339 réponses à ce sujet

[Morroian]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

You're aware the 360 is the main sku, and the PC version will more than likely be a port for the most part, GUI non withstanding right?

You're aware that this is not correct right.

[Morroian]

Brockololly wrote...

Morroian wrote...
Good thing its not a made for consoles game then.

Really?  This interview with associate producer Heather Rabatich would suggest otherwise:

Which contradicts what Mike Laidlaw has said.

[Brockololly]

Morroian wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

Morroian wrote...
Good thing its not a made for consoles game then.

Really?  This interview with associate producer Heather Rabatich would suggest otherwise:

Which contradicts what Mike Laidlaw has said.

Not really. They've only said that they're building it across all 3. But you'd have to be crazy to think they're building 3 entirely seperate versions of the same game. They're building one version that works on the hardware/memory limitations of the consoles, which is not as robust as what you'd have on a gaming PC. So the base version is being primarily made with the consoles in mind and not first built on the PC like Origins.

The question is how much they're doing to the PC version once its functional on the PC- and by their insistent talk on parity amongst the 3 platforms and even in that interview, the only difference in the PC and console version will be the GUI and the Tactical camera. And if thats the case, I'm sorry, but you're not taking advantage of everything a modern gaming PC can do compared to a 5 year old console limited by 512MB of memory.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Morroian wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

You're aware the 360 is the main sku, and the PC version will more than likely be a port for the most part, GUI non withstanding right?

You're aware that this is not correct right.

It is right. The game is being built with the console versions in mind first, since 1. there's far more of the mainstream market to try and capture there, and 2. DAO wasn't as good on consoles as it was on the PC. It's been said more than once by people working on the game.

Thats not to say the PC version won't have a PC centric GUI but PC is no longer the lead platform.

[Morroian]

Brockololly wrote...

The question is how much they're doing to the PC version once its functional on the PC- and by their insistent talk on parity amongst the 3 platforms and even in that interview, the only difference in the PC and console version will be the GUI and the Tactical camera. And if thats the case, I'm sorry, but you're not taking advantage of everything a modern gaming PC can do compared to a 5 year old console limited by 512MB of memory.

I know it won't, but its not just a console port with all that implies as some have stated.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Morroian wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

The question is how much they're doing to the PC version once its functional on the PC- and by their insistent talk on parity amongst the 3 platforms and even in that interview, the only difference in the PC and console version will be the GUI and the Tactical camera. And if thats the case, I'm sorry, but you're not taking advantage of everything a modern gaming PC can do compared to a 5 year old console limited by 512MB of memory.

I know it won't, but its not just a console port with all that implies as some have stated.

You're basically saying you know the consoles are holding the game back from everything it could be on the pc, without actually acknowledging that it's essentially going to be a port with a PC centric GUI and maybe some form of tactical camera. Thats an..interesting point of view.

[Tiax Rules All]

yeah the end of that interview was a major downer, with the talk about the developing on consoles and length of game, graphics and content. Sad, sad stuff.



There is no denying that if it was a PC only game it would be better, don't try and talk me out of it, tis true. When developing across multiple platforms it makes the most sense as a developer to build for your weakest link then port up. This is the sole reason I take my PC superiority stance.



I have no doubt that this will be mostly a console to PC port with slightly diff HUD and pause ability.



Bioware could never say that so frankly as it could only be seen as the negative for PC gamers as it is.

[Withidread]

So... if it's running the same engine as the first game... and said engine was originally designed with a PC in mind and then made to run on a console.... further modifying, or optimizing, said engine for a console makes this a console to PC port how?



I'm also having trouble seeing how this question is related to the original topic of discussion.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Tiax Rules All wrote...
I have no doubt that this will be mostly a console to PC port with slightly diff HUD and pause ability.

Bioware could never say that so frankly as it could only be seen as the negative for PC gamers as it is.

We also couldn't say that because you can also pause on the consoles.

*waits for inevitable backlash*

Just to save you guys the stress, there's not a ton of point in gnashing your teeth because DA II isn't being developed ONLY on the PC. It's not like we're sitting around cutting things because they don't work on the console. If things are cut, it's because they don't work, in our opinion. Disagree with those decisions, but don't pin them on your Xboxy friends.

You could even, were you feeling charitible, acknowledge that it's a LOT easier for us to just develop for the two consoles, since they have parity in control scheme, and that all the extra work we're doing to have a PC GUI is a sign of our continuing commitment to our PC fans.

Or is that no fun?

[Wicked 702]

Withidread wrote...

So... if it's running the same engine as the first game... and said engine was originally designed with a PC in mind and then made to run on a console.... further modifying, or optimizing, said engine for a console makes this a console to PC port how?

I'm also having trouble seeing how this question is related to the original topic of discussion.

+1

[In Exile]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

I'm not quite sure how stagnating PC games into being forced to use Directx 9 indefinately or at least until the next console gen, is a positive. With the Quad Core PC's and SLI/Crossfire options available now, it's quite easy to build a machine that can handle just about anything you can throw at it.

For this generation. But if things were moving at the pace they were in the early 2000s, your top of the line gaming PC became unable to handle high-performance graphics inside of two years. You could extend the life to the PC up to another 2 years if you were willing to get things at much lower specs, but that isn't fun or interesting at all.

slimgrin wrote...
Its not just about graphics. If that were
the case I would have bought a console.

Of course not. For me, it's largely the mouse UI. But that hardware issue is graphical in nature.

Besides, a good pc game
allows you to adjust settings for your build. This has always been the
case. Thats why I can run SC2 and GTAIV and SF4 on a medium/high pc
build. PC gaming allows the kind of flexibility console gaming could never
support.

Off topic, but I had to say it.

Right, a good PC that has near top-of-the-line hardware. Otherwise an older PC has to run things on lower settings. The lifespan of a "good" PC is not very significant unless you are very adept at building it yourself, hounding for hardware at a discount. There's a lot of maintenance cost, and personally I don't have the time or the expertiese to do this. Consoles, and hardware stagnation by extension, allows me to have a leisure activity instead of a chore.

But you're right - this is off topic so we shouldn't really post on it anymore. I just felt it needed to be said, that the PC is not the be all end all, despite being IMO superior as an interface.

[Icinix]

This whole console / PC thing has always bothered me in the fact that it divides groups that quite frankly should be united.



We should be embracing our gaming brethren tight to our bosom and supporting each others endeavorer to live in a world where all can play games equally on any platform they so choose.



Damn you people who would deny others the games you so enjoy, or cast stones at those who would rather use a controller than a keyboard or vice versa.



We are all gamers in a world that still frowns and judges the industry so harshly, until we stop fighting amongst ourselves, total acceptance from all corners will never be in our grasp.



You should be ashamed of yourselves.



/rant

[Morroian]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

You're basically saying you know the consoles are holding the game back from everything it could be on the pc, without actually acknowledging that it's essentially going to be a port

Holding some advanced tech back so it will play on the consoles does not imply its a console port, by which I mean developed entirely on consoles then later ported to PC.

Besides advanced tech like that is usually just high end graphics related, I wouldn't have picked you for a graphics ****. I thought you were all about the hardcore role playing. 

[Brockololly]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
Just to save you guys the stress, there's not a ton of point in gnashing your teeth because DA II isn't being developed ONLY on the PC. It's not like we're sitting around cutting things because they don't work on the console. If things are cut, it's because they don't work, in our opinion. Disagree with those decisions, but don't pin them on your Xboxy friends.

I don't care that its a multiplatform game or that the console versions may be getting more attention to bring it up to the same quality as Origins was on the PC. What I'm concerned with is how much relative effort is going into the PC version to play up to the unique strengths of the PC. Stuff that goes beyond the GUI (which is important) - like having a full range of graphics options with actual high res textures that the PC can support. For example, the ME2 PC port, even with textures maxed, had terrible textures on the bodies of all characters and could only be fixed via modding. Yet the ME1 PC port had great high res textures.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
You could even, were you feeling charitible, acknowledge that it's a LOT easier for us to just develop for the two consoles, since they have parity in control scheme, and that all the extra work we're doing to have a PC GUI is a sign of our continuing commitment to our PC fans.

Well, sure, but what, should us PC gamers simply be grateful we're getting a PC version at all? I'm sure it is totally easier to make one version for the consoles with them having the same control scheme and relative hardware and I absolutely appreciate the work being done for a PC version- seriously, thank you for that!

But it just slightly irks me to see such a console centric approach for DA2 now given how DA was touted as a return to the BG style, PC RPGs for so long. Origins just felt like a damn good PC game built with the PC in mind. And it seems to me that most of the changes to DA2 are being made with the console gamers in mind. Maybe thats not the case and DA2 will feel right at home on the PC- won't know until we can play it. Obviously you want to fix up the console version and thats awesome- but just don't delegate then PC version to some  "Oh, well it works on the consoles so thats good enough for PC" mentality that so many ports have.

But as I 've said before, I just want the PC version to feel like a proper PC game and not one of the numerous shoddy console to PC ports out there now. That would really stink, given how awesome Origins is on the PC. I trust you guys can make DA2 an awesome PC game- or at least I hope so;)

[Querne]

David Gaider wrote...

I'm not saying they will be different, but they might be. We're not changing the look of the game just for the hell of it, but with a specific artistic vision in mind-- that, yes, is different from DAO's.

So this artistic vision contains latex costumed zombie goofys? Scary! I mean scary by itself, the latex goofys look rather  strange..

[Querne]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

You could even, were you feeling charitible, acknowledge that it's a LOT easier for us to just develop for the two consoles, since they have parity in control scheme, and that all the extra work we're doing to have a PC GUI is a sign of our continuing commitment to our PC fans.

Or is that no fun?

I guess your continuing commitment to us PC fans is similary charitable as our feelings may be..  

Modifié par Querne, 26 octobre 2010 - 05:04 .

[Leonia]

Icinix wrote...

This whole console / PC thing has always bothered me in the fact that it divides groups that quite frankly should be united.

We should be embracing our gaming brethren tight to our bosom and supporting each others endeavorer to live in a world where all can play games equally on any platform they so choose.

Damn you people who would deny others the games you so enjoy, or cast stones at those who would rather use a controller than a keyboard or vice versa.

We are all gamers in a world that still frowns and judges the industry so harshly, until we stop fighting amongst ourselves, total acceptance from all corners will never be in our grasp.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

/rant

Quoting for emphasis.

Now I shall continue lurking in the thread without daring to post for fear of the "console v. PC" debate-cooties.

[Dave of Canada]

Querne wrote...
I guess your continuing commitment to us PC fans is similary charitable as our feelings may be..  

What do you want him to say?

"Never mind about the console, we'll make everything for PC"? 

Edit: Made less hostile.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 26 octobre 2010 - 05:19 .

[Alyka]

There are different groups of people in the Free Marches, and there are beaches.This could account for the tan skin and more human-like teeth.Maybe they remain on the surface for longer periods of time compared to the darkspawn in Ferelden who dwell mostly in the Deep Roads, and only come up to the surface on occasion.Sun and wind exposure can turn skin color.

Of course the artistic aspect could be that the devs decided to change their appearance so that they don't become boring or stagnant.Or, they changed them to reflect the game setting/new area.

These are just speculations of mine.Even though I liked the way the darkspawn looked in DA:O, I'm not opposed to the new design.I do believe that there should be some consistency with certain things in the game series.But change is good.So long as there's a reason.

Modifié par Alyka, 26 octobre 2010 - 05:40 .

[Fortlowe]

slimgrin wrote...

 

If they end up looking this scary, I'll be happy with the new darkspawn design. Seriously, that guy looks pure evil. 

This is precisely where I'm thinking the art direction for the darkspawn is going. I still don't see what all the fuss is  about. It's obvious that this is the goal BW has in mind for the hurlocks when compared to the hurloks from the gameplay footage. Awakenings was as much a test run and a primer on this design as it was an Expansion.

Modifié par Fortlowe, 26 octobre 2010 - 05:52 .

[Anarya]

I don't even think they look *that* different, especially from the Awakening ones. Perhaps I'm alone in this.



The only thing I dislike about them is the spiky armor which I think reads as low-poly, like I'm playing on the lowest graphic settings even if I'm not. But it seems to be a thing in DA2.

[Irx]

Everything I've heard about the game so far sounds like ****, a typical console action adventure for teens, "accessible" to any retard or granny out there. I'm not pre-ordering this. =(

[Sable Rhapsody]

slimgrin wrote...

 

If they end up looking this scary, I'll be happy with the new darkspawn design. Seriously, that guy looks pure evil. 

Agreed.  One of the few areas where I thought Awakenings improved on Origins was the overall look of thing.  The darkspawn in particular just looked cooler.  The Disciples exuded evil, as did the Mother, and the Architect.  If that's the route they take in DA2, and I do think the DA2 darkspawn resemble the DA:A darkspawn more, I'll be happy as a clam.

Also, the First likes colors.  Therefore, I like him.

[nightcobra]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

 

If they end up looking this scary, I'll be happy with the new darkspawn design. Seriously, that guy looks pure evil. 

Agreed.  One of the few areas where I thought Awakenings improved on Origins was the overall look of thing.  The darkspawn in particular just looked cooler.  The Disciples exuded evil, as did the Mother, and the Architect.  If that's the route they take in DA2, and I do think the DA2 darkspawn resemble the DA:A darkspawn more, I'll be happy as a clam.

Also, the First likes colors.  Therefore, I like him.

take off the textures from the first's face and his base model is pretty much equal to the new darkspawn design, so a few textures to their faces will do wonders, a bit of a wound here, a gash over there, a splash of oozing taint and blood over there, a bit more paler face and there you go, you end up with a darkspawn design pretty similar to the first (which is good because they were the best darkspawn design in my opinion)