1008 réponses à ce sujet

[JamieCOTC]

Don't underestimate ceilings.  Citizen Kane is praised for showing ceilings.

[FedericoV]

Xewaka wrote...

I disagree. There is a rather high number of lazy and half-assed console-to-PC ports to back this up. PC has different (arguably more) strenghts than a console as a gaming platform. Ports don't capilatize on this and feel subpar when compared to games made with the PC in mind.

All I'm saying is that a gaming PC can handle any kind of graphic or GUI developed for consolle, since it has superior hardware and it can even use a very cheap x-box controller. While a consolle cannot handle a game developed with PC strenghts in mind graphically and even for the command set.

So, when you develop a multiplatform title like DA2, and it would be suicidal to avoid that choice considering that 70% of your legit player base use a consolle to play your game and that consolle are the bigger gaming market out there, you have to develop the game with consolle in mind too and consider those limitations.

If you do not consider those limitations or try to reach some common ground in the middle of the way, you realize a game with all the technical contraddictions of DA:O. I prefer a solid game builded for 3rd person view than a game that has two camera mode that are both weak (and Iso view in DA:O was really weak if compared to BG2).

You already admit that consoles are limited compared to PCs. Then why do you say that what works for console works for PC? It is a misuse of the platform capabilities.

Because I can play very well any action or sport consolle game on my PC at maxed settings while consolle players cannot play as effectively a strategical/tactical/managerial game on their consolle. That's all I'm saying and I think that it's trivial. PCs are more versatile.

So because consoles are rather inflexible and limited, players who expect quality product must get the shaft. Nice.

You can buy a Ferrari but you are not getting the shaft when speed limits are made for family cars. You like PC as a gaming platform and can afford it? Fine. But it's not devs fault if most of the money is on the consolle market. And no one is forcing you to buy DA2. Leave with it or pass on.

Modifié par FedericoV, 18 novembre 2010 - 06:40 .

[Ulous]

One of my hobbies is gaming, to fulfil that hobby I game across as many platforms as possible, this means I own and game on both a console and a PC, I can't see why most people can't/don't choose this option?

[Sable Phoenix]

This pretty much clinches that I will not buy this game.

Oddly, if it came from anyone but BioWare I'd be interested.  But since it is from BioWare, I expect a higher standard.  Everything they've released about Dragon Age 2 shows how they're just paring back and taking away features and eliminating all sorts of things that made the first Dragon Age so awesome.  And for what?  The potential of gaining extra market penetration at the sacrifice of a guaranteed one?

In today's gaming market, a loyal fanbase is a valuable thing, and a difficult one to maintain.  I simply do not understand the seemingly headlong drive to alienate them.

[KhorinShizucor]

Bioware posted the link to this preview on Facebook and so far, a majority of the comments are blasting Bioware. Most people are not happy with the changes that have been made. That doesn't bode well for this game.

I'm STILL going to play this game but I'm not so sure about the majority of other fans. :/

Modifié par KhorinShizucor, 18 novembre 2010 - 06:45 .

[MerinTB]

Ulous wrote...

One of my hobbies is gaming, to fulfil that hobby I game across as many platforms as possible, this means I own and game on both a console and a PC, I can't see why most people can't/don't choose this option?

I've owned a Pong system, an Atari 2600, a TurboGrafix-16, an NES, a SNES, a Dreamcast, an XBOX, a GBA and an XBOX 360.

And all of those games for those consoles I owned do not add up to the number of games I had for the C-64, let alone for the PC.

I can enjoy games on the consoles, and often do.

I vastly prefer games on the PC.

I consider myself a PC gamer who also has consoles for a few select exclusive titles.

For many people the cost prevents them from gaming on multiple platforms - but for others they probably own everything available (360, PS3, PSP, DS, gaming rig...)

I don't actually consider myself and elitist for preferring one to the other.  I consider myself to have my own individual taste and preference for prefering one over the other.

[Nozybidaj]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

This pretty much clinches that I will not buy this game.

Oddly, if it came from anyone but BioWare I'd be interested.  But since it is from BioWare, I expect a higher standard.  Everything they've released about Dragon Age 2 shows how they're just paring back and taking away features and eliminating all sorts of things that made the first Dragon Age so awesome.  And for what?  The potential of gaining extra market penetration at the sacrifice of a guaranteed one?

In today's gaming market, a loyal fanbase is a valuable thing, and a difficult one to maintain.  I simply do not understand the seemingly headlong drive to alienate them.

Pretty much how I am feeling at this point.  It reminds me a bit of all the self-proclaimed "WoW killer" MMO's that have been dying in the market the last couple of years.  Its the mentality that product X as able to reach goal Y so for us to reach goal Y we have to be more like product X.  Problem is no one makes product X as good as the company that first made it and instead of playing to individual strengths or forging their own path they simply fail at being as good as X.  Now all these MMO's hang around out there with what would normally be considered healthy populations but are considered failures because they didn't live up to their goal. /shrug

After ME2 and with what we know of DA2 so far I'm starting to think that BW games just aren't going to be the kind of games I enjoy any more.

[Ulous]

KhorinShizucor wrote...

Bioware posted the link to this preview on Facebook and so far, a majority of the comments are blasting Bioware. Most people are not happy with the changes that have been made. That doesn't bode well for this game.

I'm STILL going to play this game but I'm not so sure about the majority of other fans. :/

The problem is and  please don't take this the wrong way, is that the majority of any given gaming fanbase don't actually come to the internet to voice there opinion, so you really can't take feedback from people getting angry on the internet as an inclination of how the game is going to perform sales wise.

[FedericoV]

Delerius_Jedi wrote...

I'm sorry but I have to respond to your first statement. No, it doesn't. Just because a PC *can* run anything you can make on a console does not mean it will "work" as well when you translate it into actual gameplay. Example. Mass Effect 2's menus "work" fine in that you can see what they say on PC, but when you click them and try to scroll with your mousewheel and you find that you cannot because there is no scrollwheel on the 360 controller that is a problem.

I have no problem playing ME1&2 on my PC, PES or Fifa and I've played AC2 very well with an Xbox controller attached to my gaming rig. I don't think that a consolle player can play as well games like Rome:Total War, Europa Universalis, Starcraft 2, Football Manager or the same Baldur's Gate series.

My point is: if you want to develop a game with the PC in mind, it has to be a PC exclusive. If you want to develop a multiplatform title, you have to consider very carefully the "limitations" of consolle and build the game with those limitations in mind. When you take the other way or try to reach some common ground like DA:O, imho it won't work as well and you develop a game with the contraddictions of DA:O. I do not like that kind of design, because I prefer a game with clear design ideas and that is able to delivers it from a gameplay point of view.

No one is forcing you to buy DA2, so if you think that a "consolle port" is not worth your time or you precious PC, buy The Witcher or Civilization 5 and have fun with those titles.

[Ziggeh]

KhorinShizucor wrote...

Most people are not happy with the changes that have been made. That doesn't bode well for this game.

Most people with something to say are not happy.

People who are slightly pleased or cautiously optomistic are far less likely to comment. A fairly common problem with feedback analysis.

[upsettingshorts]

Then there are those fans who have been playing Bioware games forever and don't see the changes in ME2 or DA:2 as abandonment of any kind, but an evolution.

/raises hand.

That's not to say one set of preferences is superior, only to point out that the constant references to Bioware "abandoning" a fanbase and catering to a new one amount to pathos at its worst. The fanbase does not have a single fixed idea of what they want or expect out of Bioware games. Neither in fact does the much maligned "new audience." It's egotism to casually assume otherwise.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 novembre 2010 - 06:58 .

[Ziggeh]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

the much maligned "new audience."

Hssssssssss.

[Ulous]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Then there are those fans who have been playing Bioware games forever and don't see the changes in ME2 or DA:2 as abandonment of any kind, but an evolution.

/raises hand.

Agreed, i'm not quite sure how anyone who has been a fan of Bioware for any length of time can't have faith in them to make DA2 the classic I believe it is going to be, do people really believe Bioware could murder one of their own franchises?

[Fraevar]

FedericoV wrote...
My point is: if you want to develop a game with the PC in mind, it has to be a PC exclusive. If you want to develop a multiplatform title, you have to consider very carefully the "limitations" of consolle and build the game with those limitations in mind. When you take the other way or try to reach some common ground like DA:O, imho it won't work as well and you develop a game with the contraddictions of DA:O. I do not like that kind of design, because I prefer a game with clear design ideas and that is able to delivers it from a gameplay point of view.

This article from Eurogamer disagrees.

The PC version of Call of Duty:Black Ops takes all the limitations the developers had to work with in the console builds and throws them right out the window. Treyarch added higher-resolution textures, dedicated servers, Field of View adjustment, the command console is back etc. They knew that what their PC audience was looking for was different than their console audience and they provided those options as well as taking the limits away for those with powerful computers. BioWare have chosen deliberately to impose the console design restrictions on the PC version. There is nothing that says they could not have had a PC version that was every bit as native to the platform as Origins or Black Ops were. They have chosen not to, and are apparently doing their very best to avoid showing off the PC version, because...I don't know, I am not a mind reader.

[Malanek]

Just to illustrate some points about the camera consider the following situations all taken from the same point
In the first one Wynne needs to heal a knight...but which one?
/uploads_user/6000/5833/63390.jpg

No worries...just switch to the camera better suited for it
/uploads_user/6000/5833/63391.jpg

Now suppose you want to stop more zombies coming down the hill and want to lay a cunning glyph trap. In the tactical camera it is pretty easy
/uploads_user/6000/5833/63393.jpg

In the over the shoulder camera it is a nightmare. It snaps to targets when you pass over them and in cluttered battlefields this can be really annoying. In this case it actually works OK after about 30 seconds positioning it to the pixel. If there was one more zombie (or knight) in the way this would have been impossible with this camera.
/uploads_user/6000/5833/63392.jpg

The point is that the tactical camera provides much better control and more information in many situations. It isn't a minor feature to lose, in origins I used a combination of the cameras all the time.

[Monica83]

Well im one of the people complete Unhappy but i had not problems with DAO before released.. The point is that in fact... DAO its a wawe of fresh air for the people that loves the old style rpg's when DAO was release i think and many like me: Finally its good to see that bioware stayed loyal to their fans....

Now with dragon age 2 all is changed... Think like a general fight like spartan" No isometric wiew.. No opportunity to controll your companion inventory.. Streamlized dialogues ala mass effect.. Static class system..Shorter from origins..Forced to be human for have a VO character..Crappy bad maded animations that scream fake in every single move...Gameplay whitout any sense of fighting we have warrior with teleport charging.. And rouges that moves the swords like cervantes in soul calbour saga..And don't forget the evade skill of rouge another teleport move... Or if an anim is present that seems the rougue flyning in middle of hair in orizzontal twisting the body...Sorry... but for me Dragon age 2 its not an rpg its much more closer to be a beat em up with rpg elements (hack &Slash)

[KhorinShizucor]

Ulous wrote...
The problem is and  please don't take this the wrong way, is that the majority of any given gaming fanbase don't actually come to the internet to voice there opinion, so you really can't take feedback from people getting angry on the internet as an inclination of how the game is going to perform sales wise.

Good point and I'm sure a majority of the fanbase isn't following the progress of this game or reading every preview that comes out. My husband and father-in-law are prime examples. They're still going to play DA2 but they're not reading previews (yet) or reading developer posts.

ziggehunderslash wrote...
Most people with something to say are not happy.

People who are slightly pleased or cautiously optomistic are far less likely to comment. A fairly common problem with feedback analysis.

From what I've seen here and at FB, your statements rings true.

[The Masked Rog]

Delerius_Jedi wrote...

FedericoV wrote...
My point is: if you want to develop a game with the PC in mind, it has to be a PC exclusive. If you want to develop a multiplatform title, you have to consider very carefully the "limitations" of consolle and build the game with those limitations in mind. When you take the other way or try to reach some common ground like DA:O, imho it won't work as well and you develop a game with the contraddictions of DA:O. I do not like that kind of design, because I prefer a game with clear design ideas and that is able to delivers it from a gameplay point of view.

This article from Eurogamer disagrees.

The PC version of Call of Duty:Black Ops takes all the limitations the developers had to work with in the console builds and throws them right out the window. Treyarch added higher-resolution textures, dedicated servers, Field of View adjustment, the command console is back etc. They knew that what their PC audience was looking for was different than their console audience and they provided those options as well as taking the limits away for those with powerful computers. BioWare have chosen deliberately to impose the console design restrictions on the PC version. There is nothing that says they could not have had a PC version that was every bit as native to the platform as Origins or Black Ops were. They have chosen not to, and are apparently doing their very best to avoid showing off the PC version, because...I don't know, I am not a mind reader.

As far as I know, no PC version of Black Ops was shown at gaming conferences. COnsoles are just easier to set up, plus much less expensive I'd imagine. Anyway they are trying to adapt to each system's strenghts, they have said they were even looing into DirectX 11 support. They have a special PC camera. They have a different attack scheme on the PC. Black Ops has just extra visual goodness. Which is fine, but nowhere near the level of care BioWare seems to be taking with DA2 on the PC.

[upsettingshorts]

Malanek999 wrote...

Just to illustrate some points about the camera consider the following situations all taken from the same point
In the first one Wynne needs to heal a knight...but which one?

The point is that the tactical camera provides much better control and more information in many situations. It isn't a minor feature to lose, in origins I used a combination of the cameras all the time.

I get that, but it's not as if the locked isometric camera is the only angle provided to you in DA:O that would allow you to see which knight to heal.  The arguments in this thread often seem to be framed in the sense that in such situations, zooming out to max distance is the only way to get a good look, and I'm disputing that it's that necessary - not that it isn't useful.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 novembre 2010 - 07:25 .

[Cutlasskiwi]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Then there are those fans who have been playing Bioware games forever and don't see the changes in ME2 or DA:2 as abandonment of any kind, but an evolution.

/raises hand.

That's not to say one set of preferences is superior, only to point out that the constant references to Bioware "abandoning" a fanbase and catering to a new one amount to pathos at its worst. The fanbase does not have a single fixed idea of what they want or expect out of Bioware games. Neither in fact does the much maligned "new audience." It's egotism to casually assume otherwise.

Agreed. Not every BioWare game needs to play the same way. 

[FedericoV]

Delerius_Jedi wrote...

The PC version of Call of Duty:Black Ops takes all the limitations the developers had to work with in the console builds and throws them right out the window.

I've never played CoD or another FPS so I cannot make any comment based on my personal experience. But I remember that most reviews about DA:O on consolle were very positive and then we learn from players and even devs that it was far from true.

Modifié par FedericoV, 18 novembre 2010 - 07:29 .

[Marionetten]

Yellow Words wrote...

Agreed. Not every BioWare game needs to play the same way.

And turning Dragon Age into Mass Effect is going to solve this how?

We had a nice thing going on here with Mass Effect catering to one part of the community while Dragon Age catered to another. Now everything is being homogenized for the sake of sales. I fail to understand how this is a good thing.

[Khayness]

Monica83 wrote...

Crappy bad maded animations that scream fake in every single move...Gameplay whitout any sense of fighting we have warrior with teleport charging.. And rouges that moves the swords like cervantes in soul calbour saga..And don't forget the evade skill of rouge another teleport move... Or if an anim is present that seems the rougue flyning in middle of hair in orizzontal twisting the body...Sorry... but for me Dragon age 2 its not an rpg its much more closer to be a beat em up with rpg elements (hack &Slash)

Rule of Cool

Especially the 1st sentence.

I for one, loved the slow combat. The two-handers looked amazing.

Sadly, this renders all my arguments invalid in the eyes of the community.

Modifié par Khayness, 18 novembre 2010 - 07:39 .

[Khayness]

Marionetten wrote...

Yellow Words wrote...

Agreed. Not every BioWare game needs to play the same way.

And turning Dragon Age into Mass Effect is going to solve this how?

We had a nice thing going on here with Mass Effect catering to one part of the community while Dragon Age catered to another. Now everything is being homogenized for the sake of sales. I fail to understand how this is a good thing.

Well, it's funny. I find it possible, that the audiance who were introduced with Mass Effect expected the upcoming BioWare games to be the same.