210 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Brockololly wrote...
Just seems like the whole over the top dash attacking, warping enemies exploding into giblets part doesn't seem to mesh with the out of combat world. That the combat stuff is so over the top that it just makes things disjointed and disconnected feeling.

I just wonder how well DA2 will actually be able to retain its tactical combat like Origins, since it sure seems like the focus is more on making it easier to play as an action game.

If you play DA:O with tactics and without pause, it's a clunky mess, and isn't even tactical in any meaningful sense in the least. Adding pause & play makes an incredible difference to the game; it's almost like playing an entirely different game (at least on the PC).

So I would put very little stock in any real-time console impression, because just on the PC in DA:O the gameplay is so dramatically different just with frequent pausing.

[upsettingshorts]

Ms. Lovey Dovey wrote...
Obviously because the game play tactics and configures will be simpler....does that make sense?

Where I'd raise a question is with the use of the word "obviously" when I've yet to see evidence that makes such implications so... obivous. 

[Tsuga C]

ziggehunderslash wrote...
It's an audio visual medium, you don't think that when making something within an audio visual medium people might consider, you know, visuals?

Certainly, but not ahead of story, companions, or gameplay.  In this case, the new direction in gameplay and "feel" are what many of us are questioning.

[Ziggeh]

Tsuga C wrote...

Certainly, but not ahead of story, companions, or gameplay.  In this case, the new direction in gameplay and "feel" are what many of us are questioning.

I tend to see them as part of the same thing, so plaing them in priority order feels a bit wierd, but I get that people do.

I think it's more that it's the one thing you would assume you can make objective statements about. Which is only as true as how close a screenshot represents the finished producy, but still.

[Apollo Starflare]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ms. Lovey Dovey wrote...
Obviously because the game play tactics and configures will be simpler....does that make sense?

Where I'd raise a question is with the use of the word "obviously" when I've yet to see evidence that makes such implications so... obivous. 

Considering we've had Mike Laidlaw confirm that tactics are returning ages ago I don't see why it's so easy to assume they won't be required. If Bioware were truly doing half of what some claim they are they wouldn't be taking the time to develop the game with pause and play and tactics at all.

Oh and if EA are pandering to the graphics obssessed kids or whatever that was on the last page, why are PC players coming in here to complain that the graphics don't look very good? I've even seen them posting screens from ME2 and what not pointing out how the textures aren't good enough. Surely this proves reasonably good graphics are desired across the board? Or at least shows that EA are not pushing Bioware to those who just want rediculously good graphics.

[Brockololly]

Apollo Starflare wrote...
Considering we've had Mike Laidlaw confirm that tactics are returning ages ago I don't see why it's so easy to assume they won't be required. If Bioware were truly doing half of what some claim they are they wouldn't be taking the time to develop the game with pause and play and tactics at all.

I don't worry that "tactics" as they existed in Origins won't be there, more that having to pause, think and actually use tactics in a given battle won't really be necessary since the overall design focus seems to be on how to make the game more easily playable by those that don't want to bother with tactics and just play in real time. I want to know how the game is going to be better than Origins with regards to the whole "thinking like a General" side of things- whether thats improved AI or whatever- they've only been focusing on how its so easy to pick up and play, not how the pause and play side of things has been improved, only scaled back, at least on the PC side of things.

Apollo Starflare wrote...
Oh and if EA are pandering to the graphics obssessed kids or whatever that was on the last page, why are PC players coming in here to complain that the graphics don't look very good? I've even seen them posting screens from ME2 and what not pointing out how the textures aren't good enough. Surely this proves reasonably good graphics are desired across the board? Or at least shows that EA are not pushing Bioware to those who just want rediculously good graphics.

Sure, everyone wants nice graphics, especially when one of the marketing bullet points for DA2 says that you can "Discover a whole realm rendered in stunning detail with updated graphics and a new visual style."

I'm seeing the new visual style, but updated graphics? Not really. Maybe its better on the console side of things, but again, I'm not seeing at all how the PC side of things graphically is being improved. The issue with the textures is that the PC is entirely capable of utilzing higher resolution textures while the consoles are severely limited by their hardware memory- all I'm saying there is to not handcuff the PC version to the textures of the consoles.

Hopefully we see something of the PC version in the next millenium or so, but its hard not to be a bit underwhelmed and disappointed with it when we've only really heard about how the console version is getting better but next to nothing on the PC version and only how stuff like the toolset and iso view are being taken out.3

So yeah, PC gameplay please.

Modifié par Brockololly, 04 décembre 2010 - 09:15 .

[nightcobra]

Brockololly wrote...

So yeah, PC gameplay please.

they were uploading one just now...

but they saw this and delayed it again:P

[Apollo Starflare]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

So yeah, PC gameplay please.

they were uploading one just now...

but they saw this and delayed it again:P

@Brock: I actually completely agree in regards to wanting to see them show how they have improved on the 'fight like a general' part of their PR line. I've always said they wouldn't be working on keeping the pause and play and tactics in the game at all if the focus had shifted so much to the other end of the spectrum, but it is certainly time to see it given some love. I'm really hoping Bioware has it in mind as a sort of xmas present for it's more tradtional fanbase, but who knows.

As for the graphics thing, I was mostly commenting that some people seem to be slamming EA for making Bioware focus on the graphical side of things too much, while at the same time others are saying the graphics are well below par, just seems odd that two strong arguments would be coming from completely opposite directions.

[danielkx]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Tsuga C wrote...

People like this are NOT looking to replicate a Pen 'n' Paper roleplaying game.  Unfortunately, this seems to be the segment of the gaming population that the dimwits at EA are forcing their lock, stock, and barrel-owned in-house studio BioWare to give greater consideration in DA2.

Good lord.

It's an audio visual medium, you don't think that when making something within an audio visual medium people might consider, you know, visuals?

There are plenty of other games that are more suited to be visually spectacular, as well as games that are not rpg's. Most shooters nowadays have such a heavy focus on visual effects that you see only marginal differences in how they play, with the exception of a few. So why should people want a game where the primary focuses are on story and gameplay, to have a larger portion of its rescources being spent on graphics?

By spending more on visuals you take away from the other elements of the game since developers have a set budget as to how much they can spend developing a game. If what you care about the most is the game being visually stunning, then gamers have TONS of choices to choose from. But those of us who want to see games that have quality writing and gameplay as the primary focus, there are far fewer choices since most developers do not focus on those aspects as much as they do graphics. Why would you want to ruin one of the few newer games by shifting the focus to graphics?

[AlanC9]

danielkx wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Tsuga C wrote...

People like this are NOT looking to replicate a Pen 'n' Paper roleplaying game.  Unfortunately, this seems to be the segment of the gaming population that the dimwits at EA are forcing their lock, stock, and barrel-owned in-house studio BioWare to give greater consideration in DA2.

Good lord.

It's an audio visual medium, you don't think that when making something within an audio visual medium people might consider, you know, visuals?

There are plenty of other games that are more suited to be visually spectacular, as well as games that are not rpg's. Most shooters nowadays have such a heavy focus on visual effects that you see only marginal differences in how they play, with the exception of a few. So why should people want a game where the primary focuses are on story and gameplay, to have a larger portion of its rescources being spent on graphics?

By spending more on visuals you take away from the other elements of the game since developers have a set budget as to how much they can spend developing a game. If what you care about the most is the game being visually stunning, then gamers have TONS of choices to choose from. But those of us who want to see games that have quality writing and gameplay as the primary focus, there are far fewer choices since most developers do not focus on those aspects as much as they do graphics. Why would you want to ruin one of the few newer games by shifting the focus to graphics?

I'm confused. Where did ziggehunderslash say that he wanted the focus to be on graphics? Wanting the graphics to not suck isn't exactly the same thing.

[Meltemph]

 

But those of us who want to see games that have quality writing and gameplay as the primary focus

People say all the time that they want this, but when games like: http://basiliskgames...schalon-book-ii
does not sell as good as the 1st one, and the 1st one was not even a smashing success... I tend to think most people are not being very honest.  Maybe you personally are, but most are not and the sales of games like this shows that most want the focus to be on graphics much more then the protests suggest.

Modifié par Meltemph, 05 décembre 2010 - 05:57 .

[Ziggeh]

AlanC9 wrote...

danielkx wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Tsuga C wrote...

People like this are NOT looking to replicate a Pen 'n' Paper roleplaying game.  Unfortunately, this seems to be the segment of the gaming population that the dimwits at EA are forcing their lock, stock, and barrel-owned in-house studio BioWare to give greater consideration in DA2.

Good lord.

It's an audio visual medium, you don't think that when making something within an audio visual medium people might consider, you know, visuals?

There are plenty of other games that are more suited to be visually spectacular, as well as games that are not rpg's. Most shooters nowadays have such a heavy focus on visual effects that you see only marginal differences in how they play, with the exception of a few. So why should people want a game where the primary focuses are on story and gameplay, to have a larger portion of its rescources being spent on graphics?

By spending more on visuals you take away from the other elements of the game since developers have a set budget as to how much they can spend developing a game. If what you care about the most is the game being visually stunning, then gamers have TONS of choices to choose from. But those of us who want to see games that have quality writing and gameplay as the primary focus, there are far fewer choices since most developers do not focus on those aspects as much as they do graphics. Why would you want to ruin one of the few newer games by shifting the focus to graphics?

I'm confused. Where did ziggehunderslash say that he wanted the focus to be on graphics? Wanting the graphics to not suck isn't exactly the same thing.

Indeed. No matter what value you assign to it personally, graphics are a very important part of modern gaming. We've become used to a certain level of polish, and while I definitely feel that it's a genre more forgiving than others, both I, and I imagine the people making it want it to look good.

As I said before, I don't see it as a seperate entity. Graphics are both part of your storytelling and gameplay, and so prioritising one over the other seems rather an odd thing to do. I also think that the idea that concentration on one element is detrimental to others, as if the budget is an arbitrarily assigned figure from which they each draw a piece of the pie is something of an oversimplification.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

People say all the time that they want this, but when games like: http://basiliskgames...schalon-book-ii
does not sell as good as the 1st one, and the 1st one was not even a smashing success... I tend to think most people are not being very honest.  Maybe you personally are, but most are not and the sales of games like this shows that most want the focus to be on graphics much more then the protests suggest.

I have yet to see any gameplay benefit from any graphical advancement beyond what we saw in NWN.

Eight years ago.

And I still happily play NWN.  In fact, NWN was the last game I was playing before DAO's release.

[Sir JK]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I have yet to see any gameplay benefit from any graphical advancement beyond what we saw in NWN.
Eight years ago.
And I still happily play NWN.  In fact, NWN was the last game I was playing before DAO's release.

Hypothetically they could use the graphics improvements to give us clues and such of a visual nature, allow us to use patterns and similar in the backgrounds on or characters as part of puzzles and whatnot.

The amount of games doing this is rather limited though.

[AlanC9]

.That isn't exactly an objection to Meltemph's post, Sylvius.

Modifié par AlanC9, 05 décembre 2010 - 07:08 .

[Vaeliorin]

Meltemph wrote...

But those of us who want to see games that have quality writing and gameplay as the primary focus

People say all the time that they want this, but when games like: http://basiliskgames...schalon-book-ii
does not sell as good as the 1st one, and the 1st one was not even a smashing success... I tend to think most people are not being very honest.  Maybe you personally are, but most are not and the sales of games like this shows that most want the focus to be on graphics much more then the protests suggest.

That's probably not the best example.  I tried the demo for the first one (it looked like something I'd like) and the UI was absolutely awful.  I don't need graphics to be of awesome quality, but the UI needs to be functional and not unnecessarily obfuscatory.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

.That isn't exactly an objection to Meltemph's post, Sylvius.

Not all of it, no.

But it's still something that was worth saying.

[danielkx]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Indeed. No matter what value you assign to it personally, graphics are a very important part of modern gaming. We've become used to a certain level of polish, and while I definitely feel that it's a genre more forgiving than others, both I, and I imagine the people making it want it to look good.

As I said before, I don't see it as a seperate entity. Graphics are both part of your storytelling and gameplay, and so prioritising one over the other seems rather an odd thing to do. I also think that the idea that concentration on one element is detrimental to others, as if the budget is an arbitrarily assigned figure from which they each draw a piece of the pie is something of an oversimplification.

That truly makes no sense to me. Graphics is a completely seperate entity in comparison to the other aspects of a game. You do not need high quality textures and graphics for the game to be good; conversly if you have a game with amazing visuals but bad writing and gameplay, the game will not be good, it will just look good. We all prefer our games to be visually enticing however you must prioritize what is most important.

Believe it or not each game that is made is made on a specific budget. That budget can most certainly be altered during development if the developer/publisher sees it to be necessary. But if you have $30 million budget for a game and half of that is going to be spent on making the game look visually amazing, well then you are obviously choosing to assign a larger portion of the budget towards graphics as opposed to all of the other aspects of the game., which means graphics i sbeing prioritized higher than writing and gameplay elements, as well as every other aspect of the game.

Also graphics are almost completely irrevelant to story telling and gameplay. When I say graphics I am not referring to animation and lighting, nor am I referring to the artwork and design; I am simply referring to making the game with higher quality textures, more "cool" effects and things of that nature. These things make the game look cooler but they add nothing to the gameplay itself.

As I said, we would all like every game to look amazing, but if in order for the game to look great, I would have to give up some quality in writing, gameplay and QA, I would rather have the game with lower quality visuals. And believe me, this decision is made in every single game that is made; whether or not it is worth it to put more of the budget into graphics rather than other elements.

[Fredvdp]

Mariquis wrote...

I don't even recall any poor graphics.

Blurry textures, ugly shadows, excessive bloom, poor aliasing, missing skyboxes causing ghost effects, texture clipping, poor liquid effects.

Textures aren't the only bad thing about ME2's graphics but on a 1920x1080 display you can't stop thinking about how blurry they are, especially during cutscenes when the game zooms in. I understand that the Xbox 360 is five years old and that ME2 looks good for console standards but the Xbox user doesn't sit as close to his TV as a PC gamer to his monitor. That's why flaws like this are more noticable for PC gamers.

About the lack of menu shortcuts: I've complaint about this since release day and it seems this is one of the few things BioWare has not adressed. It's like they want to ignore any mention of menu shortcuts. Except for the devs who posted in this thread, but they're Dragon Age devs and I think they care a lot more about PC gaming than the Mass Effect team.

Modifié par Fredvdp, 05 décembre 2010 - 12:44 .

[Maria Caliban]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Yes, I suppose it depends on your definition of fanboy, I tend to associate it with blind optimism in the face of evidence, which I feel is rare here. But maybe I'm blindly optomistic.

I have no problem being called a fangirl as long as I get to call others chicken littles. It's the same for every damn game that BioWare makes and I'm baffled as to why. People complained that Mass Effect would be a horrible game and when Mass Effect 2 came out, they complained that BioWare was tampering with the masterpiece that was ME. The DA:O was so stuffed full of doom criers, it makes this forum look like a carnival. I swear, you would have thought that BioWare was violating the dead body of some poster's mother the way they talked about the company betraying PC gamers when we heard it was no longer PC exclusive.

[Fredvdp]

Maria Caliban wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Yes, I suppose it depends on your definition of fanboy, I tend to associate it with blind optimism in the face of evidence, which I feel is rare here. But maybe I'm blindly optomistic.

I have no problem being called a fangirl as long as I get to call others chicken littles. It's the same for every damn game that BioWare makes and I'm baffled as to why. People complained that Mass Effect would be a horrible game and when Mass Effect 2 came out, they complained that BioWare was tampering with the masterpiece that was ME. The DA:O was so stuffed full of doom criers, it makes this forum look like a carnival. I swear, you would have thought that BioWare was violating the dead body of some poster's mother the way they talked about the company betraying PC gamers when we heard it was no longer PC exclusive.

I especially loved the ME2 on PS3 announcement, not just on this forum. I personally think that more platforms means more money for BioWare and therefore better products in the future. Other people saw it as WE ARE BETRAYED OMG BIOWARE ABANDONED US.

[Tsuga C]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I have yet to see any gameplay benefit from any graphical advancement beyond what we saw in NWN.

Eight years ago.

And I still happily play NWN.  In fact, NWN was the last game I was playing before DAO's release.

I'm solidly with Sylvius.  The only gameplay improvement that more sophisticated graphics would provide to the NWN1 system would be an upgrade from 2D/3D to true 3D.

And when people lump everything together and don't differentiate or prioritize elements like graphics and gameplay, AlanC9, my experience on the forums is that they're trying to avoid saying they really enjoy the eye-candy, if not to the exclusion of all else then certainly to their detriment.

[Snoteye]

Tsuga C wrote...

The only gameplay improvement that more sophisticated graphics would provide to the NWN1 system would be an upgrade from 2D/3D to true 3D.

How would that be an improvement?

[Ziggeh]

danielkx wrote...

That truly makes no sense to me. Graphics is a completely seperate entity in comparison to the other aspects of a game.

You can certainly divide them intellectually. Say that this belongs in this area etc. But that's not how you actually view a medium. Think about how you relate to people. You can say after the fact that you liked how they looked or their personality, but each element has a profound effect on the other. Your initial impressions of how they look will be a part of the way you interact and therefor the impression you are given of their personality. Symbolism, body language, facial expressions, these are really important elements of the way in which visual mediums tell us stories, and while you can detach them after the fact, that's not how it works when you're actively engaged in them. Can you do these things with "bad" graphics? Sure, but it doesn't mean you should.

danielkx wrote...Believe it or not each game that is made is made on a specific budget.

Indeed, but all I'm saying is that I'm not sure that initial figure is arbitrary. I understand your point and the reasoning behind it, I'm just not sure it accurately represents what actually happens. Businesses are more complex than that.

[In Exile]

Tsuga C wrote...
And when people lump everything together and don't differentiate or prioritize elements like graphics and gameplay, AlanC9, my experience on the forums is that they're trying to avoid saying they really enjoy the eye-candy, if not to the exclusion of all else then certainly to their detriment.

The problem is that, like with all things, there is no real concensus. You will have people two people who largely agree on the direction that an RPG ought to take (i.e. no PC VO, more imagination in-game, create-your-own party) and then have a dramatic difference on graphics, where one person things graphics have to be cutting edge to take advantage of PC hardware and the other things NWN-style graphics are already pushing it.