393 réponses à ce sujet

[Saibh]

Ympulse wrote...

Saibh wrote...
Also, I'd really like to see where you draw the comparisons specifically towards DA2 and FF. Really, is it the Destiny trailer? Because the Sacred Ashes trailer was pretty similar. You know, spiky armor or big swords are not specifically Final Fantasy things that they made popular or invented. They might be characteristic, however (although I can't recall too much armor with spikes).

End of the work day, it was coming off the top of my head. I picked the most visible JRPG in order to draw an easily seen comparisin, as opposed to something more obscure.

Then please explain the similarities and how they're similar to an average JRPG in a way that's relevant and unique to that genre and no other.

[Brockololly]

Tellervo wrote...

The new Darkspawn look like ICP fans. As much as I love the idea of kicking Juggalos around, not what I wanna play a fantasy game for.

The new Qunari look like Coldstone from Gargoyles. I'm going to hear Worf's voice every time one opens its mouth, no matter what.

Hawke *sashays* in the gameplay that's been leaked.

GOOD GOD THE BOOBS ARE HUGE. I don't know if that's good or bad.

Elves are looking more like short pink-skinned Navi with the parts of the face that have been widened. Navi are supposed to look "elven", but the resemblance in the new concept art was startling.

In short: I can't take anything I've seen so far seriously. DA:O may have looked dated, but it looked mature, and that's far more important to me than fresh and new. You can pull off art style changes and it work, other game series have done it, but everything I've seen so far just feels more juvenile.

^This. Exactly this.

The Qunari faces in game look like stone gargoyles or something and just give off a minotaur/animalistic vibe. The thing I liked about the Qunari in Origins was they were portrayed in the lore as being exotic, alien creatures and yet its mostly their philosophy and tech thats alien, not their physical appearance. Now they look alien to Thedas as well, which, just kind of simply makes them more easily the outsider "villains" as it seems they're going to be painted in DA2.

Harid wrote...
Wat, God of War 3 and Uncharted 2 look better than many computer games, even ones released today  lol

Yeah and GoW3 and Uncharted 2 were made only for the PS3. You take any game thats made with only one platform in mind and it will look damn good- thats the problem with most multiplatform games, they're not able to take advantage of each platform and end up looking only "ok" as a result. You take a game solely developed for the PC and it can look just as good or better than Uncharted or GoW.

Modifié par Brockololly, 05 novembre 2010 - 01:45 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Brockololly wrote...


The Qunari faces in game look like stone gargoyles or something and just give off a minotaur/animalistic vibe. The thing I liked about the Qunari in Origins was they were portrayed in the lore as being exotic, alien creatures and yet its mostly their philosophy and tech thats alien, not their physical appearance. Now they look alien to Thedas as well, which, just kind of simply makes them more easily the outsider "villains" as it seems they're going to be painted in DA2.

Yeah and GoW3 and Uncharted 2 were made only for the PS3. You take any game thats made with only one platform in mind and it will look damn good- thats the problem with most multiplatform games, they're not able to take advantage of each platform and end up looking only "ok" as a result. You take a game solely developed for the PC and it can look just as good or better than Uncharted or GoW.

How else will people be able to identify the Qun being the "bad guys" without those big forboding horns though! Think of the children!

I keep saying its a shame DA didn't stay a PC exclusive like it was originally meant to be. Now the console skus will continually hold the PC version back from being as good as it can be.

[mellifera]

God forbid other people who can't afford high end PCs want to play a game! :innocent:

Modifié par yukidama, 05 novembre 2010 - 01:52 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

yukidama wrote...

God forbid other people who can't afford high end PCs want to play a game! :innocent:

Aren't you on a PC typing this message?

[Saibh]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

yukidama wrote...

God forbid other people who can't afford high end PCs want to play a game! :innocent:

Aren't you on a PC typing this message?

Conceivably, she could use a cell phone.

But I point you to the "high end" part. Not everyone can afford to put games onto their PCs or laptops and keep them functioning.

Blaming people who use consoles is plain silly and a means to both have a scape goat and make yourself elite. Find a better way to detract from a game you're determined to dislike.

Modifié par Saibh, 05 novembre 2010 - 01:56 .

[mellifera]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

yukidama wrote...

God forbid other people who can't afford high end PCs want to play a game! :innocent:

Aren't you on a PC typing this message?

Yes, but not everyone's PC can run games. Some people have laptops. Some people have netbooks. Some people have old computers. Some people prefer consoles. And?

[upsettingshorts]

I could visit this message board on my netbook. Doesn't mean I can game worth a damn on it.

...though I do have Fallout 2 installed on my netbook...

I should put BG1-2 on there too.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 novembre 2010 - 01:57 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Saibh wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

yukidama wrote...

God forbid other people who can't afford high end PCs want to play a game! :innocent:

Aren't you on a PC typing this message?

Conceivably, she could use a cell phone.

But I point you to the "high end" part. Not everyone can afford to put games onto their PCs or laptops and keep them functioning.

Who said anything about limiting it to the high end? Most games are scalable to run on multiple flavors of hardware. Blizzard titles being a perfect example.

I don't hate consoles, I own a PS3, however if the console versions are the main reason the DA series won't get DX11 support and the features that go along with it. I think its fair to say that the PC sku is more than likely being held back because of that factor.

It has zero to do with any sort of elitism, to be honest I find that one of the biggest bs cards that console purists try to play to validate their system choice, like its some competition.

Modifié par CoS Sarah Jinstar, 05 novembre 2010 - 02:04 .

[Maria Caliban]

I'm going to say something whacky here, but I don't think that high end graphics are important to an RPG, and so I don't see consoles has holding PCs back because their graphics aren't on par.

What I do value is the artistry and style of a game's graphics, and about the feeling and tone it gives the story.

For example, the broodmother. (Someone asked for a non-generic fantasy element in DA, I think the broodmother qualifies.) In Origins, she was a massive blob of flesh. In DA2, her body is scrawny while her belly is huge and distended.

Does that say or suggest something different about the nature of the broodmother?

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 05 novembre 2010 - 02:05 .

[Tiax Rules All]

I liked the darker nature and style of DAo, apparently the devs didn't though. Im sure the graphics will be nice. I can be just as sure that if this was a pc only game that they would be better though

[Saibh]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Who said anything about limiting it to the high end? Most games are
scalable to run on multiple flavors of hardware. Blizzard titles being a
perfect example.

I don't hate consoles, I own a PS3, however if
the console versions are the main reason the DA series won't get DX11
support and the features that go along with it. I think its fair to say
that the PC sku is more than likely being held back because of that
factor.

I used to own a...horrific...computer up until about six months ago. I mean, it was a catastrophic Frankenstein. I could barely get Sims Double Deluxe to function on it. That's say nothing of people who own non-gaming laptops or netbooks or people who simply prefer consoles.

What counts in terms of "limiting"? Plenty of games are beautiful on both the PC and console. They'd probably look even better if it weren't necessary to port to console, but they hardly turn into an ugly pointy mess of polygons because of it. ME2 looks beautiful on every system (although, I admit, it could have been a bit better on the PC). Being available on the 360 just means that more people can enjoy it.

Graphics aren't the be-all, end-all. I think there's a region where I think "Sure, it's not as beautiful as some games, but it still looks great and, more importantly, plays great". A Goldilocks zone.

[mellifera]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Saibh wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

yukidama wrote...

God forbid other people who can't afford high end PCs want to play a game! :innocent:

Aren't you on a PC typing this message?

Conceivably, she could use a cell phone.

But I point you to the "high end" part. Not everyone can afford to put games onto their PCs or laptops and keep them functioning.

Who said anything about limiting it to the high end? Most games are scalable to run on multiple flavors of hardware. Blizzard titles being a perfect example.

I don't hate consoles, I own a PS3, however if the console versions are the main reason the DA series won't get DX11 support and the features that go along with it. I think its fair to say that the PC sku is more than likely being held back because of that factor.

It has zero to do with any sort of elitism, to be honest I find that one of the biggest bs cards that console purists try to play to validate their system choice, like its some competition.

The point is that the game should not only be released on one platform (PC) because of a percieved detriment to it. Really, at the end of the day even if there is any loss of quality (in what, graphics?) they are reaching a broader audience and still managing to put out the product they want.

Of course people are going to call you elitist if you continuously say that the game should not be put on the conosles so YOU and other PC players (myself included since I play on PC) can have a better experience while depriving others of enjoyment as well. And in the end, how would we even know how much better an experience the game would have been as a PC exclusive? Unless you can travel to alternate dimensions where it is exclusive, it's all just conjecture.

Modifié par yukidama, 05 novembre 2010 - 02:12 .

[casedawgz]

I received my 360 as a gift. My pc is a piece of crap. I can't afford a pc that can run games. If I hadn't received it as a gift I wouldn't be able to play console games either. So yeah, its not a BS excuse. Some people just don't have the money.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Saibh wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Who said anything about limiting it to the high end? Most games are
scalable to run on multiple flavors of hardware. Blizzard titles being a
perfect example.

I don't hate consoles, I own a PS3, however if
the console versions are the main reason the DA series won't get DX11
support and the features that go along with it. I think its fair to say
that the PC sku is more than likely being held back because of that
factor.

I used to own a...horrific...computer up until about six months ago. I mean, it was a catastrophic Frankenstein. I could barely get Sims Double Deluxe to function on it. That's say nothing of people who own non-gaming laptops or netbooks or people who simply prefer consoles.

What counts in terms of "limiting"? Plenty of games are beautiful on both the PC and console. They'd probably look even better if it weren't necessary to port to console, but they hardly turn into an ugly pointy mess of polygons because of it. ME2 looks beautiful on every system (although, I admit, it could have been a bit better on the PC). Being available on the 360 just means that more people can enjoy it.

Graphics aren't the be-all, end-all. I think there's a region where I think "Sure, it's not as beautiful as some games, but it still looks great and, more importantly, plays great". A Goldilocks zone.

Trust me, my last machine I had for 8 years. I know all about Frankenstein, on its last legs rigs. (Funny thing? It saw the new machine and won't even boot now) so believe me when I say I agree totally graphics aren't the be all end all and gameplay trumps all.

Taking into consideration its much easier to port up than port down though, unless a developer has the funds it needs to play to each platform's strengths, its prolly not going to happen.

And again platform specific titles tend to look better because of said exclusivity.

[mellifera]

Maria Caliban wrote...


I'm going to say something whacky here, but I don't think that high end graphics are important to an RPG, and so I don't see consoles has holding PCs back because their graphics aren't on par.

What I do value is the artistry and style of a game's graphics, and about the feeling and tone it gives the story.

For example, the broodmother. (Someone asked for a non-generic fantasy element in DA, I think the broodmother qualifies.) In Origins, she was a massive blob of flesh. In DA2, her body is scrawny while her belly is huge and distended.

Does that say or suggest something different about the nature of the broodmother?

Wait, where's the DA2 broodmother?

If you're talking about the Awakening one, that's because the Origins is a dwarf broodmother versus the Awakening "Mother" being a human one.

[Monica83]

I like the graphic not so much darkspawns but its not that bad



About animations bleah

[Saibh]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Trust me, my last machine I had for 8 years. I know all about Frankenstein, on its last legs rigs. (Funny thing? It saw the new machine and won't even boot now) so believe me when I say I agree totally graphics aren't the be all end all and gameplay trumps all.

Taking into consideration its much easier to port up than port down though, unless a developer has the funds it needs to play to each platform's strengths, its prolly not going to happen.

And again platform specific titles tend to look better because of said exclusivity.

But, as I said, looking better isn't the most important thing a game can do. Plenty of games look great on both. Not as great as they'd look on PC-only, perhaps, but that's insignificant when taking into account how many more players are free to enjoy the game.

I just don't think it's fair to blame consoles. It's not a bad thing to want more audience exposure--it helps out both parties. Devs make more money, and more gamers can play the games they want.

[Saibh]

yukidama wrote...

Wait, where's the DA2 broodmother?

If you're talking about the Awakening one, that's because the Origins is a dwarf broodmother versus the Awakening "Mother" being a human one.

I think she's talking about The Harvester. You see a clip of it in the flashback in the Destiny trailer.

[mellifera]

Oh. Yeah, that's definitely not a broodmother then.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Saibh wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Trust me, my last machine I had for 8 years. I know all about Frankenstein, on its last legs rigs. (Funny thing? It saw the new machine and won't even boot now) so believe me when I say I agree totally graphics aren't the be all end all and gameplay trumps all.

Taking into consideration its much easier to port up than port down though, unless a developer has the funds it needs to play to each platform's strengths, its prolly not going to happen.

And again platform specific titles tend to look better because of said exclusivity.

But, as I said, looking better isn't the most important thing a game can do. Plenty of games look great on both. Not as great as they'd look on PC-only, perhaps, but that's insignificant when taking into account how many more players are free to enjoy the game.

I just don't think it's fair to blame consoles. It's not a bad thing to want more audience exposure--it helps out both parties. Devs make more money, and more gamers can play the games they want.

Fair enough, thats reasonable, its just a shame that a game that was meant to be a PC exclusive at one point, has totally shifted to be a console focus and those who perfer the PC version end up with something less than it prolly could have been.

[Nefario]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Saibh wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Trust me, my last machine I had for 8 years. I know all about Frankenstein, on its last legs rigs. (Funny thing? It saw the new machine and won't even boot now) so believe me when I say I agree totally graphics aren't the be all end all and gameplay trumps all.

Taking into consideration its much easier to port up than port down though, unless a developer has the funds it needs to play to each platform's strengths, its prolly not going to happen.

And again platform specific titles tend to look better because of said exclusivity.

But, as I said, looking better isn't the most important thing a game can do. Plenty of games look great on both. Not as great as they'd look on PC-only, perhaps, but that's insignificant when taking into account how many more players are free to enjoy the game.

I just don't think it's fair to blame consoles. It's not a bad thing to want more audience exposure--it helps out both parties. Devs make more money, and more gamers can play the games they want.

Fair enough, thats reasonable, its just a shame that a game that was meant to be a PC exclusive at one point, has totally shifted to be a console focus and those who perfer the PC version end up with something less than it prolly could have been.

Well, if I remember correctly, Origins actually sold better on consoles. So perhaps it's just as reasonable to argue that it's a shame that it wasn't console exclusive so that the majority of people who actually played the game got a better experience, no?

[Seb Hanlon]

Oh, boy, another consoles-vs-PC fight. I love these. Charles, fetch my opera glasses, we're going to the show!



Seriously, folks, we've been down this road before. It probably doesn't need re-hashing.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Nefario wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Saibh wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Trust me, my last machine I had for 8 years. I know all about Frankenstein, on its last legs rigs. (Funny thing? It saw the new machine and won't even boot now) so believe me when I say I agree totally graphics aren't the be all end all and gameplay trumps all.

Taking into consideration its much easier to port up than port down though, unless a developer has the funds it needs to play to each platform's strengths, its prolly not going to happen.

And again platform specific titles tend to look better because of said exclusivity.

But, as I said, looking better isn't the most important thing a game can do. Plenty of games look great on both. Not as great as they'd look on PC-only, perhaps, but that's insignificant when taking into account how many more players are free to enjoy the game.

I just don't think it's fair to blame consoles. It's not a bad thing to want more audience exposure--it helps out both parties. Devs make more money, and more gamers can play the games they want.

Fair enough, thats reasonable, its just a shame that a game that was meant to be a PC exclusive at one point, has totally shifted to be a console focus and those who perfer the PC version end up with something less than it prolly could have been.

Well, if I remember correctly, Origins actually sold better on consoles. So perhaps it's just as reasonable to argue that it's a shame that it wasn't console exclusive so that the majority of people who actually played the game got a better experience, no?

Considering its impossible to have a toolset on a console, I would say no, its in no way shape or form a shame. A link to unit numbers would be nice as well.

Again I'm not quite sure why console users have this "us vs them" mentality, I'm fine with console versions, as long as each platform sku is designed to play to its strengths.

[UberDuber]

CONSOLE FTW.