247 réponses à ce sujet

[Tiax Rules All]

I never EVER want to EVER see a fog of war in a game again, except Civ 5's dx11 fog



Why would you want this, its a horrible fix to a old concept. Really Sylvious I would have thought you against having it. Unless of course somebody said that it was a bad idea first, then I could see you on that side.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Atakuma wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Part of the problem is how long Origins was in development. The engine itself felt pretty dated right out of the gate.

That's an absurd response.  DAO was in development for over 5 years, but even 2004 was more than two years after BioWare's first 3D PC RPG.

I think the lack of a fog of war in DAO was just an oversight, and they made up for it by limiting the camera movement.

I'd like them to fix that.

I meant more in lines that the engine felt dated right out of the gate. Which it did, hardly an absurd comment imo. They won't fix it, if anything the PC camera will be even more limited I'd imagine. Part of their whole "lets strip out any deepness that origins had because its too complicated for the consoles to handle" At least thats the general vibe I get with every piece of news/preview etc.

Or that could just be the confirmation bias talking.

Or it could be that it would be par for the course with all the rest of the "streamlining" they've announced thus far.

[Nefario]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Part of their whole "lets strip out any deepness that origins had because its too complicated for the consoles to handle" At least thats the general vibe I get with every piece of news/preview etc.

Consoles couldn't handle the depth of Origins? Odd... I thought I remembered playing it on one.

Honestly, what is your deal? Did someone shove your pet hamster into the cartridge slot of an NES when you were a child or something? It seems like half your posts somehow manage to include some negative aside about consoles or the people who play them.

[Ympulse]

Nefario wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Part of their whole "lets strip out any deepness that origins had because its too complicated for the consoles to handle" At least thats the general vibe I get with every piece of news/preview etc.

Consoles couldn't handle the depth of Origins? Odd... I thought I remembered playing it on one.

DAO on consoles is a laughable shadow of DAO on PC.

Consoles make up a larger portion of the gaming market.

Give these facts to anyone with a semi-logical brain and they'll put two and two together quite handily.

Wether it's the truth or not is yet to be seen. I'll wait for some LPs and coherent reviews to come out before I buy because of this fact. How about you?

[Atakuma]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Part of the problem is how long Origins was in development. The engine itself felt pretty dated right out of the gate.

That's an absurd response.  DAO was in development for over 5 years, but even 2004 was more than two years after BioWare's first 3D PC RPG.

I think the lack of a fog of war in DAO was just an oversight, and they made up for it by limiting the camera movement.

I'd like them to fix that.

I meant more in lines that the engine felt dated right out of the gate. Which it did, hardly an absurd comment imo. They won't fix it, if anything the PC camera will be even more limited I'd imagine. Part of their whole "lets strip out any deepness that origins had because its too complicated for the consoles to handle" At least thats the general vibe I get with every piece of news/preview etc.

Or that could just be the confirmation bias talking.

Or it could be that it would be par for the course with all the rest of the "streamlining" they've announced thus far.

Origins wasnt particularly deep or complicated... just messy. cutting out iso view and static companion appearance has no impact on depth.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Nefario wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Part of their whole "lets strip out any deepness that origins had because its too complicated for the consoles to handle" At least thats the general vibe I get with every piece of news/preview etc.

Consoles couldn't handle the depth of Origins? Odd... I thought I remembered playing it on one.

Honestly, what is your deal? Did someone shove your pet hamster into the cartridge slot of an NES when you were a child or something? It seems like half your posts somehow manage to include some negative aside about consoles or the people who play them.

DAO on consoles was not half as good as it was on the pc. No over head tactical camera, less enemies on screen, the game controls far better with a mouse and keyboard. It again has zero to do with hating on consoles, its just stating fact. Deep complex RPG's generally don't handle very well on a console unless it has a mouse/keyboard attachment. Action RPG's however work much better around a console controler.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Atakuma wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Part of the problem is how long Origins was in development. The engine itself felt pretty dated right out of the gate.

That's an absurd response.  DAO was in development for over 5 years, but even 2004 was more than two years after BioWare's first 3D PC RPG.

I think the lack of a fog of war in DAO was just an oversight, and they made up for it by limiting the camera movement.

I'd like them to fix that.

I meant more in lines that the engine felt dated right out of the gate. Which it did, hardly an absurd comment imo. They won't fix it, if anything the PC camera will be even more limited I'd imagine. Part of their whole "lets strip out any deepness that origins had because its too complicated for the consoles to handle" At least thats the general vibe I get with every piece of news/preview etc.

Or that could just be the confirmation bias talking.

Or it could be that it would be par for the course with all the rest of the "streamlining" they've announced thus far.

Origins wasnt particularly deep or complicated... just messy. cutting out iso view and static companion appearance has no impact on depth.

On the contrary, I played the majority of the game in Iso view. Its a far better experience from a tactical sense imo. Companion customization also adds more choice and depth to the game on the whole.

[Nefario]

Ympulse wrote...

Nefario wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Part of their whole "lets strip out any deepness that origins had because its too complicated for the consoles to handle" At least thats the general vibe I get with every piece of news/preview etc.

Consoles couldn't handle the depth of Origins? Odd... I thought I remembered playing it on one.

DAO on consoles is a laughable shadow of DAO on PC.

Consoles make up a larger portion of the gaming market.

Give these facts to anyone with a semi-logical brain and they'll put two and two together quite handily.

Wether it's the truth or not is yet to be seen. I'll wait for some LPs and coherent reviews to come out before I buy because of this fact. How about you?

I don't think anyone would argue that the PC version of Origins wasn't superior, but that was because of graphical issues and the translation of the interface. I'd say the depth was still there... just obscured a bit.
And sure, they've taken the market share and the discrepancy in quality between the two versions of Origins into account... Developers have said as much. That's why they've added in things like push-to-attack and move-to-point commands into the console version.
I still fail to see how that supports the notion that features are being removed so that consoles can handle the game. Origins on console didn't actually lack any features (except for the toolkit) that I know of. So why would the alleged lack of features (or "depth", for that matter) have anything to do with consoles?

[ENolan]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Nefario wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Part of their whole "lets strip out any deepness that origins had because its too complicated for the consoles to handle" At least thats the general vibe I get with every piece of news/preview etc.

Consoles couldn't handle the depth of Origins? Odd... I thought I remembered playing it on one.

Honestly, what is your deal? Did someone shove your pet hamster into the cartridge slot of an NES when you were a child or something? It seems like half your posts somehow manage to include some negative aside about consoles or the people who play them.

DAO on consoles was not half as good as it was on the pc. No over head tactical camera, less enemies on screen, the game controls far better with a mouse and keyboard. It again has zero to do with hating on consoles, its just stating fact. Deep complex RPG's generally don't handle very well on a console unless it has a mouse/keyboard attachment. Action RPG's however work much better around a console controler.

IT HAD LESS ENEMIES?! I feel slightly cheated and weary of capital letters.

[Atakuma]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Part of the problem is how long Origins was in development. The engine itself felt pretty dated right out of the gate.

That's an absurd response.  DAO was in development for over 5 years, but even 2004 was more than two years after BioWare's first 3D PC RPG.

I think the lack of a fog of war in DAO was just an oversight, and they made up for it by limiting the camera movement.

I'd like them to fix that.

I meant more in lines that the engine felt dated right out of the gate. Which it did, hardly an absurd comment imo. They won't fix it, if anything the PC camera will be even more limited I'd imagine. Part of their whole "lets strip out any deepness that origins had because its too complicated for the consoles to handle" At least thats the general vibe I get with every piece of news/preview etc.

Or that could just be the confirmation bias talking.

Or it could be that it would be par for the course with all the rest of the "streamlining" they've announced thus far.

Origins wasnt particularly deep or complicated... just messy. cutting out iso view and static companion appearance has no impact on depth.

On the contrary, I played the majority of the game in Iso view. Its a far better experience from a tactical sense imo. Companion customization also adds more choice and depth to the game on the whole.

Companion customization is still there in a different form, and the camera is purely a matter of preference.

[Wicked 702]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

I meant more in lines that the engine felt dated right out of the gate. Which it did, hardly an absurd comment imo. They won't fix it, if anything the PC camera will be even more limited I'd imagine. Part of their whole "lets strip out any deepness that origins had because its too complicated for the consoles to handle" At least thats the general vibe I get with every piece of news/preview etc.

Well, that's definitely an opinion there. Another more logical opinion is that they're stripping out content in the game to save some $$$ on development, thereby generating a better profit. Cause you know, that's what businesses do...profit.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

The Director wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Nefario wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Part of their whole "lets strip out any deepness that origins had because its too complicated for the consoles to handle" At least thats the general vibe I get with every piece of news/preview etc.

Consoles couldn't handle the depth of Origins? Odd... I thought I remembered playing it on one.

Honestly, what is your deal? Did someone shove your pet hamster into the cartridge slot of an NES when you were a child or something? It seems like half your posts somehow manage to include some negative aside about consoles or the people who play them.

DAO on consoles was not half as good as it was on the pc. No over head tactical camera, less enemies on screen, the game controls far better with a mouse and keyboard. It again has zero to do with hating on consoles, its just stating fact. Deep complex RPG's generally don't handle very well on a console unless it has a mouse/keyboard attachment. Action RPG's however work much better around a console controler.

IT HAD LESS ENEMIES?! I feel slightly cheated and weary of capital letters.

Yes, due to framerate reasons.

[Atakuma]

Wicked 702 wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

I meant more in lines that the engine felt dated right out of the gate. Which it did, hardly an absurd comment imo. They won't fix it, if anything the PC camera will be even more limited I'd imagine. Part of their whole "lets strip out any deepness that origins had because its too complicated for the consoles to handle" At least thats the general vibe I get with every piece of news/preview etc.

Well, that's definitely an opinion there. Another more logical opinion is that they're stripping out content in the game to save some $$$ on development, thereby generating a better profit. Cause you know, that's what businesses do...profit.

The majority of the side content in origins was filler anyway so i would rather they spend their time/recources elswere

[ENolan]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

The Director wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Nefario wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Part of their whole "lets strip out any deepness that origins had because its too complicated for the consoles to handle" At least thats the general vibe I get with every piece of news/preview etc.

Consoles couldn't handle the depth of Origins? Odd... I thought I remembered playing it on one.

Honestly, what is your deal? Did someone shove your pet hamster into the cartridge slot of an NES when you were a child or something? It seems like half your posts somehow manage to include some negative aside about consoles or the people who play them.

DAO on consoles was not half as good as it was on the pc. No over head tactical camera, less enemies on screen, the game controls far better with a mouse and keyboard. It again has zero to do with hating on consoles, its just stating fact. Deep complex RPG's generally don't handle very well on a console unless it has a mouse/keyboard attachment. Action RPG's however work much better around a console controler.

IT HAD LESS ENEMIES?! I feel slightly cheated and weary of capital letters.

Yes, due to framerate reasons.

I'm not even going to bring up games that defeat those supposed reasons...<_<

Now I know how you feel when you reply....

[Ympulse]

The Director wrote...
I'm not even going to bring up games that defeat those supposed reasons...<_<

Now I know how you feel when you reply....

That is a question of game engine capability, nothing more, nothing less.

With DA:O's engine, we would have needed cel-shading and minimal spell effects to keep up with PCs in certian areas.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Atakuma wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

I meant more in lines that the engine felt dated right out of the gate. Which it did, hardly an absurd comment imo. They won't fix it, if anything the PC camera will be even more limited I'd imagine. Part of their whole "lets strip out any deepness that origins had because its too complicated for the consoles to handle" At least thats the general vibe I get with every piece of news/preview etc.

Well, that's definitely an opinion there. Another more logical opinion is that they're stripping out content in the game to save some $$$ on development, thereby generating a better profit. Cause you know, that's what businesses do...profit.

The majority of the side content in origins was filler anyway so i would rather they spend their time/recources elswere

LOL publishers must love you. encouraging less content. Granted you'd prolly be happy to pay to DLC though I'd imagine. Such a different generation I s'pose.

[Nefario]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

DAO on consoles was not half as good as it was on the pc. No over head tactical camera, less enemies on screen, the game controls far better with a mouse and keyboard. It again has zero to do with hating on consoles, its just stating fact. Deep complex RPG's generally don't handle very well on a console unless it has a mouse/keyboard attachment. Action RPG's however work much better around a console controler.

That's all true. But it still doesn't support the notion that features are being cut because of the console version. The user interface didn't translate well - but the interface isn't changing, is it? The camera, sure, if you consider that part of the user interface. But I fail to see how the graphical limitations of the engine (which is apparently why the iso camera isn't in this time) has anything to do with consoles, as the issue of a tactical camera isn't something that's included on the console anyway.
I mean... can you give me an example of something that's being cut out and explain how the removal of the feature is related to the console development?
I really think you're just projecting your dissatisfaction regarding design choices.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Ympulse wrote...

The Director wrote...
I'm not even going to bring up games that defeat those supposed reasons...<_<

Now I know how you feel when you reply....

That is a question of game engine capability, nothing more, nothing less.

With DA:O's engine, we would have needed cel-shading and minimal spell effects to keep up with PCs in certian areas.

Its more than likely a combination of the engine itself, the way it was ported (remember Origins was originally going to be PC only) and the limted 512 megs of ram on the PS3/360.  The machine I'm on right now has 6 gigs of ram. That should say something about limitations right there.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Nefario wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

DAO on consoles was not half as good as it was on the pc. No over head tactical camera, less enemies on screen, the game controls far better with a mouse and keyboard. It again has zero to do with hating on consoles, its just stating fact. Deep complex RPG's generally don't handle very well on a console unless it has a mouse/keyboard attachment. Action RPG's however work much better around a console controler.

That's all true. But it still doesn't support the notion that features are being cut because of the console version. The user interface didn't translate well - but the interface isn't changing, is it? The camera, sure, if you consider that part of the user interface. But I fail to see how the graphical limitations of the engine (which is apparently why the iso camera isn't in this time) has anything to do with consoles, as the issue of a tactical camera isn't something that's included on the console anyway.
I mean... can you give me an example of something that's being cut out and explain how the removal of the feature is related to the console development?
I really think you're just projecting your dissatisfaction regarding design choices.

PC is no longer the lead sku, its easier to port UP than port down. Prolly has a huge part of the camera changes right there.

[Atakuma]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

I meant more in lines that the engine felt dated right out of the gate. Which it did, hardly an absurd comment imo. They won't fix it, if anything the PC camera will be even more limited I'd imagine. Part of their whole "lets strip out any deepness that origins had because its too complicated for the consoles to handle" At least thats the general vibe I get with every piece of news/preview etc.

Well, that's definitely an opinion there. Another more logical opinion is that they're stripping out content in the game to save some $$$ on development, thereby generating a better profit. Cause you know, that's what businesses do...profit.

The majority of the side content in origins was filler anyway so i would rather they spend their time/recources elswere

LOL publishers must love you. encouraging less content. Granted you'd prolly be happy to pay to DLC though I'd imagine. Such a different generation I s'pose.

Im encouraging less filler. what I meant is that I'd rather them spend time on more meaningful content rather than needless padding.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Atakuma wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Wicked 702 wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

I meant more in lines that the engine felt dated right out of the gate. Which it did, hardly an absurd comment imo. They won't fix it, if anything the PC camera will be even more limited I'd imagine. Part of their whole "lets strip out any deepness that origins had because its too complicated for the consoles to handle" At least thats the general vibe I get with every piece of news/preview etc.

Well, that's definitely an opinion there. Another more logical opinion is that they're stripping out content in the game to save some $$$ on development, thereby generating a better profit. Cause you know, that's what businesses do...profit.

The majority of the side content in origins was filler anyway so i would rather they spend their time/recources elswere

LOL publishers must love you. encouraging less content. Granted you'd prolly be happy to pay to DLC though I'd imagine. Such a different generation I s'pose.

Im encouraging less filler. what I meant is that I'd rather them spend time on more meaningful content rather than needless padding.

Content is content, its not like you're paying any less for a 30 hour game as opposed to a 60 hour game.

[Nefario]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Nefario wrote...
That's all true. But it still doesn't support the notion that features are being cut because of the console version. The user interface didn't translate well - but the interface isn't changing, is it? The camera, sure, if you consider that part of the user interface. But I fail to see how the graphical limitations of the engine (which is apparently why the iso camera isn't in this time) has anything to do with consoles, as the issue of a tactical camera isn't something that's included on the console anyway.
I mean... can you give me an example of something that's being cut out and explain how the removal of the feature is related to the console development?
I really think you're just projecting your dissatisfaction regarding design choices.

PC is no longer the lead sku, its easier to port UP than port down. Prolly has a huge part of the camera changes right there.

That doesn't make any sense for a number of reasons. The two versions are being developed simultaneously, so the problems of porting don't apply. But even if they were porting, the tactical camera isn't part of the console version, so it'd have to be worked on independently regardless.
I'm confused here... are you saying that you think the game will somehow arrive on the PC crippled, and the developers will then be unable to develop a camera that plays to the strengths of a PC?

Modifié par Nefario, 16 novembre 2010 - 04:45 .

[ENolan]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Ympulse wrote...

The Director wrote...
I'm not even going to bring up games that defeat those supposed reasons...<_<

Now I know how you feel when you reply....

That is a question of game engine capability, nothing more, nothing less.

With DA:O's engine, we would have needed cel-shading and minimal spell effects to keep up with PCs in certian areas.

Its more than likely a combination of the engine itself, the way it was ported (remember Origins was originally going to be PC only) and the limted 512 megs of ram on the PS3/360.  The machine I'm on right now has 6 gigs of ram. That should say something about limitations right there.

It truly makes you glad on what miracles can be made when developers accurately used their space each to its fullest potential. Not like I can really complain; If I really want a war game that focuses on me whilst I cut down hundreds to thousands of enemy soldiers, I'll stick with DW/SW Empires. If I want an rpg that can slightly integrate that "press a button and something awesome happens" action that is so often contraversial, I'll wait for DA2.


Yes I mentioned DW and SW in the Bioware forums concerning DA2 again but used it as a positive point comparison. [Prepares to get yelled at.]

[Atakuma]

To me, content that adds nothing but length to the game is not worth the time or resources spent making it and should be used elsewhere.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

The Director wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Ympulse wrote...

The Director wrote...
I'm not even going to bring up games that defeat those supposed reasons...<_<

Now I know how you feel when you reply....

That is a question of game engine capability, nothing more, nothing less.

With DA:O's engine, we would have needed cel-shading and minimal spell effects to keep up with PCs in certian areas.

Its more than likely a combination of the engine itself, the way it was ported (remember Origins was originally going to be PC only) and the limted 512 megs of ram on the PS3/360.  The machine I'm on right now has 6 gigs of ram. That should say something about limitations right there.

It truly makes you glad on what miracles can be made when developers accurately used their space each to its fullest potential. Not like I can really complain; If I really want a war game that focuses on me whilst I cut down hundreds to thousands of enemy soldiers, I'll stick with DW/SW Empires. If I want an rpg that can slightly integrate that "press a button and something awesome happens" action that is so often contraversial, I'll wait for DA2.


Yes I mentioned DW and SW in the Bioware forums concerning DA2 again but used it as a positive point comparison. [Prepares to get yelled at.]

Definately, I actually am kinda amazed some of the console games devs have pulled off working with those kind of limitations. It can't be easy to do.