393 réponses à ce sujet

[mellifera]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

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.

And that's exactly what they say they're doing.

You seem to be doing a lot of backtracking and blaming the console players when you're the one who has said that the game shouldn't be on consoles if it makes the PC version better. Of course people are going to be annoyed by such statements, is it really that difficult to understand? I prefer the PC version but if they can put out a good game on ALL systems (which I don't doubt they will), why should they only cater to PC users?

[Brockololly]

Saibh wrote...
That's say nothing of people who own non-gaming laptops or netbooks or people who simply prefer consoles.

But there is something to be said about being able to make games that play better on a given platform. Take BG2- if they had tried to port that to a console with a controller, I think you'd end up losing something in that translation. And as such, you don't see many games like that anymore, even though as companies like Blizzard shows, there is stilla robust PC gaming market if you make a game catered to the idiosyncracies of that platform. Its the same reason you don't see sports games on the PC.

And the thing with PC games is that so long as the engine is decent its scaleable! So you can still play even on low if you have an ancient machine- just look at the Source engine and how well that scales.

Saibh wrote...
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.

True enough, but alot has to do with any multiplatform game actually trying to play up to the hardware the end user will be playing on. Like you said, on the PC, I found the armor/body textures in ME2 terrible, just totally unforgiveable. They looked like minecraft. And given how they were just fine on the ME1 PC port, that shows me that they didn't bother playing up to the better hardware of the PC capable of higher textures for the ME2 PC port.

With any port or multiplatform game, I just want the developer to actually play to the strengths of each platform or don't even bother in the first place.

Saibh wrote...
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.

I do! I will totally blame the hardware limitations of the consoles. I don't blame the devs for wanting to appeal to a broad market in making a multi platform game or console gamers that might just prefer a console or think thats cheaper than a PC, but in terms of limiting what games can do now? Yes, the five year old hardware in the 360 and PS3 is totally holding games back.

And its not just graphical eye candy- its being able to have enough juice to do other things, like have big open worlds if you want without sacrificing visuals, or having advanced physics, or having the memory to be able to provide a 6 member party instead of only 4, or having the memory to have more animations and more diverse and unique armor.

What I really wish the consoles would do is provide some offically sanctioned "mod" capacity at least for the memory- I remember the N64 had the "Expansion Pak" which boosted the N64's memory and certain games like Majora's Mask or Perfect Dark required it to run.

Modifié par Brockololly, 05 novembre 2010 - 02:45 .

[ErichHartmann]

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.

Blizzard doesn't support DirectX 11 and yet they are currently PC exclusive.  In fact very few developers are pushing it right now.  I'd say it's because most people don't have the hardware yet.       

Modifié par ErichHartmann, 05 novembre 2010 - 02:44 .

[RyuAzai]

To be honest, I really don't think we have seen enough of the art work to really make a judgment on it.



If, like, we had an hour demo of game-play. Yes maybe we could judge. But with what we have now? Not enough to tell.

[Brockololly]

ErichHartmann wrote...

Blizzard doesn't support DirectX 11 and yet they are currently PC exclusive. 

Oh really?

Giving WoW DX11 support seems a big deal...

[ErichHartmann]

Brockololly wrote...

ErichHartmann wrote...

Blizzard doesn't support DirectX 11 and yet they are currently PC exclusive. 

Oh really?

Giving WoW DX11 support seems a big deal...

Read the article.

Experimental support for DX11 (can be enabled by
passing '-d3d11' on the command line or adding SET gxApi "d3d11″ to the
Config.WTF file)

Doesn't sound official yet.

[Lukertin]

Brockololly wrote...

ErichHartmann wrote...

Blizzard doesn't support DirectX 11 and yet they are currently PC exclusive. 

Oh really?

Giving WoW DX11 support seems a big deal...

WoW was also one of the first games to support 3D monitors and I still don't really see that catching on.

[mellifera]

Question is, would BioWare even make DA2 a huge sandbox game with all your party members following you around if they were making it a PC exclusive? Just because you *can* do something doesn't mean you have to or necessarily want to.



I still don't get why they should limit themselves to PC if they want to reach a broader audience and make as much money as they can (this is kind of their job, you know). That way everyone can enjoy it (or not, the PC players who are so upset over multiplat can go do something else, I guess) and BW makes money so they can keep on making games.

[Seb Hanlon]

Maybe I wasn't sufficiently clear before. If this is going to be a PC-vs-consoles thread, it's getting locked. Stay on target.

[Luigitornado]

I like the art direction.



DA:O was fine and dandy, but think this one has a more unique sense caricature about it.

[In Exile]

I heard the Jade Empire team (or parts of it) is working on this game. They are, IMO, absolutely phenomenal. Jade Empire was one of the most visually impressive games I ever played. It absolutely stunned me, and this never happens. The fact that they are working on this game puts them, for me, beyond reproach.

[Darkhour]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I like the dawkspawn one myself, it makes them seem more like once-normal-corrupted-beings and not just generic movie monsters. The other changes I'm indifferent towards.

You forgot to tell us what you are smoking.

[In Exile]

Brockololly wrote...
So unless the continuity of the world is being tossed in the trash can for DA2, the shift in visual style isn't like a comic getting a new artist, it would be like reading one graphic novel and turning the page to the next chapter only to have a new artist doing all the art, with things and characters you grew to recognize completely changed.

And that lack of visual consistency is annoying as hell.

What if it is a dramatic thematic shift? Dragon Age focused on the human condition in the face of the excessive terror of a kind of anihilation we could never even understand - the Blight. Dragon Age 2 has a different theme. So we have a different artstyle for a different thematic message. Would the change now be unacceptable?

[upsettingshorts]

Darkhour wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I like the dawkspawn one myself, it makes them seem more like once-normal-corrupted-beings and not just generic movie monsters. The other changes I'm indifferent towards.

You forgot to tell us what you are smoking.

I'm smoking this strain that allows me to not care a ton about visual continuity especially when compared to narrative continuity, and be subjective about the idea that to me lighter skinned monsters maintain visual links to the light skinned races they once were better than turning into completely "black" monsters.

It's good ****.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 novembre 2010 - 03:20 .

[Luigitornado]

Darkhour wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I like the dawkspawn one myself, it makes them seem more like once-normal-corrupted-beings and not just generic movie monsters. The other changes I'm indifferent towards.

You forgot to tell us what you are smoking.

Yeah I agree with you. When I first played DA:O all I could think about was Lord of The Rings....and I hate LoftR...

They might look a tad bit "plain" and uniform now, but that might not be in the final product.

[Darkhour]

Well, they're not human. So you can't compare the two. Some people don't have an appendix or wisdom teeth. These are the same species of animal:

That is subjective.  Elves and humans can reproduce.  That doesn't make them the same species, but someone could arbitrarily classify them as different subspecies of the same race. Dog breeds are like human races.  They all have the same parts.  There are no dogs with wings or some with horns, etc.  Now did they say their are two different subspecies of qunari? One golden skinned without horns and the other grey skinned with huge beastial horns? I don't think so.

Have you seen a male ram without horns? How about peacock without tail feathers? An elephant bull without tusks? Bioware failed attempt to retcon qunari is fail.

[upsettingshorts]

Darkhour wrote...
Have you seen a male ram without horns? How about peacock without tail feathers? An elephant bull without tusks? Bioware failed attempt to retcon qunari is fail.

What about a male lion without a mane? 

[Darkhour]

Chris Priestly wrote...

This is a Batman image drawn by artist Jim Lee.
../../../uploads_user/1000/46/60537.jpg


This is a Batman image drawn by Sam Kieth.
../../../uploads_user/1000/46/60538.jpg


Which image is "right"?

The top one.

The bottom one is kinda emo.

[Sharn01]

Chris Priestly wrote...

This is a Batman image drawn by artist Jim Lee.
../../../uploads_user/1000/46/60537.jpg


This is a Batman image drawn by Sam Kieth.
../../../uploads_user/1000/46/60538.jpg


Which image is "right"?

This is hardly a fair comparisson, despite the different art styles the character in both pictures is still Batman, and easily identifiable as Batman by anyone who is familiar with the character. 

If you showed someone a picture of the new Quinari or darkspawn who had played DAO but does not pay attention to forums or press releases, he or she would never in their entire life come to the conclusion that they are the same thing without any other information being provided.

[ENolan]

Darkhour wrote...

Well, they're not human. So you can't compare the two. Some people don't have an appendix or wisdom teeth. These are the same species of animal:

That is subjective.  Elves and humans can reproduce.  That doesn't make them the same species, but someone could arbitrarily classify them as different subspecies of the same race. Dog breeds are like human races.  They all have the same parts.  There are no dogs with wings or some with horns, etc.  Now did they say their are two different subspecies of qunari? One golden skinned without horns and the other grey skinned with huge beastial horns? I don't think so.

Have you seen a male ram without horns? How about peacock without tail feathers? An elephant bull without tusks? Bioware failed attempt to retcon qunari is fail.

Listen the real point here is not whether someone can reproduce, it's the results of that reproduction. When you think about it, it is........... OOOOHHH!!! Chow Chow!


Uh, what was I saying?

[Saibh]

Darkhour wrote...

That is subjective.  Elves and humans can reproduce.  That doesn't make them the same species, but someone could arbitrarily classify them as different subspecies of the same race. Dog breeds are like human races.  They all have the same parts.  There are no dogs with wings or some with horns, etc.  Now did they say their are two different subspecies of qunari? One golden skinned without horns and the other grey skinned with huge beastial horns? I don't think so.

Have you seen a male ram without horns? How about peacock without tail feathers? An elephant bull without tusks? Bioware failed attempt to retcon qunari is fail.

And yet, as I mentioned, some humans are born without some of the organs or bones of other ones. This is considered natural. Not to mention that being born hornless can actually possibly be a physical deformity without them thinking of it like that. Like a sixth finger or an extended coccyx.

And, as I said, not human and therefore not held under the same light. Actually, non-existent and not human in a fantasy setting and therefore not held under the same light.

Modifié par Saibh, 05 novembre 2010 - 03:59 .

[Gavinthelocust]

I swear I've seen this same kind of thread play out exactly the same way about a month ago. You just love flame wars and relaying common knowledge back at each other.

[AtreiyaN7]

Seb Hanlon wrote...

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.

Can I reserve a box seat to watch the proceedings from a safe distance? I'll even spring for my own set of opera glasses!

[AlanC9]

ErichHartmann wrote...
Blizzard doesn't support DirectX 11 and yet they are currently PC exclusive.  In fact very few developers are pushing it right now.  I'd say it's because most people don't have the hardware yet.        

I can't remember what the advantages of DX11 were supposed to be anymore.