1008 réponses à ce sujet

[Meltemph]

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.

I couldn't stand the ISO in Origins, it literally felt like I was cheating, when I was using it. The difficulty curve is near broken with that camera angle, in this game, imo.

[Xewaka]

I started playing DA:O rotating between both cameras. In the end, I only pulled out of isometric to check if my new stuff looked good up close and to get long sights along corridors.



Information is more easily conveyed on a top-down or isometric view with free roaming. Tactical party based combat works better with it.

[Beaner28]

mandela9000 wrote...

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.

At the rate BioWare is going and assuming the trend continues...Mass Effect 3: Black Ops

[Sylvius the Mad]

Atakuma wrote...

Marionetten wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Then it would essentially be an RTS

No, it would be a party based RPG. Think Icewind Dale, Baldur's Gate and so on.

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

Of course.  It could be like Wizardry.

[Lyssistr]

What sort of PC preview is this, when the previewer hasn't played the PC version of the game and merely writes what a Bioware rep told him about the game.



If anything, this is just a PR stun.

[andar91]

I really don't care about the camera change that much. It sounds like we'll still be able to look around sufficiently for my purposes. I play Origins on PC and always as mages, and I rarely used the zoomed-out camera view.

[Marionetten]

Meltemph wrote...

I couldn't stand the ISO in Origins, it literally felt like I was cheating, when I was using it. The difficulty curve is near broken with that camera angle, in this game, imo.

So wouldn't it be preferable if they made the encounters more complex instead of nerfing the camera?

[Dionkey]

I actually came here to post this. I don't understand why Bioware loves these on rails experiences lately. I am hoping its not for the money but it doesn't look like there is any other reason. Alienating true fans for some extra dough. Origins sold 3.1 million WW across all platforms as a NEW IP. A sequel would surely bring in more money regardless of how much more casual they made it.



It just sickens me after ME2 compared to ME1's experience that BW would do it again and slap their fans in the face, I am almost feel as a stepping stone whenever they do a new IP to please EA and get initial sales. (can't wait to see how they will handle the new game whether it be a ME prequel or new IP)

[Khayness]

JohnEpler wrote...

Continue with the PC elitism at your own risk.

Burn the PC Elitist!

[Atakuma]

Xewaka wrote...

I started playing DA:O rotating between both cameras. In the end, I only pulled out of isometric to check if my new stuff looked good up close and to get long sights along corridors.

Information is more easily conveyed on a top-down or isometric view with free roaming. Tactical party based combat works better with it.

In your opinion maybe but not mine.

[Apollo Starflare]

StingingVelvet wrote...

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.

Fair enough it certainly explains why there is more of an outcry this time around, but my point about it not meaning Bioware has been corrupted by EA and is only capable of making shooters and hack n slash games (or however the argument goes) just because one or two features doesn't follow the RPG rulebook stands.

I suppose for me a Bioware game is a Bioware game regardless of what machine it is optimised for. I just don't understand why for some people not having the complete isometric camera view is an issue on the level it is being presented here. The game is still tactical, the game is still recognisably a Bioware story centered RPG with party control and inventory amongst others staples.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

eyesofastorm wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Marionetten wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

What Bioware needs to do is decide what kind of games they want to make. There seems to be an internal struggle over whether or not they want to make action games or RPG's. It seems like they are going closer and closer to the action genre with each new game they release.

I don't think BioWare gets to decide anything. Remember who they work for.

Good point. Also, I would like to note that I played Origins on the Xbox and I don't appreciate the comments being made towards console gamers as if they are all idiots. If my PC was up to the task, I would have gotten Origins for it, but it just isn't right now. I'm sure that's the situation for many console gamers, and I don't think it's right to group them all together under stupid.

Not that I care a great deal one way or the other, but wouldn't this make you a console gamer by circumstance and a pc gamer at heart, therefore putting you in the group of "smart" folks in the only way that matters?

I've always been more of a PC gamer than console, but I've always played both. I just haven't kept up with the new tech for PC and would have to upgrade to play Origins and the more recent games. So.... I suppose you could say that, but at the same time, I know console gamers who don't like their games being dumbed down anymore than PC gamers do.

My point is, you can't just generalize a group of people and blame them for the decisions made by Bioware/EA. They are the ones pulling the strings.

[Bruddajakka]

So we're still not getting any game play videos so we can judge for ourselves huh?

[Kevin Lynch]

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.

Combat in JE was the worst part of the game. I'd rather have played JE without the combat altogether, as the characters, story, world design, etc, were fantastic. So, if you are claiming that JE turned out better because of those gameplay changes, I'd have to disagree. I think it turned out the way it did in spite of those changes. In comparison then to DA2 vs. DA:O, the changes in combat can be of concern to some very vocal folk.

Like many people that suggest they are worried about what they've seen of DA2, I'll reserve judgement when I have more info and/or play the game itself. But going on my decades of experience in playing a variety of games, I can safely say that the direction that DA2 is taking, for my style of gaming, is both an improvement in some respects and a decline in others. I'm all for marketing to show me otherwise, though; I just wish they'd up the ante and get me hooked.

[upsettingshorts]

Dionkey wrote...
It just sickens me after ME2 compared to ME1's experience that BW would do it again and slap their fans in the face, I am almost feel as a stepping stone whenever they do a new IP to please EA and get initial sales. (can't wait to see how they will handle the new game whether it be a ME prequel or new IP)

It sickens me how much Bioware insulted my intelligence by dumbing down the shooter elements to appeal to the casual RPG crowd in Mass Effect 1.

[addiction21]

AlanC9 wrote...

It's hard to get worked up about what a previewer is saying about a PC camera that he didn't actually see.

Really? *looks around the thread*  I think you are wrong.

[John Epler]

Khayness wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

Continue with the PC elitism at your own risk.

Burn the PC Elitist!

And if at any point in that article, someone had said 'oh, and the other reason we're supporting the PC as a gaming platform is because people who play console games are all below 100 IQ' then you might have a point.

As I've mentioned - I personally prefer the PC. My favourite games are almost all either PC-exclusive or have PC as the lead platform.

That doesn't mean, however, that I think people who enjoy console games are any dumber.

But I've ventured down this path enough, and I really have no interest in defending my... desire for people to be respectful? I guess that's what I'm being called out on?

[Maria Caliban]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Marionetten wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Then it would essentially be an RTS

No, it would be a party based RPG. Think Icewind Dale, Baldur's Gate and so on.

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

Of course.  It could be like Wizardry.

Agreed. I wouldn't mind a first person party based RPG at all.

[Meltemph]

So wouldn't it be preferable if they made the encounters more complex instead of nerfing the camera?

No, not to me. You cant have a game's difficulty properly adjusted for if you have a movable iso camera, imo. You have to, imo, pick which camera angles you are going to build for(when you are dealing with a game like this). Why would I want them wasting time on iso camera angles if they are going to design the game around a non iso camera?



I understand people wanting "features" but to me I would rather have the game be designed properly, and to me the fights in DAO clearly were not, for the most part.

[Blastback]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

I think that the problem is with how your phrasing things.  Some of what you've written comes off as attacking the iso cam, rather than simply pointing out that there are viable alternatives.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

"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

I enjoy the isometric camera, and because it was fairly poorly implemented in DAO (it didn't zoom out far enough, nor could it move far enough from the characters) I was already forced to grudgingly accept the third-person camera.

Ideally, I'd like one camera that shows me everything I want to see.  DAO didn't have that, so I had to switch between them a lot.  While DA2 only has the one camera, it remains to be seen whether that camera will show me everything I want (and what I want is to be able to look at anything my characters could look at and judge distances as well as they could).

The problem with losing the free-roaming camera is that now I have no recourse shuld the default camera fail me.

[upsettingshorts]

Blastback wrote...
I think that the problem is with how your phrasing things.  Some of what you've written comes off as attacking the iso cam, rather than simply pointing out that there are viable alternatives.

I did so in my first post in the thread.  But hey, I'm a little drunk and even more impatient with forum folks than usual.  So that probably explains my candor in this thread.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The problem with losing the free-roaming camera is that now I have no recourse shuld the default camera fail me.

Well, the isometric camera was somewhat fixed in DA:O, in that it followed whatever character it was focused on when unpaused and/or moving.  Paused you could move it wherever.  I wonder if that in particular has been removed, it would be good for Epler or Laidlaw to comment for sure.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 novembre 2010 - 12:23 .

[Xewaka]

Atakuma wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

I started playing DA:O rotating between both cameras. In the end, I only pulled out of isometric to check if my new stuff looked good up close and to get long sights along corridors.

Information is more easily conveyed on a top-down or isometric view with free roaming. Tactical party based combat works better with it.

In your opinion maybe but not mine.

It's not an opinion. Over the top tactical view allows more information input. Strategy games go for that vision to allow a better information input to the player. This information is used to perform more elaborated tactics on the player part. It also allows to crank up the complexity of the encounter because the player can handle larger amounts of information. It has been indicated in the article that encounters had to be simplified to set in with the rear camera.

Objectively, based on amount of information effectively displayed, "eagle-eye" cameras are superior, and tactical combat benefits more from that kind of information display.

Modifié par Xewaka, 18 novembre 2010 - 12:23 .

[Beaner28]

Bruddajakka wrote...

So we're still not getting any game play videos so we can judge for ourselves huh?

Nope. Hopefully we get something soon as we're all dying for it.

[Atakuma]

Xewaka wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

I started playing DA:O rotating between both cameras. In the end, I only pulled out of isometric to check if my new stuff looked good up close and to get long sights along corridors.

Information is more easily conveyed on a top-down or isometric view with free roaming. Tactical party based combat works better with it.

In your opinion maybe but not mine.

It's not an opinion. Over the top tactical view allows more information input. Strategy games go for that vision to allow a better information input to the player. This information is used to perform more elaborated tactics on the player part. It also allows to crank up the complexity of the encounter because the player can handle larger amounts of information.
Objectively, based on amount of information effectively displayed, "eagle-eye" cameras are superior, and tactical combat benefits more from that kind of information display.

nope still your opinion