188 réponses à ce sujet

[SDNcN]

izmirtheastarach wrote...

BootOnFace wrote...

I don't see why having a PC version and a console version with slightly different combat systems would alienate the PC fanbase. .

This is the thing I don't understand. We PC folks get more tactical control, and the console folks get more button mashing action. What is there to complain about?

People are afraid that because Bioware is developing console and PC versions at the same time, rather than porting from PC to console, that design choices are being made across both platforms to accomidate the lesser capability of the console platforms.

Modifié par SDNcN, 11 août 2010 - 03:14 .

[izmirtheastarach]

SDNcN wrote...

People are afraid that because Bioware is developing console and PC versions at the same time, rather than porting from PC to console, that design choices are being made across both platforms to accomidate the lesser capability of the console platforms.

Okay. Without any other information, being told a title is undergoing simulanteous development can sometimes mean a simpler, consol-lized product on the PC. This is well known.

My issue is that people seem to be completely ignoring the fact that Mike Laidlaw seems to be clearly saying (verbally, out loud, in english), that they are developing TWO versions of the game. One optimized for PC, and one optimized for consoles. So to be worried, I must assume the the man in charge of everything Dragon Age is a liar. I do not so assume. Why are other people?

[SDNcN]

izmirtheastarach wrote...

My issue is that people seem to be completely ignoring the fact that Mike Laidlaw seems to be clearly saying (verbally, out loud, in english), that they are developing TWO versions of the game. One optimized for PC, and one optimized for consoles. So to be worried, I must assume the the man in charge of everything Dragon Age is a liar. I do not so assume. Why are other people?

Paranoia?

[shnizzler93]

Not to offend any of you PC gamers, but can you please refrain from insulting others (not that it isn't the other way, mind you, I am aware of them too) ? Yes, I am a 95% console gamer (the only game I have for PC is The Witcher). I love my Xbox 360. I don't play PC much at all because I don't have the time. I loved Dragon Age: Origins on the console, it was the most fun I've ever had with something so ugly. I know there are other console players who could care less about losing the tactical combat.



I, for one, do not enjoy some of the changes they propose to make. I wish the dialogue was largely similar to what it was in the original and not adapted to three phrases. In my opinion, I love Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2, but I want them to remain separate. However, I also know that I will most likely love Dragon Age 2, despite all of its changes. My first BioWare game was Mass Effect (while I may be only 17 now, I like to think I'm more mature than most others of my age), so I have no insight to their past "greatness." But to reiterate, please, do not bash console players, not all of them are alike.

[izmirtheastarach]

shnizzler93 wrote...

Not to offend any of you PC gamers, but can you please refrain from insulting others (not that it isn't the other way, mind you, I am aware of them too) ? Yes, I am a 95% console gamer (the only game I have for PC is The Witcher). I love my Xbox 360. I don't play PC much at all because I don't have the time. I loved Dragon Age: Origins on the console, it was the most fun I've ever had with something so ugly. I know there are other console players who could care less about losing the tactical combat.

I, for one, do not enjoy some of the changes they propose to make. I wish the dialogue was largely similar to what it was in the original and not adapted to three phrases. In my opinion, I love Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2, but I want them to remain separate. However, I also know that I will most likely love Dragon Age 2, despite all of its changes. My first BioWare game was Mass Effect (while I may be only 17 now, I like to think I'm more mature than most others of my age), so I have no insight to their past "greatness." But to reiterate, please, do not bash console players, not all of them are alike.

As I am getting tired of pointing out, the dialogue is not limited to three phrases. Gaider and Laidlaw have both said that there will be as many as 5 options, plus 5 more for investigation.

It seems like the main thing console players might be losing is some tactical control. While I do sympathize, you must understand that they are trying to craft a console specific game that will appeal to a wider console audience. Dragon Age is a game that grew out of top-down RPGs, and those are more native to the PC then they ever will be to consoles.

It's to be hoped we will both end up with a game we enjoy. Frankly, the most important thing about DAO for me was the epic story. So as long as that's intact, I really don't care about much else.

[Loc'n'lol]

izmirtheastarach wrote...

This is the thing I don't understand. We PC folks get more tactical control, and the console folks get more button mashing action. What is there to complain about?

I'll believe the first part when I see it. So far, everything's about the console version, and what little news we've had from the PC version wasn't encouraging.

[SDNcN]

izmirtheastarach wrote...

It seems like the main thing console players might be losing is some tactical control. While I do sympathize, you must understand that they are trying to craft a console specific game that will appeal to a wider console audience. Dragon Age is a game that grew out of top-down RPGs, and those are more native to the PC then they ever will be to consoles.

By tactical control do you mean top down view? Consoles never had that.

[SDNcN]

_Loc_N_lol_ wrote...

I'll believe the first part when I see it. So far, everything's about the console version, and what little news we've had from the PC version wasn't encouraging.

Consoles are easier to transport than PCs. Outside of Game Informer, I think they've only shown the game at comic-con, which is why gaming sites mostly reporting on the console version.

[izmirtheastarach]

SDNcN wrote...

By tactical control do you mean top down view? Consoles never had that.

As we've been saying, we don't know exactly what the differences are going to be. It is fair to say there isn't a lot of specific info. I'm going off of what Mark Darrah said, which was basically "a little more tactical". Now that's a little vague, as it may literally just mean that having a keyboard and mouse lets you be more tactical. But when he describes the console version, it really does sound more action oriented.

[asaiasai]

CrookedAsylum wrote...

Oh dear, still with the 'all console gamers are dumb' mentality? Joy of joys. It's like listening to a broken record reminisce about the good ol' days while sounding like nails on a chalkboard.

Yes, Bioware and all good money-earning companies like to appeal to the wider demograph. Why? Because no matter how much they like to appeal to the fans, they still need to make money and the console players are the ones who provide them with the most money, and Bioware has more fans on the consoles than the PC. You can b!tch and moan about it, but it doesn't change it. If it truly bothers you that much, then don't buy the game.

I agree, it is not the console owners who are stupid, it is thier hardware, as consoles are of limited capability. The market is driven by console sales that is a sad fact. So what is a PC gamer to do? Avoid any and all titles that cater to the console platform, buy PC only titles when ever possible, even if the game may not be just what your looking for. I have a brand new copy of Star Craft 2 that is not even installed, i have not even opend the box to see all the nifty stuff, everybody just raves about it and i have seen some of the game play, it is a resource plow game. Gather more resources than your opponet, make more stuff than your opponent, plow your opponent, it is ehh been there done that. But it is PC only, and it is Blizzard say what you want, so i felt the need to buy a copy for those reasons even if i never play it and wind up giving it away.  I have an ever expanding pile of dust collectors going back twenty years now, i have probably close to 150 games all in thier original boxes with all the maps, manuals, floppys (lol) in some cases. I still have my original copy of Castle Wolfenstein on 5 1/2 inch floppys for Basic. But i digress, if your a PC gamer sad at the console's effect on gaming, avoid buying the console version of the game, you have to speak in the only language corporations understand, and that is money.  

Asai

[Rubbish Hero]

So does this mean we can legitimately call it Dragon Effect in a derogatory manner? As it appears to be as many suspected, console  focused, not a CRPG at all? Are Bioware even PC dev's anymore? Apart from Dragon Age, what was the last pc lead developed designed platform game and when? Bioware are basically like Bethesda now it seems, about as pc as a gamecube.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 11 août 2010 - 06:35 .

[asaiasai]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

So does this mean we can legitimately call it Dragon Effect in a derogatory manner? As it appears to be as many suspected, console  focused, not a CRPG at all? Are Bioware even PC dev's anymore? Apart from Dragon Age, what was the last pc lead developed designed platform game and when? Bioware are basically like Bethesda now it seems, about as pc as a gamecube.

Honestly i am not sure because i have heard that there will be differences between the console version and the PC version,  in the combat system. Now what that really means is anybody's guess at this moment. All i am saying is that if given the option to buy a console version or the PC version of a title, if one is as saddened by the console drift as i am then you should buy a PC version of the title. This is the only statistic that matters to developers and is really the only way to counter the console effect on gaming.

Microsoft and Sony have final say over the content avalable for thier respective game consoles. This limits the creative potential of a game developer to add content of any type, due to the license agreements they MUST get and adhere to from Sony and Microsoft. What you wind up with in this situation is EA, the ESRB, Sony and Microsoft all dictating what kind of game a developer can create, so by buying the PC version of a game you at minimum dump to forms of corporate bureaucracy plus you get a better gaming experience.

I can even understand the principle that it takes less to maintain a console for gaming than a PC, the throw disc in and it plays mentality concerning the consoles. I can even understand the idea that some folks work on PCs all day at thier jobs, and do not want to come how to a PC to play games. But is it really that much different, or a better experience, considering that looking at GTA4 on the Xbox and GTA 4 on my PC, is a complete night and day difference, to which the PC is vastly superior. Sure you may even have to wait a year to get the PC version of the game released on the console but it is worth it to get a superior product. Even if you buy a console version and then buy the PC version on its release your are still supporting the console slide. It is more economical for developers to design games for consoles, but you are getting an inferior experience because of the infereior hardware and the corporate mumbo jumbo. 

Asai 

[Gatt9]

izmirtheastarach wrote...

SDNcN wrote...

People are afraid that because Bioware is developing console and PC versions at the same time, rather than porting from PC to console, that design choices are being made across both platforms to accomidate the lesser capability of the console platforms.

Okay. Without any other information, being told a title is undergoing simulanteous development can sometimes mean a simpler, consol-lized product on the PC. This is well known.

My issue is that people seem to be completely ignoring the fact that Mike Laidlaw seems to be clearly saying (verbally, out loud, in english), that they are developing TWO versions of the game. One optimized for PC, and one optimized for consoles. So to be worried, I must assume the the man in charge of everything Dragon Age is a liar. I do not so assume. Why are other people?

You've gotta keep in mind that it's possible to be tricky about the subject....

For example,  the PC runs x86 code,  the 360 runs PowerPC,  and the PS3 runs code written specifically for Cell.  You can theoretically call it 3 different versions.

Alternatively,  you could consider this...The camera in DAO was capable of going anywhere from full zoomed in to free floating top down.  So it should be able to easily be placed in both positions. 

The camera in ME2 OTOH,  cannot.

DA2 apparently has issues with being free floating judging from what we've read,  which should not be occuring if it was using DAO's engine...but would occur if it were using ME2's...which tells volumes about what the plan is.

[Schuback]

Come on guys, the console is not that bad. I play both PS3 and PC. There are some games in the PS3 that looks way more powerful than Dragon Age Origins. So it's not about system limitation or lack of capabilities for consoles (when speaking of DAO).

DAO was ported from PC to consoles, therefore the PC version was more superior. This time, both PC and console players will benefit. Win-win. WIth all due respect, but what more do you want?

[Senzen Sumnor]

AlanC9 wrote...

Senzen Sumnor wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Are you saying the DAO console combat was good, Senzen? I heard bad things about it, but as a PC player I didn't really pay attention.

As PC player I didn't either but it sold over 2.5 million copies between Xbox 360 and PS3, that has to count for something.

Sure, but it could just mean that everything was great on consoles except the combat, and the game would have done even better with better combat.

Let me put it this way, I worked for a company for five years that tried to attract new customers by changing their products, operations and their brand image.  They did all the research testing on new products and potential customers indicated that they would buy it.  They spent hundreds of millions of dollars on research, marketing and operational changes and it didn't amount to much.  All they did was alienate their current customers and had negative to flat customer (transaction) growth.  I think Bioware is making this decision based on the success of ME2 and probably product research on DAO.  It could be a huge mistake for them, as a previous poster said maybe it sold so well because it wasn't a mindless button mashing RPG, it was different and that's what made it stand out. 

[TSamee]

If it sold more on consoles, where the only changes made to cater to the console audience were crappier combat, then why simplify it? They're not targeting consoles, they're targeting a different kind of gamer. I'm not happy with it, but I'd find it easier to accept if BioWare stopped bull****ting. None of so-called "hardcore" audience that BioWare are trying not to offend with these statements are being placated by them. Many of us that are looking forward to the changes are still worried about the quality of the release (is a voiced Hawke an excuse to cut corners for a 2-year dev cycle?).



I understand the need for a business to expand. Games aren't philanthropy, they're business, they need to turn out a profit, and they need to maximise that. Slash overhead (reduce dev time), increase revenue (appeal to a wider audience, "go casual"), so you make a bigger profit. At the end of the day, that's what it's about. I'm fine with BioWare trying to diversify its customer base. I don't like it when they blatantly over-simplify something to appeal to a completely different audience (think DA2's combat, not Hawke or anything), but I can understand why. I just wish they'd tell us straight up instead of screwing around with sales statements.

[In Exile]

izmirtheastarach wrote...
My issue is that people seem to be completely ignoring the fact that Mike Laidlaw seems to be clearly saying (verbally, out loud, in english), that they are developing TWO versions of the game. One optimized for PC, and one optimized for consoles. So to be worried, I must assume the the man in charge of everything Dragon Age is a liar. I do not so assume. Why are other people?

That's a very vague statement, though. To say that they are designing two versions of the game, where one is not a direct port of the other, says nothing about the features in either. What Mike Laidlaw did tell us is that they are removing some features of isometric for the PC, that they are looking to free the camera as a way to retain the tactical feel/experience, and that these things are all still in a state of flux.

So we effectively know nothing other than the zoom on the isometric camera will be less. Making a judgement either way (yay, Bioware retains experience or boo, Bioware sells out) is unwarranted.

It is not about taking Laidlaw to be a liar; it is about not reading in to his comment anything more than he said must be true.

[rexil]

In Exile wrote...

izmirtheastarach wrote...
My issue is that people seem to be completely ignoring the fact that Mike Laidlaw seems to be clearly saying (verbally, out loud, in english), that they are developing TWO versions of the game. One optimized for PC, and one optimized for consoles. So to be worried, I must assume the the man in charge of everything Dragon Age is a liar. I do not so assume. Why are other people?

That's a very vague statement, though. To say that they are designing two versions of the game, where one is not a direct port of the other, says nothing about the features in either. What Mike Laidlaw did tell us is that they are removing some features of isometric for the PC, that they are looking to free the camera as a way to retain the tactical feel/experience, and that these things are all still in a state of flux.

So we effectively know nothing other than the zoom on the isometric camera will be less. Making a judgement either way (yay, Bioware retains experience or boo, Bioware sells out) is unwarranted.

It is not about taking Laidlaw to be a liar; it is about not reading in to his comment anything more than he said must be true.

We do know with the bits of information we got that the game is being simplified, I don't know what kind of feedback they got about the gameplay but, making it simple is not making it any more good than it was. The simple/easier is not always the best.
It seems they are just counting with the history by making the game play simpler. I know we can trust the writers, they sure will delivery a great history, but a great history don't make a good game.
I do agree very much with people saying that the success of the game was because it was different, a great mix of epic history with a more classical gameplay, this is what made the game stands out and delivered a great experience, simplifying things will just trow away what made this game so unique.
 

[BruceVC]

Any serious gamer knows you cannot produce the complexity of a PC game on a console

Are Console games fun....sure....do they sell ...yes obviously

But we now get this deluge of watered down games released for both PC and Console

Look at BG2...and you'll understand what I mean when you see how the depth of the game-play has been reduced

ME2 was the biggest joke

I can't begrudge Bioware ...they have to make money and appeal to a larger audience

For me I will never buy a console ...I am a PC traditionalist and I want to be challanged when I play a game

[Nighteye2]

Schuback wrote...
DAO was ported from PC to consoles, therefore the PC version was more superior. This time, both PC and console players will benefit. Win-win. WIth all due respect, but what more do you want?

- DX10/11 eyecandy
- ability to zoom out reasonably far for a tactical, BG2-like overview of combat
- full-text dialogue
- lots of slots for hotkeys and easy mouse access

To name but a few.

[Lyna357]

Seems these topic always come down to PC vs Console. I bought and played DA:O on the 360 console simply for the comfort factor (I was recovering from a surgery that had me on the couch for several weeks). A few months later, I bought it for the PC. Since having played both I feel that I am not biased one way or another, I would have to say that the PC version's interface is superior to the Xbox version. The game graphics also look much better on the computer. Don't know how much Edge of Reality has to do with that - just saying.



I have not yet decided if I will buy DA2, and if I do, which version I will choose but I am leaning toward the PC if it remains more tactical. Guess I will wait to see when the game actually comes out.

[Schuback]

Nighteye2 wrote...

Schuback wrote...
DAO was ported from PC to consoles, therefore the PC version was more superior. This time, both PC and console players will benefit. Win-win. WIth all due respect, but what more do you want?

- DX10/11 eyecandy
- ability to zoom out reasonably far for a tactical, BG2-like overview of combat
- full-text dialogue
- lots of slots for hotkeys and easy mouse access

To name but a few.

True. But remember, not everyone plays it  on maximum graphic settings. It may be risky for Bioware if many of the PC players are unable to play DAII given the heavy system requirements.

Again, the console is not that bad... they just need time to work with it, that's all. Many cool games were able to run on them. I doubt DAII will be far off anyway.

[Haexpane]

A PC gamer mentioned Crysis, time to lock the thread.



I bet 80% of the people who complain about PC DAO pirated/stole their copy

[rexil]

Haexpane wrote...

A PC gamer mentioned Crysis, time to lock the thread.

I bet 80% of the people who complain about PC DAO pirated/stole their copy

Sure, everyone just hacked the forums and placed the game icons below theirs avatars.
/ridicule

[slikster]

rexil wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

A PC gamer mentioned Crysis, time to lock the thread.

I bet 80% of the people who complain about PC DAO pirated/stole their copy

Sure, everyone just hacked the forums and placed the game icons below theirs avatars.
/ridicule

Also, notice who doesn't have them for DA.