315 réponses à ce sujet

[Brockololly]

I think if the landscapes in DA just had a greater draw distance, even if it was just some prerendered landscape, that would go a long way to making the world seem more alive. Too often in Origins it felt like you were just playing in a boxed in level.

[Blakes 7]

Hmmm I've noticed some posters claim the focus is on gameplay. Ah but aren't recent bioware games more focused on cinematics than gameplay anyways? With noticeable results in engagement for me at least.



Graphics are average to good, just disappointing forests and lack of finish in some places in dao. Remember the codex where you got numbers for the entries? That is what I mean about lack of finish as well as missing textures, not functional or well presented. Hopefully improved for da2 :-)

[Persona]

Honestly if you dont like the graphics then dont play the game. I thought the graphics to the first one was fine. The most successful games on the market have had good graphics but great gameplay. Honest oblivion didnt have the greatest graphics either but it made a ton of money. I think dragon age should stick to what it is doing and worry less of graphics and more on gameplay. No matter how good though graphics are (I have noticed) someone always finds something wrong with them.

[StingingVelvet]

Blakes 7 wrote...

Hmmm I've noticed some posters claim the focus is on gameplay. Ah but aren't recent bioware games more focused on cinematics than gameplay anyways? With noticeable results in engagement for me at least.

I found the core gameplay of cover-based shooter and tactical battles to be very good in ME2 and DAO both, respetively.

[adneate]

Persona wrote...
Honest oblivion didnt have the greatest graphics either but it made a ton of money.

Did you actually play that game on PC or console? Because on PC Oblivion had the same reputation as Crysis does. When you upgraded your PC the first thing you loaded up was Oblivion to see how many things you could turn on before it started to choke your machine. For 2006 Oblivion was pretty damn near the top in terms of punishing graphics cards and processors.

[Avilia]

I've found that when games focused on how 'shiny' their graphics are, its usually because that's pretty much all there is to recommend them.



I'd much prefer less waving grass and more story content tbh.

[nhsk]

Graphics doesn't make a game great, gameplay does - There is a reason I still play games from the 90 - They may suck graphics wise, but gameplay beats modern games almost everytime.

[-Semper-]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

jasonirma wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I'd assume it would be maximizing the use of an engine. For starters ME 2 runs on a different engine than DA:O did. Switching over would be an issue.

I'm assuming that the DA2 engine is different from DA:O.  Given that they had to redo all of the art properties to make DA2, presumably with a different engine to support these changes, it begs the question of why not using the ME2 engine to drive DA2 graphics?  I don't think that would be any more of an overhaul than making DA2 to begin with.  But I'm not a designer, so I can only speculate.

i think the devs said it's the same engine of origins that's it's being used for DA2, but optimized. that's one of the reasons why the development time is shorter since they're now used to working with the engine.

it's the same engine and there is nothing optimized - it's just altered! they cut polygons from the landscape to add them to the characters, which is clearly visible. now this is claimed as the new and fresh art style to separate from the lotr visuals and drives right into empty environments lacking life.

[Ninja Mage]

Yeah I'll take good gameplay over graphics. FF14 looks gorgeous but the gameplay is straight from 2001 ~throws up just thinking about the slow combat and endless macros and nonsensical gameplay elements~

[tmp7704]

StingingVelvet wrote...

Low-res textures are low-res textures regardless of resotion, was my point.  Yes, higher resolutions make them more obvious, but they're low-res either way.

And my counter-point was if you define "low-res" as some of the graphics being pixellated in certain situations and no matter the screen resolution, your expectations are simply set unreasonably high.

[StingingVelvet]

tmp7704 wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...

Low-res textures are low-res textures regardless of resotion, was my point.  Yes, higher resolutions make them more obvious, but they're low-res either way.

And my counter-point was if you define "low-res" as some of the graphics being pixellated in certain situations and no matter the screen resolution, your expectations are simply set unreasonably high.

I'm defining low-res as in the textures are 64x64 instead of 256x256, or whatever.  Look at the ground in the Witcher 2 shot, then look at the ground in the DA2 shot.  One is a much lower resolution texture than the other.

[StingingVelvet]

nhsk wrote...

Graphics doesn't make a game great, gameplay does - There is a reason I still play games from the 90 - They may suck graphics wise, but gameplay beats modern games almost everytime.

Completely agree.

Your comment has nothing to do with the thread though.  This thread is not about which is more important, graphics or gameplay.  No comment about that was ever made by me in the OP.

[Kajros]

I think the graphics in comparison to Dragon Age Origins is a lot better.

[0x30A88]

lv12medic wrote...

I always thought, as a game is being built, they just throw in cheesy place holder textures to test mechanics and level design and such. It gets filled in later as the texture people actually spend time working on the final product textures.

I too thought that, but why use those placeholders in a screenshot, which is there to advertize and build up hype.

[StingingVelvet]

Kajros wrote...

I think the graphics in comparison to Dragon Age Origins is a lot better.

Well I see you have the PS3 version, I can't say for that, but the PC version of DA:O looked pretty good cranked up... it had some crisp textures and some detailed environments.

[SpiderFan1217]

StingingVelvet wrote...

SpiderFan1217 wrote...

While I disagree with your comparison of DA and ME2. (I loved everything about that game.) I agree with the point you were trying to make.    These teenage punks are spoiled. 

I'm 30 years old and said repeteadly that I am playing a 10 year old RPG right now, and indeed play older games as much as newer ones.

If you're going to be condescending, at least know about the person you are talking down to.

Here are some simple facts: graphics do NOT make a game.  I know this.  Graphics are much worse than the DA2 shots in games that are amazing, like Arcanum, Gothic 2, KOTOR and Fallout.  I know this.  I am not saying the graphics need to be more impressive for the game to be good and I am not saying graphics are more important than story, characters or gameplay.

I wish people would stop with these tired comebacks that mean nothing to the original post or topic at hand.  Just because all the above things are true and graphics are not the essential factor in the games does not mean they are not important, or that they shouldn't look better.

Dragon Age 2 is a AAA game from a well-funded studio under the banner of EA, a mega-publisher.  It will sell for $60 and will have a massive ad campaign behind it.  Given all those factors there is no reason for it to look as low-res and lacking in detail as it does.

Priestly already said the game will look much better before it releases, so in a sense he agrees the current shots do not show the game at its best.  I'm not being weird here.

  Um.... it was a joke. I'm only 20. Lighten up. 

[Onyx Jaguar]

"your graphics are weak old man"

[Kajros]

StingingVelvet wrote...

Kajros wrote...

I think the graphics in comparison to Dragon Age Origins is a lot better.

Well I see you have the PS3 version, I can't say for that, but the PC version of DA:O looked pretty good cranked up... it had some crisp textures and some detailed environments.

I plan on buying the PC Ultimate Edition.  But sadly my PC can not run the agme that well.  It couldn't run The WItcher.  Still Dragon Age Origins on my nice HD TV was a lot of fun! 

[tmp7704]

StingingVelvet wrote...

I'm defining low-res as in the textures are 64x64 instead of 256x256, or whatever.  Look at the ground in the Witcher 2 shot, then look at the ground in the DA2 shot.  One is a much lower resolution texture than the other.

Textures in DAO are in range of 512-2048, i don't expect them to be smaller in DA2. These are quite typical resolutions and not really low-res.

Regarding the Witcher shot, pay attention to the character portrayed on it, that gives good idea how much farther out and higher the camera is in it, than it's placed in the comparison shot of DA2 you used. I'm sure you are well aware that makes considerable difference in appearance of textures and how pixellated they may seem. Consider what DAO looks like at similar angle and distance:

Modifié par tmp7704, 02 octobre 2010 - 11:59 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

Its kind of the same reason why RTS games have generally had worse graphics than FPS games on the screenshot level.



Not saying that RTS games have had bad graphics, even though I will say comparatively yes they do have worse graphics. But it is a limitation of the system and resources.

[Brockololly]

slimgrin wrote...

Art design matters just as much if not more than graphical quality, and it's the new art design that ruffled so many feathers.

Thats very true.

I 'm not a fan of what I've seen thus far with the new art design really, but I'll wait until we've seen a bit more. I think the thing that irritates people about elements of the new art design is that its a matter of consistency. If the darkspawn or qunari look a certain way in Origins, it stands to reason they should look similar in the next game.

It bothers me most with the darkspawn in that, sure, they looked a bit too Orc-ish in Origins maybe, but now the hurlocks just look like zombies from any of the other million video games shoving zombies in there. Its a subjective thing to be sure, but it most bothers me when they go about retconning the look of already established things.

It'll really irk me if they go about messing with the faces of established characters that may be making cameos. I know they have a new face morph system, but I'll be royally ticked off if old companions are only recognizable by voice because the new art style meant they had massive plastic surgery.

[Sirsmirkalot]

slimgrin wrote...

Art design matters just as much if not more than graphical quality, and it's the new art design that ruffled so many feathers.

I agree with this. I actually liked Origin's more realistic touch, but this Final Fantasy greatsword style just isn't my thing.

And the new darkspawn look downright aweful.

[Nerevar-as]

At least they made something up for the Qunari with abit of basis in Origins, the DS is just a retcon. It´s also one of those designs I can´t help wondering not only who designed it, but who approved of it. Far from being as terrible as the newborn from alien 4 or 4th level Goku, but still... Origins DS were scary to a point and unpleasant to watch, these are just zombies, and not very ugly ones.



Not so worried about the faces, the style hasn´t changed that much. TW2 is worse here, even if Triss looks better, she looks different.

[Drasill]

Well, it uses the same engine as the first so I wouldn't expect a dramatic improvement. How long was origins in development? Yea, their engine is dated but after putting time and money into it I'm sure they want to get the most out of it. Hopefully for the next DA they pick of CD Projekt's TSOOD Engine.