162 réponses à ce sujet

[MIke_18]

What is the main reason behind this decision.

I know Bioware is making another camera, so it's not only to ****** people off like IW did with MW2, or removing features from the PC version for the hell of it.

But why? 

Only conclusion i can come up with is that the enviroments are more linear, therefore if you pull the camera up developers have to create more land , and there's not enough land since the envroments are smaller  and  more linear.  This makes sense ? 

[Bullets McDeath]

I believe the reason I saw in one developer response was they could improve the overall quality of the graphics by not having to make textures for zoomed-way-out camera. If that is the case, I'd imagine the camera pulls back literally as far as they could make it go without having to create "long distance" textures for everything.

[MIke_18]

"as they could improve the overall quality of the graphics by not having to make textures for zoomed-way-out camera"



How does that improve the quality? The way you're describing is like if they were too lazy to bother for textures for the PC version.

[Atakuma]

nevermind

Modifié par Atakuma, 07 décembre 2010 - 02:18 .

[hexaligned]

Both versions are going to play the same. Which is another way of saying the PC version is going to be limited by what the console can handle in terms of encounter design this time around. Combat designed to be doable without ISO (or any zoomed out view) , would be completely trivialized on the PC, with better battle field overview, and character placement options.

Modifié par relhart, 07 décembre 2010 - 02:21 .

[upsettingshorts]

MIke_18 wrote...

How does that improve the quality? The way you're describing is like if they were too lazy to bother for textures for the PC version.

Why is the argument always "too lazy" ?  They do have limits on time and resources, and have to make choices.  Some stuff gets supported, some stuff suffers.  Why does it have to be lazyness of conspiracy?  Maybe they just made a choice...?

[Bullets McDeath]

MIke_18 wrote...

"as they could improve the overall quality of the graphics by not having to make textures for zoomed-way-out camera"

How does that improve the quality? The way you're describing is like if they were too lazy to bother for textures for the PC version.

Because they can spend the time and resources and manhours that would be spent creating long distance textures on improving the quality of the zoomed in textures?

I can go in depth on how textures scale if you really care to know, but something tells me you probably don't. Lazyness does not really factor into it, unless you're on this "Bioware is EA's evil lying puppet now" train that seems to be running all over this board today.

As simply as I can put it,  the less time spent working on making things look good when they are far away means they can spend more time making things look better close up.

[Ziggeh]

relhart wrote...
Combat designed to be doable without ISO (or any zoomed out view) , would be completely trivialized on the PC, with better battle field overview, and character placement options.

Ya, the reasons they gave were this and something about making ceilings people would see.

[Atakuma]

relhart wrote...

Both versions are going to play the same. Which is another way of saying the PC version is going to be limited by what the console can handle in terms of encounter design this time around. Combat designed to be doable without ISO (or any zoomed out view) , would be completely trivialized on the PC, with better battle field overview, and character placement options.

That is all an assumption you have no way of backing up.

[slimgrin]

Oh sweet isometric camera. I shall miss you.

 <3

Modifié par slimgrin, 07 décembre 2010 - 02:25 .

[Atakuma]

It's baffling to me how people can think that the isometric camera was somehow a requirement to play origins.

Modifié par Atakuma, 07 décembre 2010 - 02:28 .

[lv12medic]

I don't know about the environments being more linear, but I believe (my hypothetical guess) the combat encounters are going to be in smaller areas.  Also, the isometric camera does have issues in DA:O.  From getting yanked around by random magic rubber-bands to having hissytfits because there's a lamp post or some other impassable object blocking the camera from popping out of chase cam to isometric cam.

outlaworacle wrote...

Lazyness does not really factor into it, unless you're on this "Bioware is EA's evil lying puppet now" train that seems to be running all over this board today.

It's the Bio-boards special time of the month I think...

[DarthCaine]

So that people will have something to complain. These boards would be dull without the complaints

[slimgrin]

Atakuma wrote...

It's baffling to me how people can think that the isometric camera was somehow required to play origins.

It really does make for more tactical play, and expediency when issuing orders. I used it frequently.

Edit: and it wasn't a requirement, it was an option. Always nice to have options.

Modifié par slimgrin, 07 décembre 2010 - 02:54 .

[hexaligned]

Atakuma wrote...

relhart wrote...

Both versions are going to play the same. Which is another way of saying the PC version is going to be limited by what the console can handle in terms of encounter design this time around. Combat designed to be doable without ISO (or any zoomed out view) , would be completely trivialized on the PC, with better battle field overview, and character placement options.

That is all an assumption you have no way of backing up.

No, that was the reason given by a dev when this was asked before... actually.

[Ziggeh]

filaminstrel wrote...
I wouldn't call PC combat trivial in DAO, although I'm sure plenty of people here will jump to stroke their own egos about how easy the whole game was, including the Harvester.

What they meant that it's difficult to balance to the two states, and so DA:O was apparently balanced to allow for the more reckless option of using a third person over the shoulder perspective, making it substantially easier for people who didn't.

Whether they should be balancing for reckless play, or indeed if ceilings are worth it in the long run is another matter.

Either way, I 'm convinced I read something about the camera pulling back further than origins. Maybe that was speculation. Damnable forum traceability.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 07 décembre 2010 - 02:37 .

[Atakuma]

relhart wrote...

No, that was the reason given by a dev when this was asked before... actually.

I misread your original post, sorry.

Modifié par Atakuma, 07 décembre 2010 - 02:42 .

[hexaligned]

Atakuma wrote...

relhart wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

relhart wrote...

Both versions are going to play the same. Which is another way of saying the PC version is going to be limited by what the console can handle in terms of encounter design this time around. Combat designed to be doable without ISO (or any zoomed out view) , would be completely trivialized on the PC, with better battle field overview, and character placement options.

That is all an assumption you have no way of backing up.

No, that was the reason given by a dev when this was asked before... actually.

I misread your original post, sorry.

No apologies needed, I'm a fairly blunt person, things I say get taken the wrong way plenty.

[Xewaka]

There's no isometric camera because the encounters are balanced assuming the player receives his information input from an over-the-shoulder camera, and free roam iso camera would make encounters balanced with the over-the-shoulder camera in mind trivially easy.

As an example, whenever you fought in a building in DA:O, if you were using the iso camera, you could happily cast spells through walls undetected, trivializing most indoors battles.

Modifié par Xewaka, 07 décembre 2010 - 09:40 .

[Morroian]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

What they meant that it's difficult to balance to the two states, and so DA:O was apparently balanced to allow for the more reckless option of using a third person over the shoulder perspective, making it substantially easier for people who didn't.

Whether they should be balancing for reckless play, or indeed if ceilings are worth it in the long run is another matter.

Indeed, the explanation makes sense to me because I never play games on the hardest setting but with DAO once I knew how to play it even nightmare was fairly easy except for certain boss battles. Plus I do think there's an element of truth in what angrypants says that they didn't have enough funds in the budget to do the textures for the overhead view or to balance the difficulty properly. Its not lazyness.

Not that I'm happy with the omission, I'm not.

Modifié par Morroian, 07 décembre 2010 - 11:27 .

[RocShemp]

Doesn't DA:O update player data the same way as ME and ME2? Perhaps those that pull back the camera all the way are a vocal minority. If so, the devs probably saw the isometric camera as a pointless use of resources.

Of course, that's assuming that camera usage is part of the data that's uploaded to EA/Bioware.

Modifié par RocShemp, 07 décembre 2010 - 12:01 .

[Pugnate]

The omission of the isometric camera is a massive loss. The
game sold 3.5 million copies, so I don't buy the "we didn't have the
budget". I will really miss the isometric camera, because it gave the game
a very tactical perspective. And yes, it wasn't a true isometric view, but it
was pretty good. One thing is for sure, had the game sold better on PC, we
wouldn't have lost the isometric cam.  

If they had the funds to do it for the first title, I can't
accept that they simply ran out of funds for the sequel. I can accept that they
chose to direct those funds elsewhere with their newly found console focus for
the franchise, but to say that they simply didn't have the budget is bull****.
As a former games journalist, I can smell PR spin, even when it smells this
good.

When I am playing in third person, I get to see a lot of art
that I wouldn't have noticed otherwise. And I do understand that a lot of extra
work is needed artistically when designing the game to be played in an isometric
view as well. But I love how this realization came to them after they started
working on Dragon Age 2.

I recently started playing Dragon Age: Awakening for the
first time. Strangely, all the negative press regarding the PC version of DA2
got me in the mood for more Dragon Age. Anyway, it isn't as bad as I had initially
summarized, though is obviously made on a tighter budget.

I have tried to play it from the third person perspective to
better prepare myself for Dragon Age 2, but I just can't. It feels very
limiting, and at times a handicap, because the camera doesn't behave very well
at all times unless it is completely zoomed out.

BTW, I am really getting sick of the forum rats. In the
words of Shawn Elliot, it is surprising to find bootlickers still exist in
gaming culture, but here we are. Some of the staunchest defenders against every
negatively received change by the general PC gaming public exist here, posting
day in, day out. It is actually a little disturbing, because this is a single
game's forum, and not a general gaming forum, yet forum stats reveal that some
of these fanboys spend over 12 hours a day here, defending against or
ridiculing any piece of negativity posted by anyone with concerns. It leads me
to believe that they are either Bioware employees -- I am just joking about
this part, but do a search on Google for a character called "Rollo",
and NVIDIA some time --, or slightly ill mentally.

edit:

Sorry, hope I didn't offend anyone with my little rant at the end. Shouldn't come online in a bad mood. <3

Modifié par Pugnate, 07 décembre 2010 - 06:27 .