1008 réponses à ce sujet

[SeanAuditore]

It's okay for me, I hardly used the tactical camera in dragon age, only controlled my main character mostly and played on easy. I'm in for the storytelling, experience and choices, combat difficulty is not a big deal for me. I love playing challenging games, but dragon age is more of a story thing for me. I mean, if I want some micro intensive stuff, I'd go play starcraft or something.

[upsettingshorts]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Didn't someone post a review of the demo that said something about a new top down camera angle when you went to cast aoe spells?

I might have made that up. I'd go looking but it's 6:30 in the morning here and I can feel the caffiene crash soming on.

Yeah, I believe it was from a Swedish demo of the 360 version.  However I was informed later in the thread that this feature existed in console versions of DA:O already.

[Atakuma]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

I'm definately not arguing that it was ideal. I really hated the way it would snap AOE targetting to centre on creatures when it passed over them for instance. I would have preferred the tactical camera to be able to move further away from the character. But it was certainly better than not having it.

I was quite excited (relatively speaking) when Mike Laidlaw mentioned they were working on having the tactical completely detaching from the character but not going up so high. But this is no longer happening.

Didn't someone post a review of the demo that said something about a new top down camera angle when you went to cast aoe spells?

I might have made that up. I'd go looking but it's 6:30 in the morning here and I can feel the caffiene crash soming on.

I believe they only said that the camera zooms out.

[Maria Caliban]

Malanek999 wrote...

Not sure I believe this. Links to say 5.

I too found myself doubtful. The complaint I recall the most is that the world felt derivative when it came to fantasy elements and the graphics weren't good enough.

Camera and control complaints mostly dealt with the console.

[Meltemph]

Camera complaint was that it was bogged down the farther back you went. The only other complaint that was somewhat consistent was the animations.

The most consistent complaints, technically, was out dated graphics.

Also, notice I did not say all 20 complained about these things.  Only that those were the only consistent complaints I could find, outside of the graphics.

Modifié par Meltemph, 19 novembre 2010 - 06:41 .

[Malanek]

Meltemph wrote...

 

Not sure I believe this. Links to say 5.

Look through them yourself...  I specifically went through them because someone said iso was very well praised in the reviews.  I could only find 3 that actually actively praised iso.  Don't mean to sound rude, but I really don't want to have to go through them all again to find the comments.

Just do what I did, tab all the reviews or as many as you can, and then ctrl+f camera or animations.

OK I've bitten. I started by doing what you said and took the first four (but some do handle the console). I'm not cherry picking here but including everything I looked at.

IGN PC - On a positive note, the ability to manipulate the camera viewpoints is useful and well executed.

Gamespot - PC owners get the most versatile and rewarding experience in this regard. You can zoom the camera in to a close third-person view when exploring and conversing with non-player characters, or pull the camera back to a tactical view, which makes it a breeze to quickly and easily micromanage every spell and attack, in true Baldur's Gate tradition. On consoles, you always view the action from behind a single character, and you use a shoulder button to switch among them. It's a great way of experiencing the buzz of battle, though occasional pathfinding quirks are more apparent in the console versions, simply because you experience the action from a single perspective at a time, rather than while managing four characters simultaneously.

Gamezone PC - When it comes to the battle itself, the game offers players to view the game from a third-person perspective, or you can go old-school with the top-down perspective that evaporates ceilings and allows you to gain a wider perspective of the battlefield. This is handy for sending a charging tank to the ranged attackers on the peripheral of the battle that are plunking your tanks to death.
Cheat Code central PC -For the most part, control in Dragon Age is very good. Being able to zoom in and out of fights on the fly allows you to tailor the game to an action-oriented or more tactical experience, depending on what the situation calls for.

I then picked the lowest score I could see (70%) and read it. No complaints at all about the camera, he said it was steriotypical.

I then googled xbox dragonage reviews. The first couple...
IGN XBox - PC owners always appear to have the sweeter deal in a game like this. The menus beg to be clicked through with a mouse, while the lack of a way to better sort through items eventually grows tiresome. The camera system, which is completely rotatable but not really distance adjustable, is also frustrating at times. Those looking for a sky-high angle will not find one in the console versions.
XBOX 360 games - The differences between versions aren't limited to the interface. Dragon Age doesn't look amazing on the PC, but it's an attractive game nonetheless. Zooming from an isometric view to a third-person perspective is slick, and while environments don't hold up quite as well when viewed up close, they're consistently lovely when viewed from above. On the flip side, the Xbox 360 version looks positively disappointing. Textures are highly compressed and colors are washed out, though the upside is that this version maintains a smoother frame rate than on the PlayStation 3, where things might get jittery when swiveling the camera around. The PlayStation 3 version features higher-quality textures than those on the Xbox 360, better color saturation, smoother facial animations, and shorter load times. Minor visual hiccups, like corpses that disappear and reappear, are a bit more common on the PS3, however. The PC version is the superior experience, but if you're choosing between the two console releases, the PlayStation 3 has the upper hand

I also found this which is interesting but not entirely relevant

On the PC, they're particularly challenging, and many battles benefit from frequent pausing and tactical thinking, so that you can queue up attacks across your entire party. The same battles on consoles are noticeably easier.

??? Did the game actually have different difficulty levels between platforms? Anyway I digress.

As for you original statement, I have gone from doubt to complete disbelief.

Modifié par Malanek999, 19 novembre 2010 - 06:52 .

[Maria Caliban]

Yes, the game had different difficulty levels between platforms.

[MortalEngines]

Malanek999 wrote...

The camera can't make a game but it certainly can break a game. As dave from canada pointed out, the console version of origins got worse reviews and was a significantly worse game. The main difference was the camera. Trying to play origins without changing the camera is extremely tedious.

The bit in itallics is fair enough. We are making assumptions. However they are educated assumptions. We have now been told from bioware that you cannot zoom up and you detach from the character.

Personally I think concerns are now justified.

The bit in italic is certainly true, a bad camera can break a game, but I don't feel that was how it was in the console version of origins. I own both PS3 version and PC version of DA:O and I can say firstly that the main difference wasn't the camera, it was the UI interface and that was what bothered me the most because it was awkward and hard to use correctly in the consoles, especially in the middle of battle.

I can say with confidence that I've NEVER used the 'tactical' or 'iso' camera in PC version of DA:O, that's right, I've NEVER used it and I've completed the game about 8 times on the PC.

You guys are acting like the entire game is unplayable because an entirely OPTIONAL camera view which was on PC is no longer included. You can still play the game and as far as I'm aware that means the game isn't broken. Sure it may take you tactical view players a while to adjust but its not like Bioware are taking away the quickbar or something.

Also you get a tactical view when casting AOE (as it was with the console version of Origins) so just cast it with a mage if you want to see the battle field and then cancel the spell or something. Also from the leaked gameplay footage I've seen, the camera looks pretty good already for consoles and with PC you can still zoom out a certain distance so you have an even greater advantage! 

[Malanek]

MortalEngines wrote...
Also you get a tactical view when casting AOE (as it was with the console version of Origins) so just cast it with a mage if you want to see the battle field and then cancel the spell or something.

Are you saying the camera changes when are casting a spell? That doesn't happen on the PC but it might solve the problem.

[FedericoV]

Larryboy_Dragon wrote...

Seriously? We’re still blaming ‘the consoles’? DA:O was fine on consoles. Morrowind was fine on consoles. Risen was fine on consoles. Fallout New Vegas was fine on consoles. Complex RPGs work fine on consoles.
Dumbing something down for the mass market =/= dumbing something down for consoles.

DA:O, Morrowind, Risen an NV = "complex rpgs"? I must have lost something...

[Dave of Canada]

Malanek999 wrote...

Are you saying the camera changes when are casting a spell? That doesn't happen on the PC but it might solve the problem.

In Origins, it remains locked in position to the player but it moves around to follow the spell cursor. You can't place it behind walls like you can on the PC (though I don't think that's intentional) but you can go pretty far with it and still "see" the marker on the floor.

[FedericoV]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

The devs clarified earlier on in this thread that we will be able to pull back and get something close to an overhead view, but as stated in the article, there's no longer going to be the old overhead tactical view on the PC. It has nothing to do with being ported from the console. As was stated in the article:

The bigger change, however, is that the game will no longer support an overhead tactical view on any platform. This was an art and combat-design decision, the BioWare rep told me today. Support for that Baldur's Gate-style view forced the artists to design rooms and scenes that didn't have important things on their ceilings and skies — which top-down players wouldn't see. It also forced the designers into an awkward spot where they had to accommodate top-down turn-taking players and behind-the-back action-first players. By catering to the more reckless of those playing styles, the designers were forced to make the game's difficulty fairly low. Making all players play from some sort of from-the-rear camera view alleviates that. But! PC gamers, your version will include a special option to zoom the camera out, just not up. Console gamers won't get that.

Honestly, do you believe that? I have nothing against DA2 design direction and I've preordered the signature edition. I believe that the other changes to the game were creative decision (influenced by budget off course but still creative). I also think that most decision taken on the game are right and that for DA2 they have to make a choice between top down view and 3rd person view.

But I do not believe to the anonymous dev here. They have choosen for third person view because it works best with consolle. DA2 is developed with consolle in mind and isometric view works best with point and click interfaces, not with an analog stick.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Why do people expect every BioWare RPG to be like their favorite RPG and judge it by how close it is to their favorite RPG?

Do they?  Or are they using their favourite RPG as a proxy for their ideal RPG?

Judging an RPG based on how close it is to one's ideal RPG makes a lot of sense.  My ideal RPG contains a lot of features I've seen in other BioWare games; it even includes a feature or two from the ME series (specifically resource gathering) even though I think those were very poor games.  And since I'm talking to BioWare when I'm here, I compare their games in development based on the presence or absence of those relevant features with which I expect them to be familiar.

[Piecake]

leonia42 wrote...

I prefer the kind with the spicy bits of jalapeno and peppers in it but can't remember the fancy name for it at the moment. Pepperjack? Does that make me an elitist or a plebian?

Thats my favorite kind of cheese too!

*high five*

[Monica83]

So now cut tons of features is bee creative?... On what planet?

[FedericoV]

Monica83 wrote...

So now cut tons of features is bee creative?... On what planet?

Most removed features are replaced with new features.

Bioware has choosen to invest in storytelling, immersion, graphical identity, action and overall accessibility for DA2. Those choices are creative and the result in term of game design seems consequent and consistent, like it or not. Then, since devs work with a budget and cannot focus on everything, those choices have consequences. You can hate the consequences off course but no one is forcing you to buy DA2.

I think that DA2 creative process seems more focused and coherent than DA:O's one. DA:O suffered a lot because of the long developing process imho. Maybe I'm wrong but it seemed to me that DA:O passed between too many hands during his development, changing plans according to who was in charge at the moment and the result was a game that tried to be too many things without excelling in any of them if not the writing and storytelling (that were in charge of the same team since the beginning to the end of the process).

Modifié par FedericoV, 19 novembre 2010 - 10:43 .

[Xewaka]

FedericoV wrote...

Most removed features are replaced with new features.

Bioware has choosen to invest in storytelling, immersion, graphical identity, action and overall accessibility for DA2. Those choices are creative and the result in term of game design seems consequent and consistent, like it or not. Then, since devs work with a budget and cannot focus on everything, those choices have consequences. You can hate the consequences off course but no one is forcing you to buy DA2.

They have cut down the player choices to make their jobs easier. The supposed "new" features do not make up for the loss of choice. 

FedericoV wrote...
I think that DA2 creative process seems more focused and coherent than DA:O's one. DA:O suffered a lot because of the long developing process imho. Maybe I'm wrong but it seemed to me that DA:O passed between too many hands during his development, changing plans according to who was in charge at the moment and the result was a game that tried to be too many things without excelling in any of them if not the writing and storytelling (that were in charge of the same team since the beginning to the end of the process).

DA:O lore and setting was inmersive and very well presented. Yes, there were aesthetically unpleasant spots (for example, leather helmets), but I had no problem with how Origins looked on a whole.

[Piecake]

Xewaka wrote...

They have cut down the player choices to make their jobs easier. The supposed "new" features do not make up for the loss of choice.

Well, its good to know that you are so intimately familar with game design and have such keen insight into the feelings and motivation of DA2's development team that you can make such sweeping claims. 

If I ever have any questions in the future, you'll definitely be the first person I ask.

[Xewaka]

Piecake wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

They have cut down the player choices to make their jobs easier. The supposed "new" features do not make up for the loss of choice.

Well, its good to know that you are so intimately familar with game design and have such keen insight into the feelings and motivation of DA2's development team that you can make such sweeping claims. 

If I ever have any questions in the future, you'll definitely be the first person I ask.

Ain't the internet all about sweeping claims?

[nightcobra]

Xewaka wrote...

Piecake wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

They have cut down the player choices to make their jobs easier. The supposed "new" features do not make up for the loss of choice.

Well, its good to know that you are so intimately familar with game design and have such keen insight into the feelings and motivation of DA2's development team that you can make such sweeping claims. 

If I ever have any questions in the future, you'll definitely be the first person I ask.

Ain't the internet all about sweeping claims?

it is, but really shouldn't be

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 19 novembre 2010 - 12:30 .

[FedericoV]

Xewaka wrote...

They have cut down the player choices to make their jobs easier. The supposed "new" features do not make up for the loss of choice. 

Personally, I believe that in a game there is a point when allowing players choices do not benefit the final result (allways remember The Homer). A good game is not a game that has everything but that has some clear goal and manage to reach them in an way that players can enjoy. You don't like DA2 priority? Fine. As I've said before: no one is forcing you to buy DA2 and if you don't like the game vote with your wallet: it's your prerogative as a player and a fan. But don't say that new feature are supposed because that's not true. You can like the new features or not but they are real (like voice over, unique models for companions or the revamped combat system).

DA:O lore and setting was inmersive and very well presented. Yes, there were aesthetically unpleasant spots (for example, leather helmets), but I had no problem with how Origins looked on a whole.

I'm not only talking about graphics. I have many issues with DA:O. It's a good game overall but imho it has many shortcomings and weak spot, more than the average Bioware game. As I said, it tried to be too many things: a PC exclusive and a consolle title, an action rpg in 3rd person view and a tactical rpg with isometric view, a game with rich inventory, and a game with unique companions, a game with exploration and a storydriven game, a game with a complex rule system and an accessible game, a game with unique visuals and a game with classic fantasy feel, a game with cinematic dialogue and a game with the silent protagonist. etc. etc. etc.

Result: it was ok in many different aspects and was clearly a work of love from Bioware, but it does not excel in any area if not for the writing. But that's just my very personal view of DA:O, I respect the fact that many people loves it fondly. Only, I prefer games with clearer design goals like DA2.

Modifié par FedericoV, 19 novembre 2010 - 12:46 .

[LeaveDA2alone]

I simply can't believe this. They dumb down DA to the core, the remove the isometric camera, they make it more of an action RPG, and people on this forums say stuff like



"I never even used the isometric camera" or defend the dumbing down as an artistic approach, even though BIoware admired they are going after the Fable and Borderlands crowd.

[stormhit]

LeaveDA2alone wrote...

I simply can't believe this. They dumb down DA to the core, the remove the isometric camera, they make it more of an action RPG, and people on this forums say stuff like

"I never even used the isometric camera" or defend the dumbing down as an artistic approach, even though BIoware admired they are going after the Fable and Borderlands crowd.

I can't believe that after multiple pleas and warnings to stop people are still using loaded terms like "dumb down" instead of just sticking to factual points and opinions.

[FedericoV]

LeaveDA2alone wrote...

I simply can't believe this. They dumb down DA to the core, the remove the isometric camera, they make it more of an action RPG, and people on this forums say stuff like

"I never even used the isometric camera" or defend the dumbing down as an artistic approach, even though BIoware admired they are going after the Fable and Borderlands crowd.

Oh, look another troll who has subscribed today.

How are you Mike?

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

AlanC9 wrote...

Jeez,  Merin. I was just  trying to nudge you in the right direction, since your fruit metaphor wasn't working; it doesn't give you any way to evaluate individual fruits, unless you really do want pineapples that taste like pears.

As for gold standards, the "gold standard" for medical treatments is which one is the most effective, right? OK, so what's the equivalent for games? I proposed that the gold standard for games is whether they're fun or not, and we don't need to have any other games to compare them to to evaluate that. At which point you declared you were being baited.

You really had a problem with that? I'm going to assume that you're having a bad day or something.

There's nothing wrong with saying that another game isn't as much fun for you as BG. But that's not a useful or interesting statement unless you can also articulate why.

Dealing with Maria tends to make me pretty irritable too. I can totally understand it making ones day bad.