118 réponses à ce sujet

[UberDuber]

I liked Origins!



At the end of the day people it is not amazing graphics which makes a game good sure there nice to look at, the story and characters are whats important.

[B3taMaxxx]

I agree, the core problem is technology. They're pulling a "Borderlands" (couldn't get realistic graphics to work to satisfaction), but that doesn't dismiss what Goldman stated. I think a new art direction will be a very healthy move for the IP.

[mrmike_1949]

Tirigon wrote...

mrmike_1949 wrote...

DA:O graphics were OK, but only OK. Fallout 3, which came out a full year before DA:O, had better graphics than DA:O. The Bioware engine took too long to develop, and was outdated by the time DAO was released

I´ve seen Fallout 3 once, and I almost vomited because it was so ugly. The only beautiful thing in FO3 graphics are the nudemods which are, indeed, better than the ones for DAO.

the picture presented may not have been to your taste, but the quality of the graphics in FO3 was superior to DAO, noticeably better !

[B3taMaxxx]

mrmike_1949 wrote...

the picture presented may not have been to your taste, but the quality of the graphics in FO3 was superior to DAO, noticeably better !

 Enviroments definately looked better, however explosions, character models and even text were "noticeably better" in DA: Origins.

[DespiertaLosNinos]

mrmike_1949 wrote...

[the picture presented may not have been to your taste, but the quality of the graphics in FO3 was superior to DAO, noticeably better !

The terrain in FO3 is nicer yes but the character faces, and facial animations, don't even begin to compete with DA.  This is understandable as DA is more character focused and Fallout is more environment focused

[youjik33]

If I play it with the graphics anywhere above middling the game lags like mad, so really, I just want a DA2 I can run smoothly XD



(I had 'em turned all the way down at first, and didn't even know my first Warden's eye color when I made them. Turned out they were green. I also spent all game assuming Alistair had blue eyes.)

[Arrtis]

We need grpahics that feel good that are timeless and will never be outdated.So we may get new games out faster and faster.

[B3taMaxxx]

slimgrin wrote...

DA:O graphics are average at best. Good graphics help with immersion.

Look at ME2. Why can't DA2 look that good?

 I don't think the Unreal Engine (barring an entire over-haul) could handle the style rpg of DA. I was and still am amazed with what  BW was able to do with the Unreal Engine.

[Narreneth]

bzombo wrote...

mass effect is also about 25 hours long compared to da, which is 75 hours or more. maybe just dumping the low res textures for all high res would have polished it up a bit.

I've never had a game of Origins last longer than 50 hours unless I walked away and left the game running.  Most of them have been between 30 and 45 depending on if it was a game I played when I was newer to the game or after I developed a routine.  I've heard people claiming to have spent upwards of 130 hours on the game in one playthrough and that just boggles my mind.  There's a lot of content but there isn't that much.

Conversely my ME2 tends to last around 30 hours for me because I scan and do every side mission every time.  The difference in length is there, but it's not as severe as you're making it out to be.

[youjik33]

My first playthrough of DA:O took about 70 hours. Replays usually run a bit less but still over 60.

[B3taMaxxx]

slimgrin wrote...


I have to wonder why aren't they using an updated engine. CD Projekt wrote their own for TW2. Capcom recently came out with a brand new engine for Lost Planet 2 and Marvel vs. Capcom 3. 

I'm personally ok with how DA2 looks so far, but it's debut has been dismal. Most people think it looks like a last gen game. That is certainly what I thought of DA:O.

There is something to be said for staying competitive.

 Not all developers have the resources to build and create new engines. Some couldn't even attempt it. I could (probably misplaced) compare Epics engine building abilities to Bio's story writing abilities.

 Then again, with all the work BW is doing to thier engine........................we may be pleasently surprised

[HTTP 404]

someone may have said it already. On the PC top down, it looked good. On the console it looked really drab in  third person. A few areas had a lot of detail in the negative space like the mage's tower. Ostagar in the begining the background and landscape looked almost 10 years aged in the details.

I think the character detail was better than Mass Effect 1's though.

Modifié par HTTP 404, 20 juillet 2010 - 03:59 .

[Dick Delaware]

Tirigon wrote...

mrmike_1949 wrote...

DA:O graphics were OK, but only OK. Fallout 3, which came out a full year before DA:O, had better graphics than DA:O. The Bioware engine took too long to develop, and was outdated by the time DAO was released

I´ve seen Fallout 3 once, and I almost vomited because it was so ugly. The only beautiful thing in FO3 graphics are the nudemods which are, indeed, better than the ones for DAO.

To be fair, Fallout 3 does have some very nice scenic areas. Looking at the river Potomac or the Washington Monument was really cool. What it does poorly is stuff like NPC's. Just some really ugly-ass characters. Hell, I'm not even going to talk about animation here, that's even worse.

The environmental textures in DA:O could use some work. I played it originally on the 360, and man, forests in that game were just ugly. The Korcari Wilds and the Brecilian Forest did not look good.

The character models fared better, but still had some problems. Male NPC's often had this weird gigantic Jay Leno chin going on. Animation-wise, sometimes it could fall flat. Looking at Leliana's googly eyes during her song was funny and it really detracted from an otherwise really good cinematic. It's a shame, it was a really nice idea.

[Rubbish Hero]

Fallout 3 was ugly as crap. Regardless of it being technically better, Dragon Age looked better. Bethesda has terrible presentation.

[Querne]

Didn´t mind DA:O graphics. Don´t mind DA2 screenshots. At least that one time I can hove in sweet indifference.

Only thing I really would´t like would be an extrem comic style like anything in the direction of WOW (urgs).

[Altima Darkspells]

I thought the best part of DAO's graphics were the creatures. The larger creatures, especially, looked fantastic. Ogres, Dragons, and the Pride Demon stand out very well, but even your basic darkspawn looked quite fitting.



Of course, looking at the new screenshots, that went right out the window...

[kraidy1117]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Fallout 3 was ugly as crap. Regardless of it being technically better, Dragon Age looked better. Bethesda has terrible presentation.

That's not saying much.....

[Celticon]

Now Fallout 3 voice acting is another story - and almost good enough of a reason to shut down my speakers when interacting with NPCs in town.

Don't we all love tradeoffs?

Modifié par Celticon, 20 juillet 2010 - 04:32 .

[mrmike_1949]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Fallout 3 was ugly as crap. Regardless of it being technically better, Dragon Age looked better. Bethesda has terrible presentation.

Again, you're confusing what the scenery wasshowing( what the landscape was) with how well it was implemented.
The whole point of FO3 was post WW III, grim and gritty survivors in a dingy world, so yeah it was an ugly world. 

BUT it was drawn very well indeed

[Kalfear]

bzombo wrote...

mass effect is also about 25 hours long compared to da, which is 75 hours or more. maybe just dumping the low res textures for all high res would have polished it up a bit.

ROFLMAO!

Listen I LOVED DA:O but lieing about its lenght or any other feature does no one any good!

DA:O was 35-40 hours long unless you read at a grade 3 level (IE, R E A L L Y   R E A L L Y    S L O W)

As for DA2 graphics, your right, they just needed a bit of polish, not a new art direction

mrmike_1949 wrote...

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Fallout 3 was ugly as crap. Regardless of it being technically better, Dragon Age looked better. Bethesda has terrible presentation.

Again, you're confusing what the scenery wasshowing( what the landscape was) with how well it was implemented.
The whole point of FO3 was post WW III, grim and gritty survivors in a dingy world, so yeah it was an ugly world. 

BUT it was drawn very well indeed

Nope, graphically Fall Out 3 was not one of the better games that year.
has nothing to do with scenery and everything to do with drawing ability/talent

Modifié par Kalfear, 20 juillet 2010 - 05:58 .

[Dick Delaware]

Kalfear wrote...

bzombo wrote...

mass effect is also about 25 hours long compared to da, which is 75 hours or more. maybe just dumping the low res textures for all high res would have polished it up a bit.

ROFLMAO!

Listen I LOVED DA:O but lieing about its lenght or any other feature does no one any good!

DA:O was 35-40 hours long unless you read at a grade 3 level (IE, R E A L L Y   R E A L L Y    S L O W)

As for DA2 graphics, your right, they just needed a bit of polish, not a new art direction

You know, you'd make a lot more sense taking potshots at people's reading levels if you decided to learn basic spelling and grammar. 

My first run of DA: O took me 65 hours to complete. This is probably because there was a ton of that filler combat in The Deep Roads and in side quests. The game could have used some trimming in places like The Fade and the long slog through the Deep Roads.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 20 juillet 2010 - 06:12 .