306 réponses à ce sujet

[Saibh]

Zanderat wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Zanderat wrote...

Noir201 wrote...

Zanderat wrote...

Rixxencaxx wrote...

into GI article they said that party approval is no longer important cause even if a party member hates you he will stay and gain bonuses.....
This...the jumping narrative....the dialogue wheel....the graphics.....are they working on diablo origins 2 ?

I admit, it is not looking good...  For now, I am taking a wait and see sttitude.  Certainly not a pre-order.  Once the fan reviews (as opposed to the paid reviews at IGN, etc.) are in, then I will decide. 

Indeed, thats a new bit of info about the party approval, from the looks of it, bioware would have gotten alot better responce from fans, had they not let GI get the info, and frankly make the game sound so...awfull and broken.

Like the screenshots released so far.  They are awful.  What are they thinking?  Bad PR move in my opinion.

I don't care about graphics so much that I'd rather they hadn't released them. To me, story is king (Pixar, yay!), and screenshots give me a little window into it.

Agreed.  But you have to admit to feeling just a little bit of trepidation at seeing these screenies.

Mmm...yes, and no. I'd like to see beautiful graphics (only crap those Witcher graphics are just mouthwatering), but if they're going to stay at the level I see them now, that's okay--as long as the story is good. Again, I believe the graphics will improve with time, so getting these screenshots is a big favor from the devs, as I see it.

Modifié par Saibh, 17 juillet 2010 - 06:50 .

[DPB]

Zanderat wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Which engine is DA2 using?

I know CD Projekt made their own for TW2.

Same engine as DAO, with tweaks.

No, they both use different engines. The Witcher used a heavily-modfiied Aurora, the NWN engine, but they're not using it for the sequel, they've built their own engine. DAO and DA2 use Eclipse.

Modifié par dbankier, 17 juillet 2010 - 06:55 .

[mione]

It really isn't fair to compare DA2 with TW2 because first of all DA2 is still in development and we have no idea how old these screen shots are.



Not to mention that one of the devs has already commented that from what they have seen recently that they have already improved some. Second they are running off two different game engines so of course there are going to be an difference with the two, not to mention the difference in art styles as well.



The graphics will improve just give it some time, isn't like these shots are coming out a week before the game is released.

[Rubbish Hero]

Why not fair? Words were "super hot" and "concentrate on technology". With words like that it's practically fair to compare it to any game on the market. It was there own chioce to put out those screenshots was it not? If they look like turd goblin, why not criticize them in the context of super hotness with more technical wizardry? Game need miracle to look super hot. This not super hot, it's very cold like Mr Freeze.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 17 juillet 2010 - 07:04 .

[Zanderat]

dbankier wrote...

Zanderat wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Which engine is DA2 using?

I know CD Projekt made their own for TW2.

Same engine as DAO, with tweaks.

No, they both use different engines. The Witcher used a heavily-modfiied Aurora, the NWN engine, but they're not using it for the sequel, they've built their own engine. DAO and DA2 use Eclipse.

Isn't that what I said?

[mione]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Why not fair? Words were "super hot" and "concentrate on technology". With words like that it's practically fair to compare it to any game on the market. It was there own chioce to put out those screenshots was it not? If they look like turd goblin, why not criticize them in the context of super hotness with more technical wizardry? Game need miracle to look super hot. This not super hot, it's very cold like Mr Freeze.

It isn't "fair" becuase the technical and artistic aspects of the two games are different. Many companies now a days work off their own in house engines, so each company games are going to be different in one way or another.

It's like asking why doesn't the graphics in Resident Evil 5 look like Gears of War 3 or vice-versa.

Now if the two games were running off the same engine then and only then can we properly campare the two to each other.

Modifié par mione, 17 juillet 2010 - 07:29 .

[DPB]

Zanderat wrote...

Isn't that what I said?

Sorry, that was poor reading comprehension on my part, for some reason I thought you were referring to The Witcher 2.

[Rubbish Hero]

mione wrote...
It's like asking why doesn't the Grhapics in Resident Evil 5 look like Gears of War 3 or vice-versa.

But you can still make logical technical arguments as to what ones  better, it's generally accepted Crysis is top tier when it comes to  graphics, regardless of engines.  Are any of these screenshots using parallax occlusion mapping? Screen space ambint occlusion? Full screen motion blur? Object motion blur? How are the  particles quality? Postprocessing quality amd shader quality? Is the game using realtime ambient maps? Are the shadow edged being blurred like Crysis to simulate a "penumbra" effect? Subsurfacing scatering? Is the game using HDR lighting? Does it use Tessilation? Do round things look round?  How high poly are the games models? How about the textures, are they as high as Crysis?

e.g.  From a distance, the female  models hair, looks like crap. Spaghetti, like Mass Effect, the enemy Armour texture looks like crap, the ground look like crap, all of these are pretty distant shots, not zoomed.

In  Crysis, barring a couple of  obviose low res object in the game, when you zoom in on something with a scope, it remains sharp, other games such as Resident Evil 5, or Gears Of War 1/2 would look like dilluated water color  without any zoom, they are built with console limitation in mind.









Not only are the textures obviously far better but it's being rendered in giant environment, those small mountains in the background aren't a skybox trick, they are in the games map. Everything also interactive, when someone brush by leafs, they react, like reality. Everything in Resident Evil 5 and Gears of War tight closed off area's with useless low poly props, much less going on.

www.youtube.com/watch

From video you see better lighting, texture, real-time animations, interactivity and all that crap at work. High quility post processing object motion blur e.t.c.... Graphically, it oblitorated Resient Evil 5 and Gears of War 3.

Resident Evil 5 using pre-rendered cut-scenes that  have not very good  texture in
comparison, use filter to hide them like Mass Effect.

img204.imageshack.us/img204/1971/re5dx102009091100272403.jpg

img375.imageshack.us/img375/9016/screenshot0445.jpg

Dragon Age 2 appear not using parallax occlusion mapping in screenshot like cutting edge games.

../../../../%5Bimg%5Dhttp://i41.tinypic.com/nfs686.jpg

Hawke jumping in air and in battle in stuff. If use object motion blur, awould probably show up in screenshot.



Game like Metro 2033 use tessilation, round things look round, cutting edge game.

[http://www.gamearena...033_DX11_08.jpg

Dragon Age 2 screenshots have super low polt count jaggy people fun time.
Not hot unless biblical graphic upgrade in months to come. Perhaps if 2005 look hot, not now.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 17 juillet 2010 - 08:23 .

[Pocketgb]

Lovin' these new darkspawn. The one yelling in the bottom screenshot is deliciously and abnormally human and slightly eerie.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 17 juillet 2010 - 08:20 .

[CrybabyXD]

looks pretty good. I just dont like the look of the darkspawn but maybe it will grow on me it wont stop me from buying the game nevertheless.

[thesuperdarkone]

The dragon looks like an ogre and high dragon had a baby

[Tennyochan]

i love TW2'd boobs (lol. sorry, late on the bandwagon)
i think DA:O boobs/chest look a bit weird, like the position/shape of them? (i'm not suggesting to make them bigger or anything...)
but from the screenshots it looks like they didnt change the female models...

Modifié par tennyochan, 18 juillet 2010 - 02:30 .

[Saibh]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

mione wrote...
It's like asking why doesn't the Grhapics in Resident Evil 5 look like Gears of War 3 or vice-versa.

But you can still make logical technical arguments as to what ones  better, it's generally accepted Crysis is top tier when it comes to  graphics, regardless of engines.  Are any of these screenshots using parallax occlusion mapping? Screen space ambint occlusion? Full screen motion blur? Object motion blur? How are the  particles quality? Postprocessing quality amd shader quality? Is the game using realtime ambient maps? Are the shadow edged being blurred like Crysis to simulate a "penumbra" effect? Subsurfacing scatering? Is the game using HDR lighting? Does it use Tessilation? Do round things look round?  How high poly are the games models? How about the textures, are they as high as Crysis?

e.g.  From a distance, the female  models hair, looks like crap. Spaghetti, like Mass Effect, the enemy Armour texture looks like crap, the ground look like crap, all of these are pretty distant shots, not zoomed.

In  Crysis, barring a couple of  obviose low res object in the game, when you zoom in on something with a scope, it remains sharp, other games such as Resident Evil 5, or Gears Of War 1/2 would look like dilluated water color  without any zoom, they are built with console limitation in mind.









Not only are the textures obviously far better but it's being rendered in giant environment, those small mountains in the background aren't a skybox trick, they are in the games map. Everything also interactive, when someone brush by leafs, they react, like reality. Everything in Resident Evil 5 and Gears of War tight closed off area's with useless low poly props, much less going on.

www.youtube.com/watch

From video you see better lighting, texture, real-time animations, interactivity and all that crap at work. High quility post processing object motion blur e.t.c.... Graphically, it oblitorated Resient Evil 5 and Gears of War 3.

Resident Evil 5 using pre-rendered cut-scenes that  have not very good  texture in
comparison, use filter to hide them like Mass Effect.

img204.imageshack.us/img204/1971/re5dx102009091100272403.jpg

img375.imageshack.us/img375/9016/screenshot0445.jpg

Dragon Age 2 appear not using parallax occlusion mapping in screenshot like cutting edge games.

../../../../%5Bimg%5Dhttp://i41.tinypic.com/nfs686.jpg

Hawke jumping in air and in battle in stuff. If use object motion blur, awould probably show up in screenshot.



Game like Metro 2033 use tessilation, round things look round, cutting edge game.

[http://www.gamearena...033_DX11_08.jpg

Dragon Age 2 screenshots have super low polt count jaggy people fun time.
Not hot unless biblical graphic upgrade in months to come. Perhaps if 2005 look hot, not now.

Crysis is just about the worse example you can give to defend your point, because when it came out, it was famous for being unplayable on an average, or even not-super computer PC. There's good-looking, and then there's game-breaking.

I'm sorry, but to me, graphics aren't the point, story is. If you're playing these games for graphics, you're in the wrong field.

[Zanderat]

mione wrote...

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Why not fair? Words were "super hot" and "concentrate on technology". With words like that it's practically fair to compare it to any game on the market. It was there own chioce to put out those screenshots was it not? If they look like turd goblin, why not criticize them in the context of super hotness with more technical wizardry? Game need miracle to look super hot. This not super hot, it's very cold like Mr Freeze.

It isn't "fair" becuase the technical and artistic aspects of the two games are different. Many companies now a days work off their own in house engines, so each company games are going to be different in one way or another.

It's like asking why doesn't the graphics in Resident Evil 5 look like Gears of War 3 or vice-versa.

Now if the two games were running off the same engine then and only then can we properly campare the two to each other.

One looks bad and one looks good.  Both are due Q1 2011.  Totally valid comparison.

[Rubbish Hero]

Saibh wrote...Crysis is just about the worse example you can give to defend your point, because when it came out, it was famous for being unplayable on an average, or even not-super computer PC. There's good-looking, and then there's game-breaking.

No it's a good example.Crysis was future proofed, it was  actually designed with computers of the present as well as of the future in mind. Now, three years on, it's still unrivaled and much less taxing on a gaming pc than it was at higher settings before. It's also worth noting that those screenshots above, aren't maxed out. There is no AA or AF and if I recall correctly, it was only running at a res of something like, 1280X1024. Dragon Age (1) very CPU hungry and not optimized properly, runs almost same FPS as Crysis and nowhere near as technically impressive. In fact so badly optmised it not work properly with threading and framerate and loading gradually drop to 10-15 with 5 minute and up load times. I have to buy quad core to get it working right. Crysis with duel core? Fine.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 18 juillet 2010 - 03:49 .

[Pocketgb]

My computer was FAR below subpar at the time when Crysis came out, and it was actually fairly optimized while still looking decent. Pretty intriguing. I think they made things even better with Warhead.

[Saibh]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Saibh wrote...Crysis is just about the worse example you can give to defend your point, because when it came out, it was famous for being unplayable on an average, or even not-super computer PC. There's good-looking, and then there's game-breaking.

No it's a good example.Crysis was future proofed, it was  actually designed with computers of the present as well as of the future in mind. Now, three years on, it's still unrivaled and much less taxing on a gaming pc than it was at higher settings before. It's also worth noting that those screenshots above, aren't maxed out. There is no AA or AF and if I recall correctly, it was only running at a res of something like, 1280X1024. Dragon Age (1) very CPU hungry and not optimized properly, runs almost same FPS as Crysis and nowhere near as technically impressive. In fact so badly optmised it not work properly with threading and framerate and loading gradually drop to 10-15 with 5 minute and up load times. I have to buy quad core to get it working right. Crysis with duel core? Fine.

Okay, okay, you seem the expert, I'll take your advice. I was working on what I heard from various reviewers, friends' experience, and my experience. All of which just did not let this game play or told me I'd have problems getting it to play unless I had top-of-the-line.

[Lenimph]

I miss the ogres being purple... it added some much need color D:

[thenemesis77]

nice, they took the Ever quest 2 engine, nice work guys.........love it...LMAO

[Arttis]

the grey in his beard suggests that *assuming overtime your hair turns grey* We start the game as a young man/middle aged and over the 10 years become older.

[AgrathVC]

Well they are just trying to rush DA:2, thanks to the console kiddies. And please stop dreaming, they are not going to upgrade the graphics in 7-8 months or make some patches in the future for upgrade them. Just remember that DA1 is still bugged thanks to the poor support (only 3 patches). DA:2 will be really better and kinda like Witcher 2 if DA:2 was a pc only title. Right now the pc are just getting a huge leap of hardware over the old third generation consoles.  Maybe they are going to release a DA:2 expansion the next year since they will like to milk the cash cows.

[hoysexyjew]

rastakore wrote...

Graphically the game pales in comparison with Witcher 2, but I have no doubts it will get getter and will be a very good game nevertheless. But now I'm really more looking forward the Witcher 2, it looks sick...

TW 2 is probably my most anticipated game right now, first one was amazing, even with the limited resources they had.

Not to mention the graphics seem to be approaching photo-reallistic.

[Wyndham711]

To me it's more a matter of principle. It's unacceptable if such a much more resourceful and experienced company gets left so far behind by a relative newcomer. I'd expect Witcher 2 to look somewhat better (as far as I know it's not isometric, for one, and it doesn't have to take into account any console ports, and presumably it has a longer development cycle etc.) but what we are seeing now drastically breaks the boundaries of "somewhat". In comparsion DA2 looks like a last gen game.

Personally, I'll probably enjoy DA2 more no matter how the graphics look, since I'm in for the story and the characters and the lore. But my personal enjoyement is only one thing, I'm just wondering if the DA2 team is feeling it would be perfectly OK to be so utterly crushed by Witcher 2 in the visual department. I'm hoping their professional pride wont allow that, and they'll polish DA2 into a more presentable form before release. It's one thing to fight and get the silver medal, and another thing to just give in and come in last.

Modifié par Wyndham711, 18 juillet 2010 - 08:14 .

[Arttis]

pick up a final fantasy if you want graphics.