectly as "unfinished", but it's still probably not far off.

Of course, it still doesn't say why they stopped, and not all will be because of the difficulty.

There will be people who don't buy a game if it is has a reputation for being difficult, and they don't think they can play it. But if the difficult mode DOES get a reputation for being difficult, I don't think hardcore gamers will refuse to buy it just because an Easy mode also exists.

So for a developer, it should be simple. Does the number of additional sales from having multiple difficulties exceed the cost of providing those difficulties? If the answer is yes, and it's planned from the beginning, then they should implement it.

The important thing is that the modes should be exactly what they say they are. Easy should be easy, normal should be challenging but doable for a typical gamer, and hard should be challenging but possible for a hardcore gamer. I don't think they achieved that on TW1 and TW2, but they do seem to have been working on it, and we'll find out when the game comes out.

 

[red36]

Fair enough Dragonbird, but I remain skeptical to the degree that players didnt complete a game because of difficulty. For instance, I'm technically in the middle of DA:I.. However I took a break and basically diving into (what i consider) what has so far proven to be a mind numbing series of fetch quests rehashing talking animations from ME1 and DA1 is really daunting. DA:I is not a difficult game, but its design causes me hesitation to jump back in.
Therefore i would wager that difficulty is not the sole value that can be used to judge such a statistic. There can be many reasons for not wanting to re-engage with a game. Possibly it could be the opposite. A game is not challenging enough and story not engaging enough to make me jump back into it. I suspect this may be the case with my experience with DA:I.

 

[dragonbird]

Fair enough Dragonbird, but I remain skeptical to the degree that players didnt complete a game because of difficulty.

I agree. I suspect the biggest single reason is probably boredom, that a game doesn't hold their interest for long enough to want to finish it.

 

[EliHarel]

I'm not convinced from the video. To begin with, these difficulty-changing game mechanics he mentions aren't apparent to a new-comer. If I'm a complete stranger to a franchise and I begin a playthrough, a difficulty-options menu with an Easy choice is a far more intuitive decision for me than pumping up certain stats to 20 so that I "know" further down the line that I'll be able to make use of this item or that NPC. Then there's the matter of certain classes being stronger than others. This, again, isn't an insight that's available to new players - unless the game flat out tells you that a Rogue will make your life easier than a Ranger, or what have you. But more importantly than that, this setup severely limits your choice, and doesn't address the matter of difficulty properly. What if, say, I want to play a caster, but still have the combat challenge me? I'm just that sort of guy, I get my kick from magic, not melee, but in this system that means that I won't have any other option other than to breeze through fights.

He then tries to say how you can make use of other game mechanics, such as items, or allies, to up or down the difficulty. But this isn't anything genius on Dark Soul's behalf. Someone in the comment section wrote something I relate to - in essence, what's the difference between this and going through Skyrim using only your fists? Or crafting this or that item in TW2? I don't see how DS2 is different in this regard than any other game; Extra Credits is just embellishing it and describing it as a fancy way of adjusting your difficulty in-game through the mechanics. Rather than, just, optimizing your build and gathering artifacts.

Let's go through his steps for sort-of easy mode:
1) Start as a sorcerer. So a player who is fond of magic but also difficulty is "handicapped". I haven't played Inquisition yet, but I hear that the Knight Enchanter is virtually invulnerable and can solo bosses? Even if this was already nerfed by BioWare, it's the same point - one class is significantly easier than the others.
2) Binoculars. So... just an item that lets you snipe people who are far away? Translate this to any other RPG with different items and secret treasures.
3) Crank up STR and DEX until you can wield the flaming longsword. Optimizing your build, which every RPG player would like to do, as well as prior knowledge of the game for the sake of the longsword. Alright, on this tone, all you newcomers to TW2 - import the Moonblade from TW1, because it's a fine Silver Sword that will stick with you throughout the entirety of Chapter 1, and invest quickly invest in Feet work for longer rolls. Or alternatively - lately I tried to get into Planescape: Torment, and the advice was the same across the web - invest in WIS and become a spellcaster. This isn't something the game communicates to me. It requires prior knowledge, as well as limiting your game-style options.
4) Human effigy. Alright, a unique feature of Dark Souls - I'm not familiar with many co-op games so I've nothing to say about this. It sounds cool.
5) 20 INT and 20 Faith. Again, prior knowledge of the game as well as optimizing your build, something that is common for every RPG with stats.
6) Sniping the Dragon Rider to 1 HP before stepping in. Come on. Seriously? This is one of the points meant to bring home the argument that DS2's system is no less than genius? Let's not be diplomatic for a moment and call it for what it is - abusing the game. It's not that it's an evil thing to do, but it's hardly genius.
7+8 ) Buying from Felkin the Outcast. Again, simply using better items.

What he says about the game, at the end of the day, means your options are very, very limited in character builds. You like spell-slinging? Juts keep in mind it's not balanced with a melee build. And vice versa. It's common for RPGs to have somewhat better builds and better items. Part of the fun, for me - and I'm guessing for many others - is that sense of progression throughout the game, and finding slightly better items, gaining a slightly better feat. But the key word here is slightly. We're meant to make use of what the game offers us. If certain items and builds are overpowered, it's not a smart decision, because it means I have to intentionally limit myself from what the game offers, because otherwise the challenge will be severely diminished. Not slightly. If anything, what I'm taking from this video isn't that DS2's system is genius, but that it's broken.

 

[CostinRaz]

The point of the video was that simply deciding between three or maybe four difficulty settings at the beginning is just sub optimal and most devs handle difficulty scaling really badly:Generally more HP and/or damage on higher difficulties. CDPR opted for more damage in TW2 which makes it considerably less frustrating then say Dragon Age where you get a metric ton of HP on the hardest difficulty.

Devs should focus more on a good rewarding experience and good enemy design versus just shoving such options in a game. CDPR has never really done good enemies.

To begin with, these difficulty-changing game mechanics he mentions aren't apparent to a new-comer.

That's because that's how Dark Souls is built to be in terms of things being apparent, not just the difficulty changing mechanics. The purpose of it is to force the player community to share knowledge and to learn from one another and despite some people crying out over that there is a very strong community for Dark Souls.

If one pays attention, one knows such a mechanic is irrelevant to what makes an RPG.
But fair enough, let me go further. DS has no solution for me if i want to RP a SOLO warrior and have easy mode.

Ghosts are not MP only, unless you insist on not using an advantage because of your reasons. It would be like complaining about TW being too difficult because potions give you a huge advantage.

The problem with using mechanics such as these to create difficulty modes is that, at least in an RPG, (i believe) one is meant to be able to RP the role one wants without having to compromise that role in order to progress

Dark Souls is not such an abomination in terms of difficulty while playing with magic that you won't beat it in a reasonable number of hours with sub-optimal builds, hell the game is designed around the idea you can beat the game naked, level 1, with your starting weapon.

The truth is every single RPG has builds that will give you huge advantages in combat, making you able to steamroll over enemies. Dark Souls is more balanced in this regard as no build will allow you decimate foes completely, but your gameplay experience varries wildly depending on your builds.

Not slightly. If anything, what I'm taking from this video isn't that DS2's system is genius, but that it's broken.

Every RPG I've played has always had builds that were far better others, not slightly, from The Witcher Series ( Igni build in TW1, Alchemy Build in TW2 which allowed you to 1 shot everything ), to Dragon Age, to KOTOR, to Alpha Protocol, to Fallout, to Elder Scrolls and the list can go on for a ling time. That many people ignore the optimal builds that give you a huge advantage doesn't change it.

That's just how RPGs are. Dark Souls is far more balanced in that regard. A point that you've overlooked in that video and the most crucial one actually is that magic allows for a different style of play that's more based around careful deliberation vs the reflexes needed for melee fighting. It's kinda like going into a fight in TW2 with potions and traps vs without them: You can certainly wine very fight naked with a broom if you wanted to but you're life is so much easier with proper preparation.

They want their game to be challenging no matter what. That's why they nerfed magic to the ground, and that's why they pushed the magic resist of monsters through the roof on the DLCs. As of now, sure if you are extremely patient you can be safer with magic -NOT in the DLCs- but it will take you 5 times more time to actually kill an enemy compared to melee. And that;s fine, it's balanced.

They nerfed magic because it was ridiculously powerful in late game and because of how OP it was in PVP.

There will be people who don't buy a game if it is has a reputation for being difficult, and they don't think they can play it. But if the difficult mode DOES get a reputation for being difficult, I don't think hardcore gamers will refuse to buy it just because an Easy mode also exists.

It's the way you handle difficulty that matters. Most games when they are difficult are frustrating as well whereas Dark Souls does have the reputation of being difficult, but crucial has a very strong reputation for being fair and very well designed. Those two last points are the crucial point here and it's what allowed an "uber hard" game like Dark Souls to sell quite well.

Having difficulty modes does not mean your game won't be viewed badly because of it's so called difficulty. Witcher 2 certainly viewed as a game with downward spiral in terms of difficulty.

 

[TheDeathRun]

It's the way you handle difficulty that matters. Most games when they are difficult are frustrating as well whereas Dark Souls does have the reputation of being difficult, but crucial has a very strong reputation for being fair and very well designed. Those two last points are the crucial point here and it's what allowed an "uber hard" game like Dark Souls to sell quite well.

Devs should focus more on a good rewarding experience and good enemy design versus just shoving such options in a game.

So I take it you want CDPR (and developers in general) to forgo the addition of difficulty settings in favor of well-designed enemies? Why? Why not have both? TW3's monsters don't seem to be badly designed at all, at least from the little we've seen in the demos. For example:

Werewolf: Skinny when you first meet it. When it only has 1/4 health remaining, it howls. This changes its appearance (massive muscle growth), summons a number (dependent on level) of wolves, and multiplies its health regeneration to OP levels. At this point, it's difficult to defeat it without a silver bomb so you'd better have one prepared.

Water Hag: Dives beneath the swamp to flank you. At a distance, it hurls projectiles at you that, if not dodged, will smear 90% of your screen with muck, making it near-impossible to see. While you're blinded, the Hag goes in for the attack (at least it did so in the demo).

Ekhida: Aerial creature, and doesn't give you a chance to hit it with your sword except when it swoops down to attack you. If you dive underwater to avoid it, it follows you beneath the surface and attacks you underwater.

Foglet (no gameplay footage, but described in bestiary): surrounds the area with fog. This thing is supposedly invisible save for a shimmer in the air, so you have to keep your eyes peeled. According to the bestiary, it "shines a light from its intestines through the fog to lure lost travelers towards it". Unless you can pinpoint its location, you'll be getting hit out of nowhere.

The point I'm trying to get at is the monsters in TW3 that we've seen so far generally seem to be well-designed. All four of them have various tactics that suit their environments and require different tactics of your own to counter. And these are just four of the eighty monsters that are supposedly in the game. Given the fact that we have well-designed enemies, why should the developers then be stopped from adding difficulty levels? Is it because you believe that each difficulty level should then possess enemies with even more abilities and moves? If that's the case, I must object.

We have four difficulty levels. Easy, Normal, Hard, and Dark. Normal is supposed to be the optimal level of difficulty, at which the game is the most balanced between story and combat and at which the game is meant to be experienced. Why should the developers then lock out certain abilities and moves for the difficulty level they will undoubtedly have spent the most amount of time polishing? This makes no sense to me. Aside from the fact that it means each level of difficulty must be balanced individually, it also means you diminish the experience of the player who - ironically - wanted to play the game as it was meant to be played, all enemy abilities and moves included. Therefore the idea of locking these out for higher difficulty levels is counter-productive towards the overall state of your game.

Anyways, I'll admit that I fully support CDPR's current method of handling difficulty. Easy is for those who wish to breeze through combat and focus on the story - hence enemies cannot block, etc. Normal is the game as it was meant to be experienced, hence all enemies have all their available moves and abilities. Hard and Dark are for those who want more out of combat, hence enemies' "damage dealt" is greater, forcing the player to watch all the enemies on-screen more carefully and be more cautious in their attack and preparation strategy. As a whole, this hierarchy makes perfect sense to me, and I'm fine with CDPR keeping it.

Perhaps you have an alternative solution? If so, I'd genuinely love to hear it.

 

[Lieste]

Dark Souls has a 'cheat' for difficulty, in that your character is already dead, so cannot be stopped by being killed, just sent back to the last checkpoint needing to re-collect your lost stash.

Most 'realistic' games have mortal characters, who stop their questing once dead. Sure you can reload your savegame and "have another go", but it is correcting a failure, rather than continuing from where you left off.

For this reason alone most games couldn't afford to be as keen to kill you off as Dark Souls' reputation has it.

 

[JackalJ]

I watched the video and agree, by adding certain mechanics the game can get easier without fiddling with settings. But here's the problem, people will call a certain way of play overpowered. Items and classes can get nerfed or enemies enhanced.

And how will this apply to TW3? I don't think you can play your way through the game as Geralt the archer and he doesn't have any long range spells. The reason those mechanics work so well on DS2 is because the game allows it and in some degree has been built around that, which doesn't have to be a bad thing. But what do you rather want? Standing on a ledge were the enemy can't reach you and 'sniping' them to death? Or actually play the game the way it's meant to be?
CDPR has addressed this in multiple interviews, they allow the player to play however they want and will not punish you for it, but do you really want to?

And DS2 is a bad example for difficulty adjustment imho, but there aren't that many games that do it well. Finding the best possible items you can reach before you faced your first boss doesn't seem like a good difficulty mechanic, and can make the game a lot easier. (I'm meaning people making certain runs into high level areas were they can find items with low stat req. and decent stats.)
And If you learn the enemies 'rotation'/tactics and have patience you can get a long way before running into any trouble in that game.

 

[red36]

I think we're getting a bit lost in the specific mechanics of DS. Speaking generally, the DS2 system of using gameplay mechanics to determine difficulty hinders the RPG mechanics. As mentioned above, if I want to RP a solo warrior (without NPC ghosts) on EASY i cannot. If I want to RP a highly social mage on HARD I cannot.

These choices make sense for DS2 because again the game/lore is BUILT around gameplay. The player is undead and comes back from the flame is all an analogy for the resurrection process that occurs in most video games. Meanwhile that is certainly not the case for Witcher.

.Putting aside game breaking builds ( I never played a potion witcher in W2, but that sounds game breaking) one can play any build in W2 AND play it at the difficulty you choose. That works in a world where the PC is a finite character unlike DS2, where the PC can be anything.

 

[BlackWolf500.298]

Sorry but I'm pro-difficulty-modes here.

Increasing or lowering difficulty based on the players own perception of their abilities is the best they can do. Things like the Witcher 2 arena then can, if you are really VERY new to the whole gaming-thing or the genre in general, help you set the difficulty if you want, that is not bad to have kind of a little mode where you can try to fight and the game tells you "look, this might have been just an unlucky fight for you, so choose your difficulty yourself, if this was your best try however, I would recommend difficulty X". Sure some people are upset about that. But let's face it, all the game is doing is telling it the truth.

And to be honest, about what EC are saying in terms of "quitting or lowering difficulty". I quit games every once in a while, but whenever I quit the reason is that the games MECHANICS or CONTROLS frustrate me rather than the actual DIFFICULTY. If gameplay is stiff here and there, extremely non-tolerant and/or the systems you HAVE to use to play the game are extremely flawed, THEN I quit a game. If I experience that it is REALLY too hard for me on another level, then I might just lower the difficulty. Also, there are moments where you are so frustrated you just bash the game into a corner and don't look at it for 1 month, then you start playing again and you have a BLAST. The human mind needs different times to adjust to situations, calm it's emotions, sort out problems, that's natural.

It is SO not true IMO that a person might think they have to "proof something" and go for hard. IMO the reason people go for hard is either they want the challenge, or they think they are so good that they can beat it with ease. A newcomer IMO will 90% of the time choose "easy" or "normal" for his (or her) first playthrough, ESPECIALLY if he or she is new to the genre in general.

3 years ago for example I went with easy first time playing TW2. I hated it. Don't know why, I couldn't do it.
Didn't play it for almost a year. Picked it up again and started it on normal.... WAAAY too easy.
In between I've been playing a lot of demanding games with high difficulties, a lot of them old games, some of them newer ones.
My perception was just completely changed. Even hard was too easy for me in my latest playthrough.

Difficulty settings are GOOD.
Yes, only basing them on stats might be not a good choice. I think you should make it a combination of higher enemy health, higher enemy damage, more allies or abilities for the enemy, better health regeneration for this enemy, stuff like this. Also maybe lower stats for the main character. Make it not ONLY stats but make it a combination of stats and circumstances. You can not completely ELIMINATE stats IMO because it would make the game way too streamlined. Casuals would find it too hard, Hardcore audience would get bored from the difficulty. The best solution to create difficulty is sill to make difficulty options.

If are new to gaming in general or the genre take easy.
If you know the genre but want to focus more on story or think it would be too hard on higher difficulties then take normal.
If you like a challenge take hard.
And if "hard" is too easy for you or you just like suffering then take the Hardcore mode of the game.

Those are the best standard modes and they are best made by applying what I said above. Once you got a better solution (and no, the solution EC states is LIMITING the player in freedom and making the game easier through class-management, extreme fore-knowledge and exploits) ask me again.

 

[greySynapse]

I agree. I suspect the biggest single reason is probably boredom, that a game doesn't hold their interest for long enough to want to finish it.

I actually wholly agree with this.

I think boredom can be tied into the natural flow or difficulty ramping of a game. If the challenges are consistent in their difficulty it's easy to notice a pattern and when you know the pattern, playing becomes a subconscious task and the game begins to feel grindy--leading to boredom--and also if a game is too difficult and causes the player to die or lose frequently, I would argue that very few people are appealed by repetitive death in a new game they might know nothing about.

I think having different difficulty levels leads to a far more consumer friendly product, Dark Souls certainly isn't for everyone, neither was The Witcher 2 on release (a few patches helped tone it down iirc). Not only are difficulty settings consumer friendly but they allow you to reach a broader market audience.

My other thoughts on arbitrary difficulty settings.

Spoiler

"Arbitrary difficulty settings" are less important to consider than the gameplay itself--specifically the natural ramping--do the challenges have a pace? Is it all the same? Does the game get more difficult as you level up and progress your character? What about regions that you're in? Are we only able to kill certain monsters when we're high enough level? What if they're too easy to kill because we over leveled? There are many factors to consider other than arbitrary difficulty settings, difficulty settings can simply be adjusted numbers (crude example), a game's actual ramping is far more important imo.

 

[spacehamsterZH]

Speaking as someone who has had a Demon's Souls avatar for as long as I've been on this forum, I don't know if I really want every game to start emulating the Souls series' mechanics. If Lords of the Fallen has taught me anything, it's that it doesn't automatically translate into a good game unless it's done well, and honestly, From Software themselves have fucked it up plenty so far as well - both Dark Souls games required a litany of PvE balance patches until they were where they are now. Difficulty adjustments that stem from game mechanics rather than a global setting you pick in a menu are nice if you can pull them off, but the only reason the Souls games need them in the first place is because of their online component. If you could only summon or be invaded by people that have the same difficulty setting, it pretty much wouldn't work.

As red36 already said, what I'd like to see is difficulty settings that go beyond just changing damage output and HP. Killzone 2 did this extremely well - on higher difficulties, enemy behavior was noticeably different, you'd get flanked, they'd force you out of cover with grenades sooner, things like that. But that game never got any credit for its excellent AI, and most developers are still content with "it takes fewer hits to die." Which isn't a complete waste because it reduces the margin for error and forces you to understand the game mechanics better and all that, but there would be more interesting ways of doing difficulty settings, if you're going to have them.

I'm also not opposed to games having a Easy setting. I remember people having the discussion about whether you have the right to see all of a game's content if you paid for it as far back as at least the early 90s, and frankly, as long as I still get a challenge when I want it, I don't mind if there's an Easy mode, if only for me to scoff at.

 

[PrincessCiri]

I liked the way TW2 increased difficulty. Tactics that worked for me on easy didn't cut it for Dark mode, and it was the first time for me when playing a video game that harder level difficulty didn't just mean the enemies had more health.

But I think difficulty settings are important. I have friends that wouldn't buy a game if it didn't have settings to make a game easy, just because they genuinely struggle playing at higher level difficulties. And it's fair enough, if you're playing a game it's beyond annoying if you really can't get past a certain fight, and you have no way of lowering the difficulty. I want the option to be able to play on the hardest setting or the easiest, or somewhere in the middle rather than having it decided for me.

 

[easeldooor]

Thanks for posting the vid.

I think the main point of the vid was not to have initial menu settings. Similar to skills trees, Difficulty should be handled by in game mechanics.

If you can't beat a boss, then go back and train with a teacher to get stronger, maybe he trains you in techniques that will help you defeat the boss in the style you want to play.

A bit like how Sile tells you to use the Yrden vs the kayran, and how Triss recommends you make a potion. It can all be done in game, in a more fun and immersive way.

Lose to a boss, have a character come and rescue you, as you get knocked out. No need to die and reload a save which is immersion breaking.

The other part is, game play shouldn't be about punishing a player with death. It should be about making it fun for a player to fight enemies.

The hardware has gotten to a point where its possible to make things more immersive now, so the game design just needs to be smarter.

 

[frivolousam]

I watched the vid also, I don't know much about DS but the supposed system is basically an MMO system. Tho I only played one MMO and in it, ranged classes were far easier to play with. The grouping, the items and the exploits to make it easier were all there also

 

[BlackWolf500.298]

Thanks for posting the vid.

I think the main point of the vid was not to have initial menu settings. Similar to skills trees, Difficulty should be handled by in game mechanics.

If you can't beat a boss, then go back and train with a teacher to get stronger, maybe he trains you in techniques that will help you defeat the boss in the style you want to play.

A bit like how Sile tells you to use the Yrden vs the kayran, and how Triss recommends you make a potion. It can all be done in game, in a more fun and immersive way.

Lose to a boss, have a character come and rescue you, as you get knocked out. No need to die and reload a save which is immersion breaking.

The other part is, game play shouldn't be about punishing a player with death. It should be about making it fun for a player to fight enemies.

The hardware has gotten to a point where its possible to make things more immersive now, so the game design just needs to be smarter.

TO be honest I disagree almost completely. For me it is not about being fun fighting enemies, but about being hard and a real challenge. Because that's just the point, for different people there are different definitions of a "fun" game. For some it is the frustrating bone-hard trial and error gameplay, for others it is making the combat fluid and relatively easy, for others it might be inbetween, hard enough to provide a challenge, not too hard as to avoid having to restart a LOT of times which breaks immersion and causes frustration and bad mood for some people.

That is why difficulty settings, in a way, are definitely needed.

 

[CostinRaz]

That is why difficulty settings, in a way, are definitely needed.

If the only way your game handles difficulty is by increasing damage then you're just being cheap in doing that. CDPR has come out and stated openly that normal is what the optimal experience for playing the game is. Everything else is fluff.

Because that's just the point, for different people there are different definitions of a "fun" game

The important aspect when playing a game in terms of fun is to have good solid gameplay design and rich rewarding combat, you do that everything else will fall in order. A good example is Shadow of Mordor and the way they designed that game.

 

[EliHarel]

If the only way your game handles difficulty is by increasing damage then you're just being cheap in doing that. CDPR has come out and stated openly that normal is what the optimal experience for playing the game is. Everything else is fluff.

Bullet sponges are boring, yeah. I think CDPR said at one point that the difference between difficulty levels won't be about more\less HP, but rather more\less enemies? I can't recall exactly, and I'm not sure what the effects will be on 1 vs. 1 fights (I'm guessing there are such fights). Not sure what they said about different AI.

 

[BlackWolf500.298]

The important aspect when playing a game in terms of fun is to have good solid gameplay design and rich rewarding combat, you do that everything else will fall in order. A good example is Shadow of Mordor and the way they designed that game.

You want to hear the truth? I find Shadow of Mordors gameplay pretty boring and not challenging, especially a few hours in.