162 réponses à ce sujet

[The Masked Rog]

Pugnate wrote...



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.

So basically people have to critizice something? What if they don't find the changes negative. They are obliged to say they are, else they are mentally ill? That's a very poor argument. Some people just don't find reason to complains, hence they only say good things. And it is very sad to see yolu have to insult others to get your point accross.

[bill4747bill]

filaminstrel 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.

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.

Yes. I beat the game in three hours using only 'Dog'...no Warden...just Dog.

[Ziggeh]

filaminstrel wrote...



So if DAO was balanced for over-the-shoulder view, yet you could still use iso-view if you wanted, why is it only now that they're balancing DA2 for over-the-shoulder view that iso-view has become unacceptable?

Presumably balancing came after the camera decisions were made in origins, or it was something they learn from feedback. Can't really say.

filaminstrel wrote...

And I would dispute that iso-view actually makes the tough battles any easier.

I wouldn't say easier myself, but it was certainly more convenient at times. I suspect what they mean is that having a more variety of camera views makes things easier than just the iso versus third person. Still, I'm not sure I equate camera angles with recklessness, I think that's more to do with how often you were jabbing the space bar.

Pugnate wrote...

 The game sold 3.5 million copies, so I don't buy the "we didn't have the budget".

...

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****.

I'm reasonably sure they've never said that, so whether you buy it or not is rather irrelevant. Even if they had, sales of the previous game aren't exactly in a 1:1 relationship with a games budget.

Pugnate wrote...
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

So you're saying the iso camera makes the game easier? Might I direct you to previous posts.

Pugnate wrote...
BTW, I am really getting sick of the forum rats.

Ad hominem before a response? Like it, like it.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 07 décembre 2010 - 04:34 .

[Pugnate]

Easier in the sense that I find it more natural to control and issue commands.

I'm reasonably sure they've never said that, so whether you buy it or not is rather irrelevant. Even if they had, sales of the previous game aren't exactly in a 1:1 relationship with a games budget.

I remember reading several times that they did. If I am wrong, I apologize.

Like it, like it.

Based on the automated robotic babble I've seen.

So basically people have to critizice something? What if they don't find the changes negative. They are obliged to say they are, else they are mentally ill? That's a very poor argument. Some people just don't find reason to complains, hence they only say good things. And it is very sad to see yolu have to insult others to get your point accross.

There are identifying similarities and patterns. Either you see it or you don't.

[In Exile]

slimgrin wrote...
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.

I can't agree to that. I found that the 1/2 zoomed out view was far superior to iso because the camera could rotate and we had depth perception as well as breath of view given to us by a somewhat top-down perspective. That was far better than the iso view, which basically forces you to not see around the edges.

[lv12medic]

Isn't the new cam supposed to have added rotational axis as well? I could have sworn Laidlaw or someone else mentioning that. Something like the camera zooms in and out like in origins, can rotate around the character like in origins, but also has yaw to pan the camera left and right away from the character? I don't know if a fair comparison can be made between playing origins in the chase cam (resisting the urge to zoom out to the isometric camera) and assuming it'll be and handle the same in DA2.

[Pugnate]

While I have been negative, I should say that we haven't played the game yet, and Bioware may actually have found a solution that is satisfactory to PC gamers. I am hoping, anyway.

[David Gaider]

My understanding (which is vague, to be honest, as this isn't a story-related issue) is that one of the driving forces behind this was level design. Lacking the requirement to design every level with a "pop-off" top and zoomed-out textures, not to mention layout that works when viewed from above as well as from an angle, allowed for far less restrictions.

There are other reasons as well, but if someone is just going to write this off as us being "lazy" rather than a considered design decision, then I doubt they really care about them much.

I believe there is a version of the zoomed-out camera that PC users will get, but that's something that Mike has described previously and I'm not going to muddy the waters with my technically-deficient description of it.

[Ziggeh]

David Gaider wrote...

I believe there is a version of the zoomed-out camera that PC users will get, but that's something that Mike has described previously and I'm not going to muddy the waters with my technically-deficient description of it.

Sweet, I didn't make that up then. Good to know.

[LadyKarrakaz]

This has already been discussed a few months ago, check the first post of this thread.

[Ziggeh]

Purple Lady wrote...

This has already been discussed a few months ago, check the first post of this thread.

Ah, a budgetary reason, I stand corrected.

[Sylvius the Mad]

outlaworacle wrote...

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.

That doesn't make any sense, as there still won't be anything in the game we can't view from a distance.

Even our own characters - since we can control them independently, and the camera can be tied to any of them, we can move the camera far away from anything in the world.

All I care about is whether the camera can roam freely.  Even Mike agreed that a free-roaming camera was the most important aspect of the tactical camera - not the angle.

[David Gaider]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
All I care about is whether the camera can roam freely.

Unless I'm mistaken (which is possible) the camera is attached to the currently-selected character.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That's what Mike said, but the way he said it was a bit ambiguous, and it contradicted his previous assertion about tactical gameplay (which he still maintains DA2 has), so the truth of the matter was unclear.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 07 décembre 2010 - 06:03 .

[Bullets McDeath]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

outlaworacle wrote...

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.

That doesn't make any sense, as there still won't be anything in the game we can't view from a distance.

Even our own characters - since we can control them independently, and the camera can be tied to any of them, we can move the camera far away from anything in the world.

All I care about is whether the camera can roam freely.  Even Mike agreed that a free-roaming camera was the most important aspect of the tactical camera - not the angle.

You're misunderstanding the concept. To use Origins examples, if you are zoomed all the way in and your party is spread out, let's say you are controlling your Warden and Leliana is way on the far end of the screen. Looking at Leliana, you are seeing the same textures you would if you were controlling Leliana and the camera was right on her. When you zoom all the way out into the tactical/pseudo-iso camera, those are different textures.

[Piecake]

Pugnate wrote...

While I have been negative, I should say that we haven't played the game yet, and Bioware may actually have found a solution that is satisfactory to PC gamers. I am hoping, anyway.

The camera is the one thing that worries me the most about this game (In general, I like the other proposed changes).  The camera is supposedly different than the over-the-shoulder cam in DAO though, and I truly hope that is the case.

I just forsee several instances where a player/companion lock-on camera would irritate me to no end.  for example, say one of your companions is in a room and spots an enemy while you are outside and cant see him or the enemy.  If I switch from my companion to myself and then cant see/attack the enemy right away that will positively annoy me since I could do that in DAO and just feels like a waste-of-time/clunky/bad design/poo poo platter decision.

Now, thats mostly a guess based on DAO's camera and the concept of a player/companion lock-on camera so hopefully it works differently and whole lot better than the idea I have in my mind. 

I do see a possible solution to my example though that might work.  Just have it that you don't automatically switch camera views when you select a different companion.  For example, in the example above if you are able to retain the camera view of your companion while being able to bring up Hawke's abilities/movements then that would help a lot I think. 

I'm sure some sort of button would be involved, and I am not sure what is less annoying: pressing a button to stop the camera from moving to another companion or pressing a button to switch camera angles.  The first one does sound more feasable/less annoying

David Gaider wrote...


Unless I'm mistaken (which is possible) the camera is attached to the currently-selected character.

Oh boo, looks like my annoy-me example is entirely possible now

Modifié par Piecake, 07 décembre 2010 - 06:02 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

outlaworacle wrote...

You're misunderstanding the concept. To use Origins examples, if you are zoomed all the way in and your party is spread out, let's say you are controlling your Warden and Leliana is way on the far end of the screen. Looking at Leliana, you are seeing the same textures you would if you were controlling Leliana and the camera was right on her. When you zoom all the way out into the tactical/pseudo-iso camera, those are different textures.

If that's true, then there was never any need for separate textures for the iso camera, as the extant textures already worked at great distances.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

David Gaider wrote...

My understanding (which is vague, to be honest, as this isn't a story-related issue) is that one of the driving forces behind this was level design. Lacking the requirement to design every level with a "pop-off" top and zoomed-out textures, not to mention layout that works when viewed from above as well as from an angle, allowed for far less restrictions.

There are other reasons as well, but if someone is just going to write this off as us being "lazy" rather than a considered design decision, then I doubt they really care about them much.

I believe there is a version of the zoomed-out camera that PC users will get, but that's something that Mike has described previously and I'm not going to muddy the waters with my technically-deficient description of it.

So much for playing to each sku's strengths eh? Just another "marketing line"

[MerinTB]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
My understanding (which is vague, to be honest, as this isn't a story-related issue) is that one of the driving forces behind this was level design. Lacking the requirement to design every level with a "pop-off" top and zoomed-out textures, not to mention layout that works when viewed from above as well as from an angle, allowed for far less restrictions.

There are other reasons as well, but if someone is just going to write this off as us being "lazy" rather than a considered design decision, then I doubt they really care about them much.

I believe there is a version of the zoomed-out camera that PC users will get, but that's something that Mike has described previously and I'm not going to muddy the waters with my technically-deficient description of it.

So much for playing to each sku's strengths eh? Just another "marketing line"

I don't think you need to target David for this.  He's neither a marketing guy or someone in charge of the game mechanics.  In fact, he pretty much states here that this isn't his department and he's just trying to be helpful.

Don't get me wrong, I'm quite concerned about what the camera may end up being like...

but with all the confusing and conflicting information that devs and previews are giving, this is honestly one time where I can agree that we have to "wait and see" - and by that I mean wait from some footage of the PC camera controls at work.

I have the unpleasant suspicion that if they even have decided on camera controls for the PC version yet that it was a very, very recent decision - and I wouldn't be surprised if they are still fiddling with it.

Considering how quickly there was a mod for the F:NV camera, I'll just have to hope for a similar mod for DA2 if camera is stuck at OTS.

[crimzontearz]

Sarah you need to lighten up as I told you before

[Bullets McDeath]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

outlaworacle wrote...

You're misunderstanding the concept. To use Origins examples, if you are zoomed all the way in and your party is spread out, let's say you are controlling your Warden and Leliana is way on the far end of the screen. Looking at Leliana, you are seeing the same textures you would if you were controlling Leliana and the camera was right on her. When you zoom all the way out into the tactical/pseudo-iso camera, those are different textures.

If that's true, then there was never any need for separate textures for the iso camera, as the extant textures already worked at great distances.

Ah, that's not how it works. There's a difference between looking at a texture from far away, and having textures to make things look like they are far away. If you don't believe this is necesarry, you may want to pose an open letter to the gaming and animation industries at large, since it has worked this way since 3D was born.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Personally I think taking out the detachable camera would subtract a great deal from tactical gameplay, isometric view or no. IE games offered superior tactical management by virtue of both isometric view and detachable camera, and in my opinion no subsequent 3D RPG managed to deliver the same experience until Origins. First/third person view is simply not suitable for tactical gameplay.

Wishful thinking on my part is the reintroduction of at least the detachable camera in Dragon Age. Isometric view would be a much appreciated bonus, of course, but I simply see the free roam an essential part of tactical management. Not that I'm holding my breath, but given that this is what we're discussing here...

[John Epler]

As far as I'm aware (in that I asked someone who knows and they said 'this is true and feel free to tell the forums' then showed me the camera in question), the camera can still rotate vertically. I'm not sure to what degree, but it's a fairly decent amount of pitch.