424 réponses à ce sujet

[wickedwizzard01]

Wyndham711 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Wyndham711 wrote...

Really unfortunate news. But still, if the story and characters are super awesome, and the game lasts me well over 120 hours, then I actually really don't care even if they cut out a lot of replayability, ditch the toolset, character creation, isometric camera, romances, depth of character development, make us pay 60€ for the PC version, change the artstyle into cartoony, limit roleplaying, and basically only give us a port of a console game. If the game is ridiculously long and very well written, I'm ok - even if it otherwise utterly fails as a CRPG.

...

Yeah, it's extreme. But I'm really just being honest. Naturally, I'd really prefer the game to include all those great elements and still be long and well written like DA:O was, but I'm just not holding out hope for that happening anymore. Ultimately, when I boil it down, it's all about length and writing for me, other things are expendable if necessary. :/

just maybe it is the best way to start looking at DA2
at  least there will be less chance to be disappointed 
i'm  starting to think ''i'll take what i can get'' with DA2 and i'll probably end up buying it anyway
but for now allmost everything that made DA:O Great seems to be gone or......oh well.....i'ts been said before:crying:

[Tooneyman]

I will say this. I'm happy with the PC version staying the way it is when it comes to the tactical with some different elements thrown in. I will also say I have console and I would definitely like to see how the action during the combat duel to the controls with the camera will play out. I remember them saying during the trailer from an article at Ign.com that during the combat hawkster was hacking and slashing the enemy to death or basically like bowling pins. Maybe will will get some of kind of super power ups during the combat depending on how we level up. I think the with the camera angles they were stating this would be interesting indeed.

[Wyndham711]

Brockololly wrote...

Wyndham711 wrote...
 Ultimately, when I boil it down, it's all about length and writing for me, other things are expendable if necessary. :/

I don't have the link, but Darrah said in an interview that DA2 would definitely be shorter than Origins but longer than Awakening. So if you're hoping for 100+ hours in a single playthrough, sorry.

I've been following the game rather closely, but haven't seen such an interview, so I'll take that quote with a grain of salt. But still, I'm truly not expecting a 100+ hour single playthrough. With the added VO alone, I'm expecting something along 40-50 hours. Losing many other important elements AND game length... that's just awful. My main hope at this point is that the writing is just so marvellous that it will make up for _everyting_ else we are inevitably going to lose.

[AlanC9]

relhart wrote...

I took his post as confirmation that the article was accurate.  

Huh? He said that there will be an iso view, just not as far out as the DA camera. And that some form of toolset has not been ruled out. (I'm betting paid DLC, myself)

So "accurate" isn't quite the term here.

[Wyndham711]

I feel like we are getting a fairer treatment in a cruel way. Why should the PC gamers (like myself) get more after paying less? At most, shouldn't they get exactly the same features the console gamers are getting after them even paying more for the game? This seems to be the growing trend. Subjectively I hate it, but I can't really justify my hatred. Why should I get a superior, more well featured experience after paying less for it than the console people? Deep down, this is what I've been asking from myself for years with all the great PC versions of multiplatform games, and I haven't found a satisfying answer.

Modifié par Wyndham711, 08 août 2010 - 05:49 .

[flem1]

Brockololly wrote...

I don't understand why they're messing with the tactical BG style view in the first place. Zooming it in closer is the wrong move- if anything it should be going further out. The key isn't just being able to move the camera independently, its being able to see the battlefield in full

(Emphasis mine.)  This is exactly right.  We need to see as much of it at once (at least 75%, I'd say) as possible *without having to move around and keep readjusting one's perspective*.  The idea is to get a continuous sense of the whole thing, not keep fiddling with the angle and placement.  Moving it closer is utter fail.

BomimoDK wrote...

I'm late, but it doesn't sound too bad.
They obviously still aim to give us a tactical overview and a camera
free of the single character. to me, that sounds like overhead view. if
it's a bit lower, then this will just be like PS:T was compared to
BG.

No.  The Origins camera *is already lowered*.  It's already the Torment camera, not the BG2 one.  Any lower and there's no iso advantage at all.  This, I suspect, is the entire point -- crapify the play method (because consoles are too weak to handle it), fail to sell it to any non-legacy RPG players, and then dump it altogether in DA3 because "feedback wasn't positive enough".

Spear-Thrower wrote...

Kotor didn't have an 'isometric' camera and the combat was fine.

Exactly wrong.  KOTOR combat was junk -- easy, no-challenge junk -- precisely *because* there was no iso view and multi-character control.  Sure, it *looked* good.  I'm sure DA2 fights will look good.

There's a reason DAO was the first reasonably challenging Bio game since BG2.

Wyndham711 wrote...

Really unfortunate news. But still, if
the story and characters are super awesome, and the game lasts me well
over 120 hours, then I actually really don't care even if they cut out a
lot of replayability, ditch the toolset, character creation, isometric
camera, romances, depth of character development, make us pay 60€ for
the PC version, change the artstyle into cartoony, limit roleplaying,
and basically only give us a port of a console game. If the game is
ridiculously long and very well written, I'm ok - even if it otherwise
utterly fails as a CRPG.

The game will be shorter than Origins, not longer.

Honestly, the exact game you want is TOR.  Intentionally semi-cartoony art, limited extraneous "choice", but eight huge long Bio stories with Bio characters.

[Wyndham711]

flem1 wrote...

Honestly, the exact game you want is TOR.  Intentionally semi-cartoony art, limited extraneous "choice", but eight huge long Bio stories with Bio characters.

I don't "want" those features. I'm just willing to accept them if the game is very long and very well written. Unfortunately, TOR likely won't have the sort of writing I could even theoretically enjoy as much as I do the DA writing, since it is scifi themed. And I'm not that much of a scifi person.

[flem1]

Wyndham711 wrote...

flem1 wrote...

Honestly, the exact game you want is TOR.  Intentionally semi-cartoony art, limited extraneous "choice", but eight huge long Bio stories with Bio characters.

I don't "want" those features. I'm just willing to accept them if the game is very long and very well written. Unfortunately, TOR likely won't have the sort of writing I could even theoretically enjoy as much as I do the DA writing, since it is scifi themed. And I'm not that much of a scifi person.

Star Wars is space fantasy, not scifi.  Magic with ships.  It's all about the glowing magic swords, ffs!

Also, some of the DA writers worked on TOR too.

Mass Effect is sf, yeah.

[Wyndham711]

slimgrin wrote...

I think licensing is one of the reasons console titles are more expensive. 

I know why they are more expensive. What I don't know is why should I be justified to expect anything extra from a PC version of a multiplatform game, especially after paying less for it.

flem1 wrote...

Star Wars is space fantasy, not scifi.  Magic with ships.  It's all about the glowing magic swords, ffs!

Yeah, this is a common opinion. But to me, Star Wars is scifi first and foremost. TOR isn't likely to change that.

Modifié par Wyndham711, 08 août 2010 - 06:05 .

[iTomes]

Wyndham711 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

I think licensing is one of the reasons console titles are more expensive. 

I know why they are more expensive. What I don't know is why should I be justified to expect anything extra from a PC version of a multiplatform game, especially after paying less for it.

because the pc can handle the bonusfeatures. besides, a good pc is much more expensive then a console so its justified to have bonus features on the pc. in the end, the pc user pays more, even tough he doesn't pay more for each game.

[Abriael_CG]

BomimoDK wrote...
I imagine many Bioware employees think this is a very childish personal attack directed at their work.
What's your bas of this accusation?

Lol. I'll be honest, if they interpret my post as a personal attack and get bent out of shape, maybe they're not cut for this market, or any market that has a vocal fanbase. Try anime (I worked in it, and actually without hiding behind moderators and community managers, I sure know). In comparison, my post was very, very mild, and most definitely not "personal".

They got Dragon Age looking and playing just fine as an old school hardcore, dark fantasy RPG where epic **** is centered around you and you have to make certain choices to make **** work= an RPG. i don't see anything wrong there.

Considering the BIG problems many users had just running the game "playing just fine" is a bit of an overstatement.

Or was it that they went for ONE action RPG series for consoles after countless games at a lower, more in depth pace for the (as they seem to imply themselves) intellectual PC crowd?

They already have one action RPG series for consoles. It's called Mass Effect, and they already dumbed that one down from chapter one to chapter two.
Turning the only in depth cRPG series they have (Dragon Age) into another console-oriented dumbed down action RPG would definitely be a big loss for the genre, and I don't think defining it a "betrayal" towards their most loyal fanbase is in any way exaggerated.

I'm tired of these over the top reactions, idiots who don't see the full picture jumping to conclusions based looser than the proof of the positive opposite. could you please just take a break, a breath and stop panicking?

And we're tired to see people defending Bioware whatever they do. But you know? It's not doctor's orders to read our "reactions". You're entirely free to skip em if you're so tired about them. :innocent:
Other than that, we're paying customers as much as you are (probably more than you, given that most of the people that are displeased by what they're hearing about DA2 are the old Bioware fans that have been buying all their products since the very start), and we are entirely entitled to express our displeasure, whether you like it or not.

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 08 août 2010 - 06:09 .

[Abriael_CG]

edit: nevermind.

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 08 août 2010 - 06:09 .

[Wyndham711]

iTomes wrote...

because the pc can handle the bonusfeatures. besides, a good pc is much more expensive then a console so its justified to have bonus features on the pc. in the end, the pc user pays more, even tough he doesn't pay more for each game.

Yeah, I pay more for a PC, but none of that invested money actually goes to the developers who make/port the games I then go on buying for the platform. It's a moot point from the point of view of the devs.

[flem1]

Spear-Thrower wrote...

flem1 wrote...

Spear-Thrower wrote...

Kotor didn't have an 'isometric' camera and the combat was fine.

Exactly wrong.  KOTOR combat was junk -- easy, no-challenge junk -- precisely *because* there was no iso view and multi-character control.  Sure, it *looked* good.  I'm sure DA2 fights will look good.

There's a reason DAO was the first reasonably challenging Bio game since BG2.

Rubbish. You think only an isometric view can provide a challenge or multi-character control? Check out the Wizardry series.

This sounds like people reminiscing about the past. Times change.

Pfft.  You have to go back to the turn-based era?  Talk about being stuck in the past.

In a realtime party-based game (and Bio is never doing turn-based), only iso gives the wide continuous perspective necessary to unlock actual challenges.

Even more tellingly, iso is necessary for the tactical gameplay experience that *Bio's other franchises recognize the need for*.  TOR's Imperial Agent, ME's Infiltrator...  Lots of players want to see as much of the action as possible, not be up front going pew pew all the time.  With a party control setup, that means iso.

Modifié par flem1, 08 août 2010 - 06:22 .

[Talonfire]

Spear-Thrower wrote...
Even Troika ditched the top-down view for Vampire the
Masquerade:Bloodlines. Arcanum was great and so is Bloodlines. The
camera has no bearing on quality.

Bloodlines and Arcanum are two completely different breeds of RPGs. Arcanum was a tactical game while Bloodlines was more of an FPS with RPG elements. I don't think Troika "ditched" top down at all, especially since neither of their prior games had first or third person support. Of course, both of their prior games were far more tactical than Bloodlines was.

In my experience top down just works better for larger games where the focus is on tactics. That's why you don't see many first person strategy games. Third person may be cool for cinematic games, but it's not efficient or practical for a game with large battles and multiple controllable characters. Knights of the Old Republic did kind of work, but the battles in that game were extremely small and contained, so you didn't have to deal with many enemies at a time nor did you have to use as much in the way of tactics as you did in previous BioWare titles. Even then the setup seemed impractical to me, and it definitely would have benefitted from a top down perspective. However Star Wars is a film license, and I think BioWare was going for a more cinematic approach by using a third person camera.

What camera works better depends on the kind of game you're going for. Would it be possible to play Baldur's Gate in third person? Yes. Would it be a good idea? Not unless you plan on downscaling the battles in the game by a lot, and limiting the amount of party members you can have at any given time. A third person camera just wouldn't be practical, or particularly useful in Baldur's Gate if you translated it into third person exactly as is.

Modifié par Talonfire, 08 août 2010 - 06:21 .

[flem1]

That's why Diablo 3 isn't going to sell any copies.