1008 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmjumper]

The isometric view is much more than just a camera. I can't see through walls when I open a door in Dragonage: Origins. There might be a dragon behind that door for all I know. Why would I risk sending a party member through when I can nuke the entire room thanks to the tactical view camera.



I can also see how many range, melee, and caster enemies are waiting for me. Like I said earlier it goes back to pen and paper RPGS.



Since this is now gone I have no doubt the gameplay will be tailored to play smoothly with the camera view that the player will have. Does that make the game better though? It's going to be a different type of game, more action oriented that's for sure.

[Morroian]

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.

I have to say I find this incredibly disappointing. I thought tactical gameplay was meant to be a key plank for the franchise.  You did say a while ago that you were experimenting with unhooking the camera, I take it this didn't work out?

[StingingVelvet]

JohnEpler wrote...

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.

100% agree with these two lines.  I have been called a "PC elitist" because I do think it is the best platform and openly state that, but there is a difference between hyping the PC's benefits and acting like anyone who disagrees is an idiot.  There are plenty of idiots playing PC games as any forum can show, and there are plenty of geniuses playing console games.

The PC offers a lot of technical advantages in graphics and control and benefits from being an open platform, but it's also more expensive and at times annoying to deal with due to setup issues and compatability.  People should pick which is best for them and it's no surprise what-so-ever that the majority prefer the easier to use method.  The vast majority of consumers always pick the more convienent and easier to use when given the option.

[Apollo Starflare]

I look at some of the reaction here and I wonder how people reacted when info about Jade Empire started to come out? That was when Bioware were 'uncorrupted' wasn't it? But it followed so closely to their RPG roots in every sense? Oh wait, they experimented and tried a bunch of new things that were well received on the whole. Before anyone pulls the Successor to BG card, DA2 isn't Origins.



The tactical camera thing is a hard debate for me to get into. You see, I had to play Origins on the console, not because I'm of lesser intelligence or some of the other rediculous implications I see thrown around here, but because my PC can't run it. As such I didn't have anything resembling a tactical camera (and am I to take it disappointingly that once again the consoles miss out in that regard?) and do you know what? Origins was still a fantastic game, a fantastic -Bioware- game and unmistakably so. As such I am far from worried that the PC version having a different tactical camera (and yes, it does still have one) signifies the end of Bioware as an RPG developer (wow).



The preview mentions them trying to gain a 'wider' audience incidentally, it doesn't suggest they want a new audience. In that scenario it makes a lot more sense to spend money marketing the game at the new audience in the hope that the old audience either follows the game (and eventually purchases) due to the previous title and their own research into it's sequel. It doesn't mean the game is going to play anything like Fable, and having played both Fable 3 and Dragon Age 2 at the same event in October I will say that they are barely anything alike (beyond having swords).



Anyway, I thought it was quite a good preview on the whole and at least tried to give some feedback aimed at PC players.

[Meltemph]

I can't see through walls when I open a door in Dragonage: Origins. There might be a dragon behind that door for all I know. Why would I risk sending a party member through when I can nuke the entire room thanks to the tactical view camera.

Why should you know what is beyond the door? How does that even make sense? Crap like that so diminishes the encounters by making them predictable. Hell, half of the fun is not knowing what is behind the next door. I don't understand the idea of people wanting to be able to, essentially, "game the system".

[MadLaughter]

I want a view at least equivalent to DAO's pulled out view.

[Marionetten]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The zoomed-out isometric camera is just a damn camera.

Designing combat encounters around your typical third person camera is vastly different from designing combat encounters around a tactical camera. If you can't even grasp this then you'll have to excuse me for being the one laughing.

And please, do come back after having played Total War efficiently from this perspective.

Atakuma wrote...

You seem to believe that a party based RPG has to be like Baldurs gate and such, whitch isnt true.

It doesn't have to be. It's just what I enjoy. I never felt much of a need to take advantage of my party in Dragon Age: Origins. I sincerely doubt Dragon Age II will differ. And that, I view as something unfortunate.

Modifié par Marionetten, 18 novembre 2010 - 12:01 .

[Herr Uhl]

Apollo Starflare wrote...

I look at some of the reaction here and I wonder how people reacted when info about Jade Empire started to come out? That was when Bioware were 'uncorrupted' wasn't it? But it followed so closely to their RPG roots in every sense? Oh wait, they experimented and tried a bunch of new things that were well received on the whole. Before anyone pulls the Successor to BG card, DA2 isn't Origins.

If JE was a direct sequel of NWN I'd say that comparison is more apt. It is understandable.

[StingingVelvet]

Apollo Starflare wrote...

I look at some of the reaction here and I wonder how people reacted when info about Jade Empire started to come out? That was when Bioware were 'uncorrupted' wasn't it? But it followed so closely to their RPG roots in every sense? Oh wait, they experimented and tried a bunch of new things that were well received on the whole. Before anyone pulls the Successor to BG card, DA2 isn't Origins.

Jade Empire was a console action RPG that was (eventually) ported to the PC, Dragon Age was a PC tactical RPG that got ported to consoles.

Big difference.

Modifié par StingingVelvet, 18 novembre 2010 - 12:01 .

[Meltemph]

Designing combat encounters around your typical third person camera is vastly different from designing combat encounters around a tactical camera. If you can't even grasp this then you'll have to excuse me for being the one laughing.

Except they didn't design combat around the ISO camera. The fact that you could see 3 miles ahead to the next area is about as well designed tactically as red rover.

[upsettingshorts]

Marionetten wrote...
And please, do come back after having played Total War efficiently from this perspective.

Oh give me a break.  I use a variety of camera angles in TW, doing the same in Dragon Age: Origins.

Number of times I used the fully zoomed out "isometric" camera in DA:O:  Zero.  
Number of times I was unable to grasp the situation in DA:O:  Zero.

Heck, only after discovering the apparent love people had for it on these forums did I load up DA:O again and see what I was missing.  I shrugged, wondered why this dinosaur of the 2D sprite era had such a devoted following, and went back to what I was doing.

It was something I viewed as a flaw of earlier games, not some feature that should exist in perpetuity for people unable to adapt.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 novembre 2010 - 12:04 .

[StingingVelvet]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Number of times I used the fully zoomed out "isometric" camera in DA:O:  Zero.  
Number of times I was unable to grasp the situation in DA:O:  Zero.

How could you NOT use it when casting large area of effect spells?  It was almost required really.

[Khayness]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Number of times I used the fully zoomed out "isometric" camera in DA:O:  Zero.  
Number of times I was unable to grasp the situation in DA:O:  Zero.

I've never finished the game as a female PC, they can be removed aswell, I don't care.

I love your logic.

[upsettingshorts]

StingingVelvet wrote...
How could you NOT use it when casting large area of effect spells?  It was almost required really.

Zoom out close to as much as you possibly can without "locking in" to the isometric view.  That's what I did.

Khayness wrote...
I've never finished the game as a female PC, they can be removed aswell, I don't care.

I love your logic.

Um, I'm pretty sure every single person on this forum has at least one feature they don't use or don't like, and would argue for its removal, or be completely disinterested and/or incredulous at other posters anger when it actually is.

The isometric camera is one of mine. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 novembre 2010 - 12:08 .

[Meltemph]

How could you NOT use it when casting large area of effect spells? It was almost required really.

I never used the tactical camera and I played as a primal mage(check my achievments) that includes playing on insanity with The Golems of Amgarrak. It is very possible to play the game with large amounts of aoe without knowing what is around every corner.

[Beaner28]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Marionetten wrote...
And please, do come back after having played Total War efficiently from this perspective.

Oh give me a break.  I use a variety of camera angles in TW, doing the same in Dragon Age: Origins.

Number of times I used the fully zoomed out "isometric" camera in DA:O:  Zero.  
Number of times I was unable to grasp the situation in DA:O:  Zero.

Heck, only after discovering the apparent love people had for it on these forums did I load up DA:O again and see what I was missing.  I shrugged, wondered why this dinosaur of the 2D sprite era had such a devoted following, and went back to what I was doing.

It was something I viewed as a flaw of earlier games, not some feature that should exist in perpetuity for people unable to adapt.

Your argument is essentially based on the premise that because you didn't use the tactical view that BioWare shouldn't include one. It's a matter of personal preference and people have the right to be disappointed that it's gone.

Modifié par Beaner28, 18 novembre 2010 - 12:11 .

[Piecake]

Lack of iso camera is disappointing, but ill wait for gameplay footage/PC review/me playing it before I make up my mind. Who knows, the new camera could work really well for the game

Modifié par Piecake, 18 novembre 2010 - 12:09 .

[upsettingshorts]

Beaner28 wrote...
You're argument is essentially based on the premise that because you didn't use the tactical view that BioWare shouldn't include one. It's a matter of personal preference and people have the right to be disappointed that it's gone.

My argument is essentially based on the premise that if I'm capable of assessing any given tactical situation without ever using it, then it is indeed possible for others to do so.

I am not denying that people should or ought to have a preference for the isometric camera.  My argument is that assertions that tactical gameplay is impossible without it are, to put it bluntly, total bullsh*t.

If you just like the iso-camera, that's not really something I've got an issue with.  It's the idea that you can't play without it that leaves me flabbergasted.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 novembre 2010 - 12:10 .

[Marionetten]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Number of times I used the fully zoomed out "isometric" camera in DA:O: Zero.
Number of times I was unable to grasp the situation in DA:O: Zero.

That's because none of the encounters really called for it. The biggest fights we had in Dragon Age: Origins involved random guard patrols in Denerim. You think that's awesome? I don't. In fact, it was probably my greatest complaint besides the regenerating health which made the dungeon crawling toothless.

Camera angles plays a huge role in how combat encounters are designed. If you're going to have most of your audience play your game from a third person perspective you don't want them to have a miserable time because they can't keep up with the flow of battle. As such, you simplify things.

Modifié par Marionetten, 18 novembre 2010 - 12:10 .

[StingingVelvet]

Meltemph wrote...

I never used the tactical camera and I played as a primal mage(check my achievments) that includes playing on insanity with The Golems of Amgarrak. It is very possible to play the game with large amounts of aoe without knowing what is around every corner.

I didn't mean to imply I thought it impossible, more along the lines of isn't the first thing you do when going to cast a spell like that to swing the camera back?  And when doing so would it not end up at the farthest back position?

I mean, I kept the camera two-clicks back when walking around at all times, that is where I liked it: two-clicks back.  When casting an AoE spell though I would swirl that mouse wheel backward to get a larger view of the area and inevitably that meant ending up in the tactical view.  It was best for casting those spells and the game put you there when you swung back.

To never use it is, to me, avoiding a beneficial and natural to get to part of the game.  Unless one was self-restricting themselves from using it I don't see how you could not.

[Beaner28]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...
How could you NOT use it when casting large area of effect spells?  It was almost required really.

Zoom out close to as much as you possibly can without "locking in" to the isometric view.  That's what I did.

Khayness wrote...
I've never finished the game as a female PC, they can be removed aswell, I don't care.

I love your logic.

Um, I'm pretty sure every single person on this forum has at least one feature they don't use or don't like, and would argue for its removal, or be completely disinterested and/or incredulous at other posters anger when it actually is.

The isometric camera is one of mine. 

"I didn't use this feature therefore it should not be in the game and anyone that thinks otherwise is a feeble minded buffoon."

-Upsettingshorts

[Meltemph]

You're argument is essentially based on the premise that because you didn't use the tactical view that BioWare shouldn't include one. It's a matter of personal preference and people have the right to be disappointed that it's gone.

No his argument is that it is not needed. Many in this thread is acting(literally) like you essentially HAD to use ISO, and that is blatantly not true. If anything imo, ISO reduced tactics, in Origin. And imo, if you are not going to support it, in what I would consider properly, I would rather them not spend man hrs trying to get it working.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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

What?

Now we can't even survey the battlefield?  What happened to being able to look around? I thought the goal was to give us a free-roaming camera, even if we couldn't have the high angle.  What happened to the free-roaming camera?

The angle wasn't nearly as important as being able to look around.  Why can't we move the camera independently of the characters anymore?  Who thought this was a good idea?

[upsettingshorts]

StingingVelvet wrote...
To never use it is, to me, avoiding a beneficial and natural to get to part of the game.  Unless one was self-restricting themselves from using it I don't see how you could not.

I never sought to purposefuly avoid the isometric camera.  I'd just zoom out as far as I needed, then do my thing and move on.  I never actually needed to zoom out that far.  There was no intent to avoid the feature.

Beaner28 wrote...
"I didn't use this feature therefore it should not be in the game and anyone that thinks otherwise is a feeble minded buffoon."

-Upsettingshorts

More like:

"I didn't use this feature therefore anyone who claims it is impossible to play the game tactically without it either didn't try, undefensibly stuck in their ways, or is a feeble minded buffoon.  People who simply enjoy playing the isometric camera but plan on begrudingly adapting to the zoomed out third person camera are fine by me" - Upsettingshorts

Meltemph wrote...
No his argument is that it is not needed. Many in this thread is acting(literally) like you essentially HAD to use ISO, and that is blatantly not true.

Yup.  That's basically it.  I'm not denying anyone's right to have preferences.  I'm disputing the notion that a certain fixed camera angle is necessary for tactical gameplay.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 novembre 2010 - 12:15 .

[mandela9000]

Well then, it's official then, the trend continues. Since DA your every game is more and more streamlined and dumbed down. We got ME2, now we got DA2, I'm really curious why will you cut from ME3. For me, the Bioware company as I know it is officialy dead and now only the name remains. It's the walking dead with greedy look in it's eyes...



Shame, really, and especially disappointing considering the fact that you always made hardcore crpg games (even though calling DA hardcore game is stretching it a bit) and they always sold amazingly well on PC. I understand you though, the consoles is where the money is right now and maybe one day you'll realize that console games can also support something more complicated than button smashing game. Until then, farewell Bioware, you'll be missed dearly.