1008 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

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.

If the iso cam makes the game too easy, and game difficulty matters to you more than the iso cam does, then just don't use the iso cam.

Why should fans of the iso cam have to pay the price for your lack of self-control?

[Malanek]

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.

You are aware you probably can't do this? Also why would you stop just short of the maximum? Seems a very strange argument.

[Kilshrek]

It will be interesting, to say the least, to see how tactical gameplay pans out when one cannot look around a corner to see what's waiting.



The think like a general bit should be thrown out of the window I think, because I don't think any general in history has ever led troops from the front knowing no more than they do. The new marketing line should be think like a Sergeant. That's where the front line brains are, as anyone who knows anything about these things would agree. *ahem*

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Marionetten wrote...

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.

Yes.  What makes the game party-based is the ability of the player to control the entire party.  That's really all it is.

[upsettingshorts]

Malanek999 wrote...
You are aware you probably can't do this? Also why would you stop just short of the maximum? Seems a very strange argument.

I didn't exactly pull out a ruler and measure.  The number of times I needed the near-maximum zoom distance during DA:O I could count on one hand, so I'm not terribly concerned.  

[Wicked 702]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

No, I don't. Choice is good, even bad ones. But I'm weird.

[aznsoisauce]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

If I could high-five you right now, I would.

ME1 was only superior in story and squad mate interaction/banter. Anything beyond that is probably nostalgia goggles talking.

Now...about this lack of iso-camera...I don't know how to feel about this. I may not have used it outside of casting AOE spells, but I recall it being one of the highly praised features of the PC version. So I'm a little confused as to why it isn't making a return. But I will still reserve judgement until we actually get a real preview of combat using the PC version of the game.

[Xewaka]

Atakuma wrote...
nope still your opinion

Then please explain me the benefits of rear camera over eagle-eye camera, because I can't see them. And simply answering "no it isn't", while bringing funny Python memories, does not make an argument.
I explained to you the objective benefits of tactical camera. It has been admitted that designing with the rear camera in mind limited the complexity of the encounters, thus lessening the gameplay experience. I ask you, what are the benefits of rear camera against eagle-eye camera for tactical party based gameplay?

[Apollo Starflare]

Kevin Lynch 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.

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.

I wasn't really saying one thing worked better than the other in any way? It was more aimed at those suggesting that if Bioware try something different it is down to them being owned by EA and can only result in a downward path to creating dumbed down games. To be honest the combat in JE wasn't my favourite part of that game either, but as far as I am aware it was mostly very well received by critics regardless. *shrugs* I certainly don't think it's better than DAO, I played DAO much more than JE (funnily enough I own JE on PC and DAO on xbox, I've gotta start getting the right system for these games I guess!)

I probably shouldn't have bought JE up though, I just don't know how this means Bioware are selling their soul. I thought JE was pretty good on PC incidentally.

With all this said I still want to see some PC DA2 footage and it's obvious there are some design decisions that are of actual concern. It sometimes feels like the reasonable problems get overwhelmed by massively over exaggerated issues on the forum though.

[AtreiyaN7]

JohnEpler wrote...

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?

DIdn't you know? Some folks around these here parts don't take too kindly to things like common courtesy or common sense.

*hides behind the saloon bar and keeps her shotgun nearby until the gunfighting ends*

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 18 novembre 2010 - 12:32 .

[Meltemph]

It's not an opinion. Over the top tactical view allows more information input.[/quote]



With fights designed like red rover, and not based on an ISO camera, yes. But for a game that is properly trailered to the camera's they are using? No, it "should" not. BG was ISO but you could not pull the crap that you can in DAO with ISO.

[kr33g0r]

Iso cam was great for pausing, surveying a battle field, sending Alistair/Oghren/Sten/Shale to one place to attack, Wynne/Morrigan/Leliana to somewhere else to fire at range and myself (as a cloaked rogue) to a nice position for backstabbing. Un pause and watch the chaos!



You can do that to some degree with over the shoulder zoomed out view but its not as nice.

[Malanek]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...
You are aware you probably can't do this? Also why would you stop just short of the maximum? Seems a very strange argument.

I didn't exactly pull out a ruler and measure.  The number of times I needed the near-maximum zoom distance during DA:O I could count on one hand, so I'm not terribly concerned.  

But now you can't do it virtually at all. This may be why FF has been moved to insanity only.

[Marionetten]

Meltemph wrote...

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.

Yes, I agree with you here. There is little point in throwing in an isometric camera if your game isn't designed around it which Dragon Age II obviously isn't. At that point it's just a gimmick and I think the effort could be better spent on more important things. Like capes and horses.

I also think that Dragon Age II might prove the better game if only for not being schizofrenically designed but I do mourn the loss of the gameplay found in Baldur's Gate and its ilk. Hopefully BioWare will at some point attempt a true spiritual successor because it's becoming increasingly clear that Dragon Age isn't it.

Modifié par Marionetten, 18 novembre 2010 - 12:31 .

[upsettingshorts]

Malanek999 wrote...
But now you can't do it virtually at all. This may be why FF has been moved to insanity only.

I'll see precisely how much we can zoom out in DA:O and if I feel restricted by it.  I'm not going to judge some arbirtrary distance as being completely counterintuitive to tactical gameplay simply because it's one of many possibilities, one of them being "it will work out just fine."

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 novembre 2010 - 12:30 .

[Meltemph]

Why should fans of the iso cam have to pay the price for your lack of self-control?

Did you purposely skip over the part where I said I didn't use it? I'm guessing you didn't and just wanted to throw that out, huh?

If the iso cam makes the game too easy, and game difficulty matters to you more than the iso cam does, then just don't use the iso cam.

It was more then just being too easy. It was very obvious the game was not designed with ISO as a main use.



As for the reason I would rather them not have one? Because I would rather have them spend, that time they would be making an ISO cam, on something else.

[Tsuga C]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If the iso cam makes the game too easy, and game difficulty matters to you more than the iso cam does, then just don't use the iso cam.

Why should fans of the iso cam have to pay the price for your lack of self-control?

^ Utterly magnificent, Sylvius.  

[Saibh]

Meltemph wrote...


With fights designed like red rover, and not based on an ISO camera, yes. But for a game that is properly trailered to the camera's they are using? No, it "should" not. BG was ISO but you could not pull the crap that you can in DAO with ISO.

Why are you capitalizing iso? It's short for isometric view. It's not an acronym. I must be missing something.

Modifié par Saibh, 18 novembre 2010 - 12:31 .

[andar91]

One thing I'm not overly pleased about in relation to the camera is my growing suspicion that friendly fire is going to disappear in this game. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling it's only going to be on the higher difficulties. I played Origins on Normal and had no problems. I won't throw a fit or not buy the game over it (if this is true), but it'll make me a little disappointed.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...
You are aware you probably can't do this? Also why would you stop just short of the maximum? Seems a very strange argument.

I didn't exactly pull out a ruler and measure.  The number of times I needed the near-maximum zoom distance during DA:O I could count on one hand, so I'm not terribly concerned.  

What character were you typically controlling when combat began?

This might have something to do with it.  If you tended to run into combat (say, you controlled the tank) then you'd be used to having the camera in amidst the combat right from the beginning.

Whereas, if you tended to engage from much farther away (as I did, typically opening with a carefully placed glyph following by some long-range archery, or some similar approach), then the moveable camera counted for a lot.

In the real world, you can tell a lot about the environment around you because you have binolcular vision.  You can judge distance from a single vantage point.

But this isn't true in DAO.  Because you're looking at a two-dimensional image, you can't properly judge distances without moving the camera laterally.  And how far you need to move the camera is proportional to the square of the distance from your target, so at long ranges you needed to move the camera a hell of a lot.  Or, you needed to reduce that distance.  A free-roaming camera allowed that.  DA2's camera sounds very much like it will not.

[Xewaka]

Saibh wrote...

Meltemph wrote...


With fights designed like red rover, and not based on an ISO camera, yes. But for a game that is properly trailered to the camera's they are using? No, it "should" not. BG was ISO but you could not pull the crap that you can in DAO with ISO.

Why are you capitalizing iso? It's short for isometric view. It's not an acronym. I must be missing something.

He must have been burning some DVDs.

[Meltemph]

Saibh wrote...

Meltemph wrote...


With fights designed like red rover, and not based on an ISO camera, yes. But for a game that is properly trailered to the camera's they are using? No, it "should" not. BG was ISO but you could not pull the crap that you can in DAO with ISO.

Why are you capitalizing iso? It's short for isometric view. It's not an acronym. I must be missing something.

I honestly don't know.  I started it, and just made it a habit in this short of time.

[Brockololly]

andar91 wrote...

One thing I'm not overly pleased about in relation to the camera is my growing suspicion that friendly fire is going to disappear in this game. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling it's only going to be on the higher difficulties. I played Origins on Normal and had no problems. I won't throw a fit or not buy the game over it (if this is true), but it'll make me a little disappointed.

In the thread Peter Thomas had going a while back, he mentioned at the time, only Nightmare had friendly fire. Which to me, makes things considerably less tactical as you can simply spam fireballs in the middle of your party with no consequences.

[Bryy_Miller]

Brockololly wrote...

Seriously, though if the "TACTICAL CAMERA 2.0 !" is just the ability to zoom out, thats total BS. Its stuff like this that shows how they at least need to show the PC version to journalists instead of having to filter everything through a PR person.

Until we get gameplay videos, who knows how it works.

It's disappointing, yes, but it's not like we know exactly how it functions.

[Maria Caliban]

Xewaka wrote...

Atakuma wrote...
nope still your opinion

Then please explain me the benefits of rear camera over eagle-eye camera, because I can't see them.

The benefit of that viewpoint is that the developer doesn't have to spend as much time detailing the tops of building and it's as closer to the viewpoint people actually have without removing situational awareness. Of course, they undermine that last one by allowing you to hop to your companions. Something like ME 2 where you could only see the Commander's view might be better for that.