70 réponses à ce sujet

[xCobalt]

It's laughable at the excuses some people are making up, "Blame consoles".



I'm with Luc0s on this one. There are many games that look better than the PC version of DA.

[k9medusa]

Bioware should have made DAO PC only title... No offence to console owners, but those system does not sound very fun to me --- no toolset, no mods, how to deal with older hardware, no way to upgrade the hardware, and can not be used for other items like writing papers or typing on forums, etc -- I understand why some peeps like them -- they are cheaper then a gaming PC and take less tech knowledge -- I guess you get what you pay for. Don't get me wrong, console can be useful and fun, but for reason stated above, I am no longer a console person.

[k9medusa]

xCobalt wrote...

It's laughable at the excuses some people are making up, "Blame consoles".

I'm with Luc0s on this one. There are many games that look better than the PC version of DA.

Are we comparing
apples to apples here?  Length of game, how complex the game is, etc...

[OrlesianWardenCommander]

As much as i wish ps3 had mods the graphics are good to me its xbox that has the horrible graphics. Not so much the ps3.

[CybAnt1]

 I am no longer a console person.

I don't want to start a console-PC flamewar, but as I've said for me it comes down to this. 

Consoles are probably better for action/arcade/FPS games, and PCs are better for strategy games and RPGs. It's a question of interface and moddability. PCs don't normally come with joysticks, gamepads, or game controllers, although you can get them for PC. 

If I played action games more, I'd have a console. Since I play them occasionally and prefer strategy/RPG, I continue to game on my PC. 

The only thing I worry about is a future where CRPGs are designed for consoles first (yes I know Dragon Age was the other way around), and for PCs second -- and yes that had happened -- and what I'm afraid of is that moves the genre more toward the "action RPG" axis which I don't enjoy as much. 

[k9medusa]

I don't want to start a console-PC flamewar either, just stated what is true for me. Each to their own. I too like RPG better then action games, therefore a PC makes more sense for me, but that is not true for everyone.

[gingerbill]

Damar Stiehl wrote...

gingerbill wrote...

Damar Stiehl wrote...

Blame the consoles. Low-res textures are necessary for porting. Be happy that characters didn't get low-rezzed as well.

you have no idea what your talking about , another childish rant at console's .

Personally i like the graphics , the animations are very good.

Careful, your console fanboi is showing. What passes for good textures on a console rates somewhere between "godawful crap" and "barely passable" on a PC.

Also, learn proper placing of apostrophes, it makes you look older than 13.

complaining about my apostrophes definetly shows you are struggling to come up with something . I've owned and played PC games since the 386sx 25 , i'm far removed from a console fanbio . I was talking about the fact that the Pc graphics were not affected at all by the consoles , this game was created on the PC far before it was even intended for consoles , it's stupid to blame the consoles . Your post clearly shows me the type of aggresive argumentative  poster you are.

Your post is still nonsense , porting had nothing to do with the texture quality. That's a fact.

[k9medusa]

May I request for some data to prove this "fact?"

[OrlesianWardenCommander]

Luc0s wrote...

OrlesianWardenCommander wrote...

As much as i wish ps3 had mods the graphics are good to me its xbox that has the horrible graphics. Not so much the ps3.

Fangirl much?

Let's be honest, multi-platform games look exactly the same on the PS3 as they do on the Xbox360 with only very minor differences. The Xbox360 has a little bit more saturated colors while the PS3 has more softer colors, but that's about the only difference between them. Please, don't fool yourself in believing the PS3 has "superb graphics" while the Xbox360 has "crap graphics", it's not true.

Xbox360 graphics are really warshed out in DAO compared to PS3 DAO just saying... ill use a more mild term when refering to the 360 since everyone always grabs there torches and pitch forks everytime i say somthing about there Xbox360 im not gona argue what concels better cause it never ends i'd take pc over ps3 verson of DAO anyday dont just assume im a PS3 hugger. Its a oppion not fact and im not gona argue with a dim witted moron like yourself looking to start somthing you wont see me posting on here agian if you reply

[xCobalt]

k9medusa wrote...

xCobalt wrote...

It's laughable at the excuses some people are making up, "Blame consoles".

I'm with Luc0s on this one. There are many games that look better than the PC version of DA.

Are we comparing
apples to apples here?  Length of game, how complex the game is, etc...

In terms of game length, there are definitely some games that surpass DA graphically. Off the top of my head Lost Odyssey is probably longer and has much more appealing graphics. I personally haven't played Mass Effect 2 but from what I've seen, it looks much better (not sure about the length of it though). Most of all, FF13 has stunning graphics and is also a lengthy game.

In terms of complexity, I wouldn't exactly say DA is a complex game (or most of the Bioware games). If I were to explain DA mechanics to a person who has never heard of it, they wouldn't have problems understanding it.

[tmp7704]

xCobalt wrote...

I personally haven't played Mass Effect 2 but from what I've seen, it looks much better (not sure about the length of it though). Most of all, FF13 has stunning graphics and is also a lengthy game.

A lot of that comes down to choosing the trade-offs. I can't speak about FF13 but with ME2 for example they've chosen to cut down the number/variety in the NPC types and their outfits/armours as well as weapons and such. This means there's more memory available for the environment textures and other things.

ME2 is actually good example of how the memory limitations and such can drive the design. Even the equivalent of the DA "camp" that's spaceship Normandy in ME had to be split in 4 separate areas each of them requiring a separate load, in order to fit. Yes it looks pretty, but these looks don't come without a price.

Modifié par tmp7704, 09 avril 2010 - 12:06 .

[Illogical343]

They should have put console dragon age on like 4 disks for more texture room.

[Frailheart]

errant_knight wrote...

Gotta say, this isn't something I care about or even notice very often. It's all about the characters and story for me. It looks as good as it needs to, anything else is just icing. Icing is nice, but not what I'd consider necessary. I probably don't even have the game at top resolution. I just left it at default.

I second that! 

[Gaddmeister]

Dallo wrote...

Shallina wrote...

It wasn't rushed, it's very very very well crafted, beceause it has to run on the XBOX 360 wich has only 524 emeg of RAM.

Basically, they made this game able to run on an antiquity. A machine that has its place on a jurassic themed park. Not on the hands of today gamers. And to do that, they made many sacrifice. Those poor texture are just one of them.

Really, this is probably the case.  To get the widest possible audience, and hence the maximum amount of $$ for their product, and who could blame them, they need to opt for the lowest common denominator.  Does that mean we are going to get shabby looking games of this type, relatively speaking, in the future?  Most likely... 

Ok, can somebody explain to me why some low-res textures in the pc version are present to make it better suited for porting? Because all textures in the xbox version are much worse than their pc counterparts. Have you seen comparison shots? I think that might have been one of the easiest games ever to spot differences in quality.

[Dallo]

Frailheart wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

Gotta say, this isn't something I care about or even notice very often. It's all about the characters and story for me. It looks as good as it needs to, anything else is just icing. Icing is nice, but not what I'd consider necessary. I probably don't even have the game at top resolution. I just left it at default.

I second that! 

Characterisation and story are primary for me too, however I do think that the 'look' can be equally important for immersion.  Environment design can augment whatever is going on immensely - mood, majesty, squalor, whatever - and the 'graphics' (speaking generally) therefore become extremely important.  Without doubt there're some impressive looking environs in Dragon Age but never once did it hit the *wow* button for me, and often I thought it was second rate at best.

Still, I suspect that modders will do much better.  Certainly the general design of the NwN OCs, for example, was quickly (and comprehensively) surpassed by community-made products. 

Modifié par Dallo, 09 avril 2010 - 01:56 .

[AlexRD]

you can try hd textures mod google JB textures dragon age maybe ull find it

[ModerateOsprey]

FF XIII is gorgeous to look at. A lot to like for me, but may not be to everybody's taste. The PS3 seems to have the edge over the 360 in terms of graphics. Comparisons seem to bear this out, but DAO with JBTextures running in my small dpi laptop is really good graphically. FFXIII is still the prettiest game I have seen and it runs on a console.

Not interested in platform wars. If I had my way, I would be gaming on a Cray.

Modifié par ModerateOsprey, 10 avril 2010 - 10:11 .

[searanox]

Valarioth wrote...

 The armour and characters are pretty high resolutions and detailed.  But the door, and walls behind them look so out of place.  The juxtaposition of quality 3d models to horrendous textures creates such an eye sore; they just look so out of place and look even worse than if everything had poor quality textures.

It's a simple matter of budget.  When you're working on a game, designed to be played on multiple configurations and even multiple platforms, you have to streamline your workload to cut down on extra time and money spent; this means making smart decisions about how to do your art design, create your levels, and what to prioritise; sometimes it can also mean dragging things down to the lowest common denominator.  See Mass Effect 2 as an example - it has very strong art, animation and characters, but the environments themselves are pretty low-poly and not really an improvement over the first game.  What has changed is the expressiveness of the characters, the special effects, and the lighting, because these are the things with the lowest memory footprint that will still provide a large improvement to image quality.

In the case of Dragon Age, the simple fact is that certain objects in the game were given more time and effort than others.  Character designs take priority because of the fact that they need to be animated in complex ways, especially in dialogues and cutscenes.  Compare to the average Darkspawn, or other enemy model - the textures and polygon counts are usually much lower, but you don't notice simply because you never view them in the extreme detail you see the human characters in.  The same goes for certain environment textures - the game is viewed from a relatively zoomed-out perspective, and certain things just don't need to feature rich detail in most cases.  Sometimes there are situations where the low details show through, simply because in a game as large as Dragon Age, there is no way to really optimise every single situation for perfect visual quality.  Usually depth of field effects during cutscenes can help hide a lack of detail and save on performance, but this can't be guaranteed for every part of the game.

No matter what game you examine, if you look in the right places, you will see the seams.  Final Fantasy XIII is beautiful, but has low-detail and often 2D backgrounds.  Oblivion has beautiful vistas but poor character animation and blurry textures in a lot of places.  Borderlands has great artwork but often very low-poly models and ugly, stretched textures that artists try to hide with vegetation brushes.  Dragon Age is not an exception, and there is no way it ever will be given that other games have far higher quality standards, and that BioWare have never been the types to focus entirely on production values anyway.

[soteria]

And if we take a look at Xbox360 exclusive titles such as Gears of War 2, you'll see that the graphics blow you away. Seriously, Gears of War 2 (Xbox360) owns DA:O (PC version) when it comes to graphics.

Even cross platform games like the mentioned FFXIII, Assassin's Creed (1 and 2), and Far Cry 2 look amazing, and those are just the few titles I'm familiar with.

Are we comparing apples to apples here? Length of game, how complex the game is, etc...

FFXIII is a 30-60 hour game. I'd guess it's as "complex" as DAO, in terms of system requirements. It's at least as difficult as DAO, though I'm not sure what that says about complexity. I'll say it again, I think the main difference is that Dragon Age allows multiple armor textures and character models. Not that they couldn't have done better, but would it have sold any more copies with better graphics? I don't know. Better graphics requires more money, after all.