989 réponses à ce sujet

[DanteCousland]

Yeah I was wondering that too.

[Ghostano]

Those do not look to bad from what I was reading was thinking they would be alot different. Things look alittle brighter and like they are fighting in a desert somewere. I am curious to see how things change over time.

[Jimmy Fury]

Ghostano wrote...

Those do not look to bad from what I was reading was thinking they would be alot different. Things look alittle brighter and like they are fighting in a desert somewere. I am curious to see how things change over time.

According to lore Ferelden (and all the lands we know of I beleive) are in the southern hemisphere. The area south of the Kocari Wilds is a frozen wasteland. It makes sense that moving north would result in more arid or tropical climates.
This could very well be the Silent Plains between Nevarra and the Tevinter Imperium.
The concept art showing the bridge and flatness in the distance could potentially be Nevarra itself (mind you the sun is in the wrong place but that's concept art for ya)

[Games4ever]

learn from Naughty Dogs Bioware :-)



Naughty Dog has said they will continue to make Uncharted "as long as the fans want it," but they must've already assumed the reaction to Uncharted 2: Among Thieves would be good enough to warrant a third entry (and of course, that's a correct assumption).



But as amazing as this sequel looks - just trust us when we say it's the best-looking console game you've ever seen - it seems the team actually can actually make a future title look better. According to what co-lead game designer Neil Druckman told the gaming press, Uncharted 3 is going to blow our minds once again, and it's not necessarily due to the power of the PlayStation 3. In fact, Druckman says they're already working with the full power of the hardware for Uncharted 2, but the engine for the game can be optimized to look visually superior. In a direct contrast, it seems Uncharted: Drake's Fortune only utilized about 30% of the PS3 hardware, which - mathematically speaking - would mean Naughty Dog used more than three times the hardware power in the making of Uncharted 2. Plus, with the 90 minutes of cinematic content that will emulate real life better than ever before, Uncharted 2 is going to be one fine production...but can you even begin to imagine what Uncharted 3 might look like? Can the designers really take another significant step? If so...wow.



We always get a big kick out of seeing the graphical achievements developers continue to make. Graphics don't make the game, but they sure as hell add to the experience.

[Demx]

LPPrince wrote...

Warheadz wrote...

Yes! We have almost 25 pages full! We can do this people. don't give up now!

What are you trying to accomplish?

If I remember correctly, the goal was to go to page for today.

[Dick Delaware]

-Semper- wrote...

DanteCousland wrote...

Okay I exaggerate but I seriously think they might have shown screenshots which weren't visually 100% on purpose.

"let's give them the ugliest looking screenshots so that they turn their backs disappointed and lose all the interest just to impress them 2 weeks before release!" .... that would be by far the dumbest marketing trick i ever heard of.

Yeah. Why the hell would a company release ugly screenshots on purpose? Seems like fanboys just trying to defend their precious developers. BioWare makes some decent games, people, but you don't have to justify everything they do. Yeah, the game might look significantly better in a subsequent screenshot, but this particular one looks pretty bad and you don't have to cover for BioWare by saying "Ah, they must be keeping the REAL screenshots hidden!"

[LPPrince]

Dick Delaware wrote...

-Semper- wrote...

DanteCousland wrote...

Okay I exaggerate but I seriously think they might have shown screenshots which weren't visually 100% on purpose.

"let's give them the ugliest looking screenshots so that they turn their backs disappointed and lose all the interest just to impress them 2 weeks before release!" .... that would be by far the dumbest marketing trick i ever heard of.

Yeah. Why the hell would a company release ugly screenshots on purpose? Seems like fanboys just trying to defend their precious developers. BioWare makes some decent games, people, but you don't have to justify everything they do. Yeah, the game might look significantly better in a subsequent screenshot, but this particular one looks pretty bad and you don't have to cover for BioWare by saying "Ah, they must be keeping the REAL screenshots hidden!"

Its not defending the developer. Its stating a marketing tactic.

Yeah, you could show how beautiful your game looks, but sometimes, people think its better to show improvement.

Thus, alpha screenshots, then beta screenshots, then gamma screenshots.

[-Semper-]

Games4ever wrote...

Uncharted 3 is going to blow our minds once again, and it's not necessarily due to the power of the PlayStation 3. In fact, Druckman says they're already working with the full power of the hardware for Uncharted 2, but the engine for the game can be optimized to look visually superior.

don't forget that uncharted was exclusively made for the playstation 3. they were able to optimize their engine to the needs with just one set of hardware. in contrast dragon age is made as a cross-platform title so it will never look this good.

[DanteCousland]

Its not justifying the difference its pondering if there is one...there's a difference and please refrain from calling me a fanboy you know nothing about me except that one post I made...:/
Its a simple marketing strategy.

Modifié par DanteCousland, 13 juillet 2010 - 07:34 .

[Jimmy Fury]

Since this clearly got lost being the last entry on a page during a busy spell i'll move it up here where people might actually read it.

Ok so i actually did something someone else suggested earlier on the in the thread and went hunting for  ALpha/beta comparisons from FFXIV.
(I swear mods this has to do with DA2 and i'm not trying to go off on a whole conversation about another  company's game. This is entirely in BioWare defense!)

Came across some MIGHT Y interesting stuff.
there's a video comparing the 2
(note the major improvements just between alpha and beta.)
Some screens that look like they're from a 10 year old game but came out a few months ago
(article has them and you can see the posting date yourself of April 8th of this year)
and the very best part of all...
Read in that article how
Alpha Testing started in April.
Beta testing started 3 days ago. (my friend got approved to be a tester and has been
going insane ever since.)
The game comes out in September of this year.

And just to review. This is a Final Fantasy game we're talking about. No other game series is as psychotically
focused on graphics and looking uberpretty yet they did indeed release crappy screenshots that don't show off all the details that will be available in the final product.
AND. They released ALPHA screenshots 6 months before the game's release.
So would anyone like to explain again how it's impossible that these first DA2 screenshots could be alpha shots with 9 months left until the release? Or how about how no company in it's right mind would ever release alpha shots when they have a huge focus on graphics?
anyone?

-edit. links fixed-

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 13 juillet 2010 - 07:42 .

[Oldenglishcdr]

Games4ever wrote...

learn from Naughty Dogs Bioware :-)

Naughty Dog has said they will continue to make Uncharted "as long as the fans want it," but they must've already assumed the reaction to Uncharted 2: Among Thieves would be good enough to warrant a third entry (and of course, that's a correct assumption).

But as amazing as this sequel looks - just trust us when we say it's the best-looking console game you've ever seen - it seems the team actually can actually make a future title look better. According to what co-lead game designer Neil Druckman told the gaming press, Uncharted 3 is going to blow our minds once again, and it's not necessarily due to the power of the PlayStation 3. In fact, Druckman says they're already working with the full power of the hardware for Uncharted 2, but the engine for the game can be optimized to look visually superior. In a direct contrast, it seems Uncharted: Drake's Fortune only utilized about 30% of the PS3 hardware, which - mathematically speaking - would mean Naughty Dog used more than three times the hardware power in the making of Uncharted 2. Plus, with the 90 minutes of cinematic content that will emulate real life better than ever before, Uncharted 2 is going to be one fine production...but can you even begin to imagine what Uncharted 3 might look like? Can the designers really take another significant step? If so...wow.

We always get a big kick out of seeing the graphical achievements developers continue to make. Graphics don't make the game, but they sure as hell add to the experience.

It's hardly a fair comparison, DAO is an RPG and Uncharted is an action adventure type game and also Naughty Dog are a first party developer, meaning they are in a better position than most when it comes to game development on PS3 through full support from Sony obviously.

[Lord Gremlin]

Games4ever wrote...

learn from Naughty Dogs Bioware :-)

Naughty Dog has said they will continue to make Uncharted "as long as the fans want it," but they must've already assumed the reaction to Uncharted 2: Among Thieves would be good enough to warrant a third entry (and of course, that's a correct assumption).

But as amazing as this sequel looks - just trust us when we say it's the best-looking console game you've ever seen - it seems the team actually can actually make a future title look better. According to what co-lead game designer Neil Druckman told the gaming press, Uncharted 3 is going to blow our minds once again, and it's not necessarily due to the power of the PlayStation 3. In fact, Druckman says they're already working with the full power of the hardware for Uncharted 2, but the engine for the game can be optimized to look visually superior. In a direct contrast, it seems Uncharted: Drake's Fortune only utilized about 30% of the PS3 hardware, which - mathematically speaking - would mean Naughty Dog used more than three times the hardware power in the making of Uncharted 2. Plus, with the 90 minutes of cinematic content that will emulate real life better than ever before, Uncharted 2 is going to be one fine production...but can you even begin to imagine what Uncharted 3 might look like? Can the designers really take another significant step? If so...wow.

We always get a big kick out of seeing the graphical achievements developers continue to make. Graphics don't make the game, but they sure as hell add to the experience.

Hm. Here I have to agree. Although I'd rather point on God of War 3. So far it's the only game which during certain moments look exactly like live-action movie. In Uncharted 2 you can always walk into the room, look on the TV screen and tell that it's a videogame or CG, not live-action. That said, Dragon Age look really bad. Worse then Oblivion, worse than Viking: Battle for Asgard. A ****load of space for improvement here.

[-Semper-]

LPPrince wrote...

Its not defending the developer. Its stating a marketing tactic.

what tactic should this be? with this short amount of time there is no room for showing a process. they have to build up a hype 6-8 months before release. time is running low and with such screenies all that's left is disappointment! why do you think they changed the screens game informer provided so recently? why is there such a high developer fluctuation within dragon age 2's forum explaining in a constant loop how great the game is? it's all about to limit the damage a rushed and therefore bad marketing made. whoever is responsible for this mess

if you post alpha screens then you want to inform the core fanbase that there's something completely new in developement and will be published in 2-3 years. with this screens this is absolutely not the case.

[Lord Gremlin]

Oldenglishcdr wrote...


It's hardly a fair comparison, DAO is an RPG and Uncharted is an action adventure type game and also Naughty Dog are a first party developer, meaning they are in a better position than most when it comes to game development on PS3 through full support from Sony obviously.

How about Demon's Souls? An RPG. Which looks miles better than DAO and manages to pull insane tricks which physics and destructible objects - Dragon God fist pound anyone? Not to mention amazing effects, like this mist around spirits (Dragon age spirits aka models where you can see eyeballs and teeth are lame). Dragon Age, let's face it, looks pathetic on any platform. Better on PC, but still bad.
Those are pre-alpha screens, yet... 2D grass? Seriously?

[0LunarEclipse0]

I have one problem. The changing of the combat for console players. We are losing our tactical RPG all because I can't afford to upgrade my PC?

[Games4ever]

It's hardly a fair comparison, DAO is an RPG and Uncharted is an action adventure type game and also Naughty Dog are a first party developer, meaning they are in a better position than most when it comes to game development on PS3 through full support from Sony obviously


You're right, but a game as Fallout 3 that came out before the first Dragon age also looked superior to the first Dragon age

and that was also a RPG and out for both PS3,Xbox and PC

so it can happen

Modifié par Games4ever, 13 juillet 2010 - 07:54 .

[Jimmy Fury]

-Semper- wrote...
if you post alpha screens then you want to inform the core fanbase that there's something completely new in developement and will be published in 2-3 years. with this screens this is absolutely not the case.

Please look up a couple of posts to where I provided absolute proof that companies do release alpha shots months before release and that alpha-beta-final can take as little as 6 months.

And as a side note, I got to thinking about it and I 100% apologize for reposting the same thing a second time. My brain didn't process the spammyness of it until I had already moved it up to the new post. So this is me begging the mods not to put the hammer on the thread or me. It was a spur of the moment rash mistake that will never happen again. I swear on every comicbook I own.

[Vohodic]

WTB: Statement or caption proving these images are Pre-Alpha, Alpha, Old, Beta, Pre-beta, or whatever else people on the board have been calling them.





Thanks.

[Oldenglishcdr]

Lord Gremlin wrote...

Oldenglishcdr wrote...


It's hardly a fair comparison, DAO is an RPG and Uncharted is an action adventure type game and also Naughty Dog are a first party developer, meaning they are in a better position than most when it comes to game development on PS3 through full support from Sony obviously.

How about Demon's Souls? An RPG. Which looks miles better than DAO and manages to pull insane tricks which physics and destructible objects - Dragon God fist pound anyone? Not to mention amazing effects, like this mist around spirits (Dragon age spirits aka models where you can see eyeballs and teeth are lame). Dragon Age, let's face it, looks pathetic on any platform. Better on PC, but still bad.
Those are pre-alpha screens, yet... 2D grass? Seriously?

Once again unfair comparison with Demon Souls. That game is a newer game compared to DAO and is a Japanese game developer who always have higher quality control compared to western games.

People need to stop getting so hung up on graphics in a game. Great graphics do not a great game make. Great gameplay, great story, great acting do!

Graphics should always take second place to gameplay in my mind, and that's what I love about Japanese companies, they understand this better than most.

[Rubbish Hero]

Nvidia driver let you force high quality ambient occlusion, help somewhat.

[Demx]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

Since this clearly got lost being the last entry on a page during a busy spell i'll move it up here where people might actually read it.

Ok so i actually did something someone else suggested earlier on the in the thread and went hunting for  ALpha/beta comparisons from FFXIV.
(I swear mods this has to do with DA2 and i'm not trying to go off on a whole conversation about another  company's game. This is entirely in BioWare defense!)

Came across some MIGHT Y interesting stuff.
there's a video comparing the 2
(note the major improvements just between alpha and beta.)
Some screens that look like they're from a 10 year old game but came out a few months ago
(article has them and you can see the posting date yourself of April 8th of this year)
and the very best part of all...
Read in that article how
Alpha Testing started in April.
Beta testing started 3 days ago. (my friend got approved to be a tester and has been
going insane ever since.)
The game comes out in September of this year.

And just to review. This is a Final Fantasy game we're talking about. No other game series is as psychotically
focused on graphics and looking uberpretty yet they did indeed release crappy screenshots that don't show off all the details that will be available in the final product.
AND. They released ALPHA screenshots 6 months before the game's release.
So would anyone like to explain again how it's impossible that these first DA2 screenshots could be alpha shots with 9 months left until the release? Or how about how no company in it's right mind would ever release alpha shots when they have a huge focus on graphics?
anyone?

-edit. links fixed-

The ones that you say that it look like they came from "10 years ago" just look like they are missing details, contrast, shading. The design still looks great even in Alpha. However, the Gantt Chart for Square Enix and Bioware can also be vastly different. So you can't really compare the two companies work schedule.

Modifié par Siradix, 13 juillet 2010 - 08:04 .

[DPB]

It's all very well and good asking for better graphics, but just remember that games have a finite budget. Sure, Bioware could make DA2 with the CryEngine3 and blow their budget on the graphics, but something would have to give, like actual content.

Modifié par dbankier, 13 juillet 2010 - 08:09 .

[Alxarx]

The second screenshot isn't bad. The first one on the other hand is incredibly ugly. Those hurlocks(?) in the bottom right lack a lot of detail, and they seem to just be boring to look at. The ogre has a perfectly fine character model to me, but its armor is really bland and ugly (same goes for those things in the bottom right). The armor is just a dull grey color with not detail... not much to say there. The rocks and plants in the background could use quite a bit of anti-aliasing, as well as being less shiny, especially that rock to the left.

Also something is awkward about the main character's word =[....

Edit: I'm talking about the higher resolution versions, in the smaller resolution ones on the first page the order is reversed and some of the details can't be made out. 

Modifié par Alxarx, 13 juillet 2010 - 08:07 .

[Jimmy Fury]

Siradix wrote...
The ones that you say that it look like they came from "10 years ago" just look like they are missing details, contrast, shading. The design still looks great even in Alpha. However, the Gantt Chart for Square Enix and Bioware can also be vastly different. So you can't really compare the two companies work schedule.

Yet for some reason the same can't be said of the 2 screens we've seen so far?
They're missing details, contrast, and shading. Mind you, for me details also means detail to the models themselves and not just the textures. One comment on the video mentioned that the models had been tweaked between alpha and beta. Surely bioware can add some more naturalistic detail to the darkspawn armor so they don't look like they're wearing pyramids.

[Demx]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

Siradix wrote...
The ones that you say that it look like they came from "10 years ago" just look like they are missing details, contrast, shading. The design still looks great even in Alpha. However, the Gantt Chart for Square Enix and Bioware can also be vastly different. So you can't really compare the two companies work schedule.

Yet for some reason the same can't be said of the 2 screens we've seen so far?
They're missing details, contrast, and shading. Mind you, for me details also means detail to the models themselves and not just the textures. One comment on the video mentioned that the models had been tweaked between alpha and beta. Surely bioware can add some more naturalistic detail to the darkspawn armor so they don't look like they're wearing pyramids.

Our own definitions of what is considered details and what should be alpha is where everything falls apart and argues with each other. It can't be helped. I personally find the design to be ugly, but someone could probably say to me that it is missing the details and still in the pre alpha stage, and you can't judge the game yet on these two screens. But I am still entitled to stating what I feel at the moment.