1008 réponses à ce sujet

[DVACDK]

eyesofastorm wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

Continue with the PC elitism at your own risk.

Enjoying games (that's right, they are games, we are not talking about microsurgery) on one platform versus another does not mark you as being of superior intellect and/or taste.

If you want to continue to pretend that it does, you won't be doing it on these forums. I'm tired of this elitist garbage.

Seriously... wouldn't it be just so much easier for you guys and the new fan base if all your old fans would just... go away!  I mean dang!

I think people need to calm abit down.. i'm sure John was talking about the IQ comment(wich was a stupid comement), not the general "it got dumped down" comments.

[Realmjumper]

To me there's just not enough time to get everything up to par. Seriously think about it, this game is less than four months away. The only logical conclusion I can come up with the schedule is that the new technology they invented for Mass Effect 2 is helping them come up with levels much more faster.



That is they can edit on the fly as they are building the level. There was a preview of this tech in E3 to the press before Mass Effect 2 was released. I'm not sure if you guys can remember.



3 months and change till this game is released, if there's a delay I wouldn't be surprised at all.

[Lorianno]

I'll be honest, the only reason I used tactical view was to use spells on people behind walls, a la casting blizzard, inferno, tempest, or deathcloud. The lack of being able to abuse seeing through walls, is kinda gay from a power-gamer sense, and also from the fact that Baldur's Gate was the greatest RPG ever made, and that camera was the best way to make it a throwback. BUT. Majority of the game, I just played zoomed out as far as I could without going into tac view, and rotating the camera to see what I needed to.



TBH the over the shoulder was far more superior as it allowed you to engage targets much farther away with spells and arrows etc.

[Skellimancer]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

Since it's a little unclear - you can still pull the camera back and then adjust the yaw, which would allow for a fairly-close-to top-down camera perspective. You aren't stuck with varying degrees of over-the-shoulder.

But can you detach the camera or are you stuck on one character? Can you freely rotate the camera all around?

Hey folks.

Thought I would slide in here to clarify this last query:

The camera is attached to your currently controlled character. It may be rotated freely.

Thank for that

[Nerivant]

Lorianno wrote...

I'll be honest, the only reason I used tactical view was to use spells on people behind walls, a la casting blizzard, inferno, tempest, or deathcloud. The lack of being able to abuse seeing through walls, is kinda gay from a power-gamer sense, and also from the fact that Baldur's Gate was the greatest RPG ever made, and that camera was the best way to make it a throwback. BUT. Majority of the game, I just played zoomed out as far as I could without going into tac view, and rotating the camera to see what I needed to.

TBH the over the shoulder was far more superior as it allowed you to engage targets much farther away with spells and arrows etc.

I stopped reading after that. Wow. Just wow.

[exoproto]

Eleinehmm wrote...

You could use it -  you could choose not to use it. That is ok. But when you are no longer have a choice ...
You see, I can say  exactly the same  thing "If I want a third person back view, I'd go play a Shooter."

Why? Most shooter games are first person view, anyways. At least you still retain the ability to move the camera around to a 360 degree rotation rather than a fixed camera..

The most I would do is zoom out as far as I could without automatically switching to the top-down view. That sounds exactly like what they're doing know (although I imagine the camera is more at an angle this time). I don't mind either way, but I beieve this be a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

You either like it or don't like it, but either way you'll probably play it and get used to it.

[Eleinehmm]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

Since it's a little unclear - you can still pull the camera back and then adjust the yaw, which would allow for a fairly-close-to top-down camera perspective. You aren't stuck with varying degrees of over-the-shoulder.

But can you detach the camera or are you stuck on one character? Can you freely rotate the camera all around?

Hey folks.

Thought I would slide in here to clarify this last query:

The camera is attached to your currently controlled character. It may be rotated freely.

So the camera is always focused on one character only ? And you can't move  from the character, only "out of" the character ?

[Herr Uhl]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Thought I would slide in here to clarify this last query:

The camera is attached to your currently controlled character. It may be rotated freely.

Good to have confirmation on it, even if it is disappointing to me.

[Atakuma]

I felt the detachable camera made the game too easy.

[Froody42]

JohnEpler wrote...
I'd say this is a gross misrepresentation of my post, which comes down, more or less, to not saying things such as claiming that anyone with an IQ over 100 prefers the PC.

For what it's worth, I'm primarily a PC gamer, but I certainly don't imagine it makes me a better person than the guy who sits next to me who's primarily a console gamer. And if people want to continue down this road, I'd rather they not post at all. Constructive debate and discussion is fine. Suggesting that the PC retain some features over the console version because a PC has certain advantages over the console in regards to particular features is fine.

Suggesting that anyone who prefers a PC is automatically some sort of gaming ubermensch is not fine. 

I agree. If an argument does not have enough merit to stand on its own without an ad hominem against console gamers, best not to post it all.

That said, I do believe some of the arguments for a tactical view have a LOT of merit, I just don't think they should be undermined by insulting fellow gamers who think differently.

Modifié par Froody42, 17 novembre 2010 - 11:25 .

[Malanek]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
Hey folks.

Thought I would slide in here to clarify this last query:

The camera is attached to your currently controlled character. It may be rotated freely.

Thanks for the clarification. To be honest though this is a little disapointing. Obviously this is a different game but I can't imagine playing through Origins without the tactical view. Being able to control exactly where your fireball was going to land seemed to be pretty important.

[Eleinehmm]

exoproto wrote...

Eleinehmm wrote...

You could use it -  you could choose not to use it. That is ok. But when you are no longer have a choice ...
You see, I can say  exactly the same  thing "If I want a third person back view, I'd go play a Shooter."

Why? Most shooter games are first person view, anyways. At least you still retain the ability to move the camera around to a 360 degree rotation rather than a fixed camera..

The most I would do is zoom out as far as I could without automatically switching to the top-down view. That sounds exactly like what they're doing know (although I imagine the camera is more at an angle this time). I don't mind either way, but I beieve this be a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

You either like it or don't like it, but either way you'll probably play it and get used to it.

I prefer to play things I like -  You can get used to everything, you know... Why should I move closer to your play style - not you to mine - They are equally valid, after all.

Modifié par Eleinehmm, 17 novembre 2010 - 11:27 .

[Brockololly]

Quotes from the article:

BioWare is clearly making a play for a wider audience with Dragon Age
II, hence the faster combat, the lower camera angles, the more
action-packed presentation of content so far.

So yeah, as if it was any surprise, DA2 isn't being marketed for fans of tactical RPGs. No surprise there.

BioWare, the rep explained, prefers to show off a more exciting,  fast-moving play style for the sequel, even though they support the  old-school turn-taking approach. That faster style is what they want to  hook Fable fans with, what they think even a Borderlands fan might dig.

So apparently they're not showing tactical, pause and play combat because that won't appeal to their core, Fable/Borderlands demographic. Gotcha.

First, and this is sort of a non-difference, but the PC game won't be  made separately this time. All versions of the game are being made by  BioWare's internal teams.

Ha- yes, just like how ME2's PC version was made right alongside ME2 for 360. And clearly the PC version of ME2 truly took advantage of everything the PC platform has to offer, right?

The bigger change, however, is that the game will no longer support an overhead tactical view on any platform...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.

So, this tells me nothing until we can see it. And it would still seem that its being balanced for the OTS view, so what difference can the pseudo "Tactical Cam 2.0!" make?

Edit:

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Hey folks.

Thought I would slide in here to clarify this last query:

The camera is attached to your currently controlled character. It may be rotated freely.

So can we detatch the camera from a given character at all? Wasn't that the idea back at Gamescom at least- that it wouldn't zoom out as far but could be moved around Total War style?

This series has been altered for a wider audience, but dumbed down? Sold out? I don't see that. There are classic PC RPG roots here. They're  just a little more buried than before.

And this is the problem- they're burying the RPG bits under the rug, like ME2. There is no reason to do that at all, as the success of Origins or the Fallout games shows. Seriously, its like BioWare is ashamed they're making RPGs or something and only want you to see some interactive movie.

Modifié par Brockololly, 17 novembre 2010 - 11:30 .

[Lorianno]

Nerivant wrote...
I stopped reading after that. Wow. Just wow.

P2W scrub. Go home and be a family man...

TBH, the over the top camera was fail anyways, as it was limited to how far it could move from the character you selected, hence it played nothing like BG in the sense that you could move the camera wherever you'd like on the map.

Zooming out extremely far and being allowed rotation is, if anything, superior to the top-down camera.

[Beaner28]

Lorianno wrote...

Nerivant wrote...
I stopped reading after that. Wow. Just wow.

P2W scrub. Go home and be a family man...

TBH, the over the top camera was fail anyways, as it was limited to how far it could move from the character you selected, hence it played nothing like BG in the sense that you could move the camera wherever you'd like on the map.

Zooming out extremely far and being allowed rotation is, if anything, superior to the top-down camera.

Is this Guile from Street Fighter?

[Lorianno]

Yes, yes it is.

[Realmjumper]

When I was playing DA: O I used the tactical view because the game was very chaotic. I was almost always outnumbered two to 1 and I needed to see where the heck I was getting shot from.



The eye level view simply did not suffice for that game. The tactical view helped me in tight spots like the Deep Roads or inside buildings so I could see exactly what was behind a door when I opened it.



It goes back to the pen and paper rpgs like Dungeons and Dragons and Pathfinder. When you open a door you have a tactical view as the GM puts his monsters once you are close enough.



The removal of this feature is definitely a dissapointment.

[Marionetten]

Atakuma wrote...

I felt the detachable camera made the game too easy.

It did. Mainly because most of the encounters didn't take advantage of it.

Unfortunately, it looks like Dragon Age II won't change that. If anything the tactical camera will be even more unnecessary this time around. I hope the story will be worth it because the gameplay sure as hell won't.

[Froody42]

Brockololly wrote...
And this is the problem- they're burying the RPG bits under the rug, like ME2. There is no reason to do that at all, as the success of Origins or the Fallout games shows. Seriously, its like BioWare is ashamed they're making RPGs or something and only want you to see some interactive movie.

That's the impression I got as well... and I still don't understand it.

[Atakuma]

Marionetten wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

I felt the detachable camera made the game too easy.

It did. Mainly because most of the encounters didn't take advantage of it.

Unfortunately, it looks like Dragon Age II won't change that. If anything the tactical camera will be even more unnecessary this time around. I hope the story will be worth it because the gameplay sure as hell won't.

Take advantage how?

[Saibh]

Tactical camera was only useful to me some of the time. I can't remember a time when it was necessary to tactics, instead of simply useful.

[Skellimancer]

Froody42 wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
And this is the problem- they're burying the RPG bits under the rug, like ME2. There is no reason to do that at all, as the success of Origins or the Fallout games shows. Seriously, its like BioWare is ashamed they're making RPGs or something and only want you to see some interactive movie.

That's the impression I got as well... and I still don't understand it.

Dragon Age 2 Tetris Edition.

You may thank me with a cheque, Bioware.

[Beaner28]

Realmjumper wrote...

When I was playing DA: O I used the tactical view because the game was very chaotic. I was almost always outnumbered two to 1 and I needed to see where the heck I was getting shot from.

The eye level view simply did not suffice for that game. The tactical view helped me in tight spots like the Deep Roads or inside buildings so I could see exactly what was behind a door when I opened it.

It goes back to the pen and paper rpgs like Dungeons and Dragons and Pathfinder. When you open a door you have a tactical view as the GM puts his monsters once you are close enough.

The removal of this feature is definitely a dissapointment.

I'd have to agree. The top down view was essentially mandatory for some encounters in Origins. The fight with Zathrian/werewolves in the Nature of the Beast quest is one that comes to mind. I can't imagine doing that fight without a top-down tactical view.

By catering to the more reckless of those playing styles, the designers were forced to make the game's difficulty fairly low.

So instead of including one in DA 2, difficulty is being removed from the game entirely. Great.

Modifié par Beaner28, 17 novembre 2010 - 11:38 .

[Atakuma]

Froody42 wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
And this is the problem- they're burying the RPG bits under the rug, like ME2. There is no reason to do that at all, as the success of Origins or the Fallout games shows. Seriously, its like BioWare is ashamed they're making RPGs or something and only want you to see some interactive movie.

That's the impression I got as well... and I still don't understand it.

This assumes that everyone who bought the game loved it, witch is silly.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Bioware isn't ashamed of making RPG's, they just want more sales and the only way to do that is to dumb the game down to appeal to a wider audience.