1658 réponses à ce sujet

[Kerilus]

joriandrake wrote...

aaniadyen wrote...

octoberfire wrote...

Wow, the armor is really ugly. It's looks like it was patched together with the fur of several puppies.

Puppy-skin armor is the only easy way for a begninning evil overlord to get evil points into his wardrobe!

It is only cool if it is out of dalmatian skin ../../../images/forum/emoticons/wizard.png

Epantiras wrote...

Ok, maybe I'm overreacting, but Hawke jumping and swinging that enormous sword at super speed looks ridiculous to me. Maybe people consider battle animations in DA:O too slow (but I personally liked them), but now they are too fast.

Question: What did you think of the Warden jumping on dragons and troll earlier in DA1 then?

Jumping on an ogre or dragon in order to give them a final blow is rather different from jumping and hitting the floor in order to emit some sort of myterious shock wave.

[joriandrake]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I'm not making this up.  The justification they gave was that the weapons needed to be indentifiable even when the camera was fully zoomed out.

If that was true, and that reason has gone away, then either they have a new reason for large weapons, or they simply forgot to make them smaller.

How about "because it looks awesome." That is, in most cases, a good enough reason for a certain art direction in my eyes.

Certain? Most of them, Art evolved and built on being awesome, every single diretion of it.

[ViSeiRa]

aaniadyen wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

sanadawarrior wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Regardless of the animations, the justification for the weapons being so big in the first game was that they needed to be identifiable from the high tactical camera angle.

If the camera no longer zooms out as far (and by all accounts, it doesn't), then the need for the oversized weapons is now gone.

Even if DA2 played exactly like DAO, they should still have made the weapons smaller because the reason for their large size has gone away.

Unless they liked them like that? This is their game, they shouldn't have to do a damn thing they dont want to.

It was their justification.  If they have a new justification, I'd like to hear it.

The old one no longer applies (unless it does, in which case that would be good news).

Laidlaw said they were working on the new camera, trying to get it identical to Origins. He said things were looking good so far, just not finished yet.

He also said in another thread that it will never pull as far as Origins, just above the character view that you can pan, no more zoom out.

[sanadawarrior]

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

God lord..good thing GoG.com announced there going to release Planescape Torment.

They didn't announce they were going to release it, they announced they had released it. Quickly to gog.com!

[joriandrake]

Kerilus wrote...

joriandrake wrote...

aaniadyen wrote...

octoberfire wrote...

Wow, the armor is really ugly. It's looks like it was patched together with the fur of several puppies.

Puppy-skin armor is the only easy way for a begninning evil overlord to get evil points into his wardrobe!

It is only cool if it is out of dalmatian skin ../../../images/forum/emoticons/wizard.png

Epantiras wrote...

Ok, maybe I'm overreacting, but Hawke jumping and swinging that enormous sword at super speed looks ridiculous to me. Maybe people consider battle animations in DA:O too slow (but I personally liked them), but now they are too fast.

Question: What did you think of the Warden jumping on dragons and troll earlier in DA1 then?

Jumping on an ogre or dragon in order to give them a final blow is rather different from jumping and hitting the floor in order to emit some sort of myterious shock wave.

In massive armor? I don't think so

[the_one_54321]

joriandrake wrote...

Kerilus wrote...
Jumping on an ogre or dragon in order to give them a final blow is rather different from jumping and hitting the floor in order to emit some sort of myterious shock wave.

In massive armor? I don't think so

I hope your response is hyperbole. Because if not then it's ludicrous.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 28 septembre 2010 - 07:24 .

[javierabegazo]

Reminder to all that sometimes, it's ok to agree to disagree.





It was confirmed that this is the exaggerated Varric-drinking-too-much version?

[bsbcaer]

Monica83 wrote...

so we have...
Paraphrase system ala mass effect with tones
Anime style Animations..
Static classes only to keep them distinct...

*epic facepalm*

Ok, we get it, you don't like what they're doing...it doesn't mean that you have to keep repeating the same thing time after time after time after time after time.............after time after time after time......after time.  Nothing we say can change your mind, no matter the arguments we make, so why continue posting the same thing again and again and again?

[sanadawarrior]

ViSeirA wrote...

sanadawarrior wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

sanadawarrior wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Regardless of the animations, the justification for the weapons being so big in the first game was that they needed to be identifiable from the high tactical camera angle.

If the camera no longer zooms out as far (and by all accounts, it doesn't), then the need for the oversized weapons is now gone.

Even if DA2 played exactly like DAO, they should still have made the weapons smaller because the reason for their large size has gone away.

Unless they liked them like that? This is their game, they shouldn't have to do a damn thing they dont want to.

It was their justification.  If they have a new justification, I'd like to hear it.

The old one no longer applies (unless it does, in which case that would be good news).

Again, I don't see why they have to justify a damn thing to us, its their game they can make it however they want.

And which one of us in these posts implied otherwise? Devs need that kind of feedback, especially at this middle stage of development when such things can stil be changed and/or tweaked.

The very post I quoted stated that the swords SHOULD be smaller. It's a different thing to say "I want smaller weapons because of x" than saying that. At the end of the day this is their game, non of us are working on it, nor funding it, making demands as well as dictating art style and games style is a bit much.

Modifié par sanadawarrior, 28 septembre 2010 - 07:29 .

[the_one_54321]

joriandrake wrote...
Certain? Most of them, Art evolved and built on being awesome, every single diretion of it.

I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. Is english not your first language?

[aaniadyen]

ViSeirA wrote...

aaniadyen wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

sanadawarrior wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Regardless of the animations, the justification for the weapons being so big in the first game was that they needed to be identifiable from the high tactical camera angle.

If the camera no longer zooms out as far (and by all accounts, it doesn't), then the need for the oversized weapons is now gone.

Even if DA2 played exactly like DAO, they should still have made the weapons smaller because the reason for their large size has gone away.

Unless they liked them like that? This is their game, they shouldn't have to do a damn thing they dont want to.

It was their justification.  If they have a new justification, I'd like to hear it.

The old one no longer applies (unless it does, in which case that would be good news).

Laidlaw said they were working on the new camera, trying to get it identical to Origins. He said things were looking good so far, just not finished yet.

He also said in another thread that it will never pull as far as Origins, just above the character view that you can pan, no more zoom out.

Link?

[the_one_54321]

aaniadyen wrote...
Link?

He did say that. If you think I am going to go hunting for that individual post in the pile of gameplay posts, you're off your rocker.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 28 septembre 2010 - 07:28 .

[ViSeiRa]

javierabegazo wrote...

Reminder to all that sometimes, it's ok to agree to disagree.


It was confirmed that this is the exaggerated Varric-drinking-too-much version?

Yep, but the animations won't differ at all, they'll be the same, just less gore and enemies will take more hits to die is all.

[sanadawarrior]

JoePinasi1989 wrote...

sanadawarrior wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

sanadawarrior wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Regardless of the animations, the justification for the weapons being so big in the first game was that they needed to be identifiable from the high tactical camera angle.

If the camera no longer zooms out as far (and by all accounts, it doesn't), then the need for the oversized weapons is now gone.

Even if DA2 played exactly like DAO, they should still have made the weapons smaller because the reason for their large size has gone away.

Unless they liked them like that? This is their game, they shouldn't have to do a damn thing they dont want to.

It was their justification.  If they have a new justification, I'd like to hear it.

The old one no longer applies (unless it does, in which case that would be good news).

Again, I don't see why they have to justify a damn thing to us, its their game they can make it however they want.

Heh... apologists...

How so?

[joriandrake]

bsbcaer wrote...

SirShreK wrote...

JoePinasi1989 wrote...

I must have a mental block or something... I just can't get over how big that effing swwod is.

You know what Freud would say, don't you?

Sometimes a sword is just a sword...

The sword is not enough
But it is such a perfect place to start ... my love
And if you're strong enough
Together we can take the sword apart ... my love


inspired by this

javierabegazo wrote...

Reminder to all that sometimes, it's ok to agree to disagree.


It was confirmed that this is the exaggerated Varric-drinking-too-much version?

I believe it was, although I don't think it will mean weapon size/animation/ect will be much different in "non-tale" game, wasting time on such things just seem absurd

[Kerilus]

javierabegazo wrote...

Reminder to all that sometimes, it's ok to agree to disagree.


It was confirmed that this is the exaggerated Varric-drinking-too-much version?

Yes, it was confirmed. But it's still unclear as to what extent are those moves exaggerated.

[ViSeiRa]

aaniadyen wrote...

ViSeirA wrote...

aaniadyen wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

sanadawarrior wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Regardless of the animations, the justification for the weapons being so big in the first game was that they needed to be identifiable from the high tactical camera angle.

If the camera no longer zooms out as far (and by all accounts, it doesn't), then the need for the oversized weapons is now gone.

Even if DA2 played exactly like DAO, they should still have made the weapons smaller because the reason for their large size has gone away.

Unless they liked them like that? This is their game, they shouldn't have to do a damn thing they dont want to.

It was their justification.  If they have a new justification, I'd like to hear it.

The old one no longer applies (unless it does, in which case that would be good news).

Laidlaw said they were working on the new camera, trying to get it identical to Origins. He said things were looking good so far, just not finished yet.

He also said in another thread that it will never pull as far as Origins, just above the character view that you can pan, no more zoom out.

Link?

Last post: http://social.biowar...ndex/4376174/37

Also check this: http://www.rpgwatch....ead.php?t=11115

[bsbcaer]

javierabegazo wrote...

Reminder to all that sometimes, it's ok to agree to disagree.


It was confirmed that this is the exaggerated Varric-drinking-too-much version?

Confirmed several times

[aaniadyen]

the_one_54321 wrote...

aaniadyen wrote...
Link?

He did say that. If you think I am going to go hunting for that individual post in the pile of gameplay posts, you're off your rocker.

I don't doubt it, I just want to see what he said about it. I'm a fan too <_<

Can we still pan the camera around at the full zoom-out distance by dragging our mouse to the edge of the screen?

[joriandrake]

the_one_54321 wrote...

joriandrake wrote...
Certain? Most of them, Art evolved and built on being awesome, every single diretion of it.

I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. Is english not your first language?

No it is not but that doesn't matter, what I wanted to say that art itself is nothing less than materialisation of awesomness, and video games are not different, if something looks more awesome being big or flashy, then that is the direction the evolution of video games will take.

[ViSeiRa]

sanadawarrior wrote...

ViSeirA wrote...

sanadawarrior wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

sanadawarrior wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Regardless of the animations, the justification for the weapons being so big in the first game was that they needed to be identifiable from the high tactical camera angle.

If the camera no longer zooms out as far (and by all accounts, it doesn't), then the need for the oversized weapons is now gone.

Even if DA2 played exactly like DAO, they should still have made the weapons smaller because the reason for their large size has gone away.

Unless they liked them like that? This is their game, they shouldn't have to do a damn thing they dont want to.

It was their justification.  If they have a new justification, I'd like to hear it.

The old one no longer applies (unless it does, in which case that would be good news).

Again, I don't see why they have to justify a damn thing to us, its their game they can make it however they want.

And which one of us in these posts implied otherwise? Devs need that kind of feedback, especially at this middle stage of development when such things can stil be changed and/or tweaked.

The very post I quoted stated that the swords SHOULD be smaller. It's a different thing to say "I want smaller weapons because of x" than saying that. At the end of the day this is their game, non of us are working on it, nor funding it, making demands as well as dictating art style and games style is a bit much.

I want and I need are different, if a certain condition evaluates to false then you can't justify it, the same happens with the weapon sizes, I don't care about the length to be honest, they need to tweak the width, they didn't look big, they looked bulky.

And no one is making demands, every one here is just voicing opinions, some might be more vocal about it, but that's the internet for you 

[Fishy]

Okay since i am the most sexy individual in this thread .. Bioware need to release a gameplay video with commentary before the internet's flooded by video recorded with crappy cam somewhere in Alaska during an esquimos gaming session inside their igloo.

[aaniadyen]

ViSeirA wrote...

aaniadyen wrote...

ViSeirA wrote...

aaniadyen wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

sanadawarrior wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Regardless of the animations, the justification for the weapons being so big in the first game was that they needed to be identifiable from the high tactical camera angle.

If the camera no longer zooms out as far (and by all accounts, it doesn't), then the need for the oversized weapons is now gone.

Even if DA2 played exactly like DAO, they should still have made the weapons smaller because the reason for their large size has gone away.

Unless they liked them like that? This is their game, they shouldn't have to do a damn thing they dont want to.

It was their justification.  If they have a new justification, I'd like to hear it.

The old one no longer applies (unless it does, in which case that would be good news).

Laidlaw said they were working on the new camera, trying to get it identical to Origins. He said things were looking good so far, just not finished yet.

He also said in another thread that it will never pull as far as Origins, just above the character view that you can pan, no more zoom out.

Link?

Last post: http://social.biowar...ndex/4376174/37

Also check this: http://www.rpgwatch....ead.php?t=11115

Good news! Thanks a lot!