162 réponses à ce sujet

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

I remember seeing something weird when moving the camera up and it was indeed the ceiling disappearing. That was odd, at least from the perspective of this lowly console player.



I would rather see things designed for somewhere nearer to the perspective of the character than for god mode aerial view. If anything rubs it in my face that I'm playing a video game, its the feeling that things look like they weren't meant to be viewed at the angles I can play at. I don't know if the two are actually related but I can't help but think that the uncomfortable scale of some objects (doors, for one) has to do with how it looks/how visible things are in the top down view I couldn't even access, not that I would prefer to play that way.

[Ziggeh]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

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.

I  think that would get us into a discussion about the definition of "tactical gameplay", but I won't go too far there, suffice to say that the absence of a detachable camera makes managing the camera angle, and the level of information that it allows you, a part of the tactics as opposed to a complete overview in which you're responding to the whole of a situation.

So I would say that the fixed camera increases the complexity of the system (and "realism" for what thats worth) but in a way that I personally find very frustrating.

edit: I should totally add a caveat to that definitive: unless the new system has a good way around mob view and selection, like holding down tab makes them visible through walls or something less clumsy.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 07 décembre 2010 - 07:16 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

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.

I  think that would get us into a discussion about the definition of "tactical gameplay", but I won't go too far there, suffice to say that the absence of a detachable camera makes managing the camera angle, and the level of information that it allows you, a part of the tactics as opposed to a complete overview in which you're responding to the whole of a situation.

So I would say that the fixed camera increases the complexity of the system (and "realism" for what thats worth) but in a way that I personally find very frustrating.

Very frustrating indeed. I'd go so far as to label it fake difficulty induced by impracticality.

[FedericoV]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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...?

Yes I do agree. It was a design choice. My explanation is the following: they have to choose between iso view and third person view because technically you cannot have a game that looks good with both view on consolle and they do not want DA2 to be another PC port. Moreover, econounter design changes completely from one view to the other.

They have to choose and imho Iso view was not even taken in consideration because it does not work well with a game that puts a lot of emphasis on cinematic dialogues.

I don't know if it's the right choiche or not: I will play the game and make my mind. But I really think that there is still a great market for games in iso view and that there are allready enough RPGs in 3rd person view. And I also think that iso view is still the best choice for a party based game (tactical or not). Imho, a party based game in 3rd person view is frustrating: you have to fight with the camera if you want to micromanage your party.

I really think that I will play DA2 with a mage Hawke and just tactics for the other charachters (without party micro).

Modifié par FedericoV, 07 décembre 2010 - 06:59 .

[Brockololly]

Seriously, I am genuinely 100% lost as to what kind of camera controls the PC version will have.

At first everyone figured it would retain the iso view since that was one of the signature things the PC version had going for it for many people.

Then we get word that the iso view as it existed in Origins is gone, but Laidlaw came in and said how :

While we likely won't pull as far up as we did in DA:O, I have always felt that the key to tactical play was actually freeing your camera from the character you're controlling to issue precise orders, which is what we're tuning now. So, this means you can still maneuver the camera around the battlefield and issue orders from a remote location, just as you could in Origins.

Thats fairly nebulous, but at the time it seemed as if we would maybe be getting a decent replacement, kind of a Total War style cam that could disconnect from the player.

And now it seems like the PC camera is locked on to one player at a time and has less flexibility in terms of rotation and zooming than even Origins? Like Mike said, the key to tactical gameplay is being able to free the camera from the character you're controlling to issue precise orders. If we're stuck in some somewhat zoomed out view but can't detach the camera or angle it well enough, how are you supposed to tactically position your party or lay down a properly placed AOE?

I'm just really curious to see how it turns out because I am completely confused as to what we can actually expect.

Modifié par Brockololly, 07 décembre 2010 - 07:03 .

[Piecake]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

edit: I should totally add a caveat to that definitive: unless the new system has a good way around mob view and selection, like holding down tab makes them visible walls or something less clumsy.

Hmm, thats another good idea.  So we got 'see-through' walls(hoping thats what you meant), detachable camera, or the ability to retain the camera view of a companion while being able to bring up another's abilities/movements menu.

see-through walls sounds like the most feasable/realistic, but I'd prefer the other two options more(detachable camera obviously winning)

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

[MIke_18]

"I'm just really curious to see how it turns out because I am completely confused as to what we can actually expect."



This whole thing seems very simple to me. It wasn't in their original plans to make the camera. But after backlash from PC gamers they decide to tack this camera on, which is probably not that different than the original camera, so they can say in previews



"Don't worry PC gamers, you get something special" and so on.



But hey at least they care. They should come clean that DA II is not designed for PC in mind though.

[Atakuma]

MIke_18 wrote...
They should come clean that DA II is not designed for PC in mind though.

You state that like it's a fact, and not just an assumption.

[MIke_18]

Well wasn't there an interview saying



"The money is on consoles, we're going after the money, were not wasting funds on textures for the isometric camera" ?



Yes it's an assumption, but by the looks of things it's accurate.

[Ziggeh]

Piecake wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...

edit: I should totally add a caveat to that definitive: unless the new system has a good way around mob view and selection, like holding down tab makes them visible walls or something less clumsy.

So we got 'see-through' walls(hoping thats what you meant)

heh, yeah, missed a crucial word there.

[Piecake]

MIke_18 wrote...

Well wasn't there an interview saying

"The money is on consoles, we're going after the money, were not wasting funds on textures for the isometric camera" ?

Yes it's an assumption, but by the looks of things it's accurate.

That really looks like a completely fabricated quote because I find it hard to believe that company rep would say that, and say it especially in that manner (even if its true).

You gota find the quote before you can claim that an assumption is accurate.

[Maverick827]

MIke_18 wrote...

Well wasn't there an interview saying

No, there was no interview in which someone said your hyperbolized vitriol.

[Ortaya Alevli]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Piecake wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...

edit: I should totally add a caveat to that definitive: unless the new system has a good way around mob view and selection, like holding down tab makes them visible walls or something less clumsy.

So we got 'see-through' walls(hoping thats what you meant)

heh, yeah, missed a crucial word there.

I'm glad you agree that "see-through" is crucial.

See-through would be better than nothing in case of fixed camera, although it has the disadvantage of eliminating the LoS concept. With free roam in Origins, mobs out of your sight were still hidden even though the room layout was explored automatically. If see-through worked that way, well...better than nothing, as I said.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Atakuma wrote...

MIke_18 wrote...
They should come clean that DA II is not designed for PC in mind though.

You state that like it's a fact, and not just an assumption.

There are quite a few various situations and examples that scream out the PC sku is the after thought this time out. Just because a few fanboys refuse to acknoledge them as real, thats your own faults.

[Atakuma]

The quote was basically that they were improving the console experience because that is where Origins sold the most. It said nothing to imply that they were ignoring the pc version.

[MIke_18]

I think this is where i read that



http://www.escapistm...om-Dragon-Age-2

[Atakuma]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

MIke_18 wrote...
They should come clean that DA II is not designed for PC in mind though.

You state that like it's a fact, and not just an assumption.

There are quite a few various situations and examples that scream out the PC sku is the after thought this time out. Just because a few fanboys refuse to acknoledge them as real, thats your own faults.

Calling people who disagree with you names like a spoiled child, isn't going to make anyone take you seriously

[MIke_18]

"With an aerial view we should cover much more ground and so [must] create other textures. Now, the game mainly sold on console, so we're going the way of the audience."



This translates to :



We aren't gonna bother creating textures just for the PC version.

[Piecake]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

I'm glad you agree that "see-through" is crucial.

See-through would be better than nothing in case of fixed camera, although it has the disadvantage of eliminating the LoS concept. With free roam in Origins, mobs out of your sight were still hidden even though the room layout was explored automatically. If see-through worked that way, well...better than nothing, as I said.

Well, closed doors could work as a barrier to the see-through walls.  You'd have to open the door to make it possible.  Plus, his suggestion was to not have constant "see-through" walls, but have that ability tied to a button, so you'd have the choice to use it or not (like taking your x-ray specs on and off!).  It would be a nice feature to have, and would alleviate my annoying example situation back on page 2. 

But yea, definitely the least desirable option of the options we've thought of. 

Modifié par Piecake, 07 décembre 2010 - 07:31 .

[Piecake]

MIke_18 wrote...

"With an aerial view we should cover much more ground and so [must] create other textures. Now, the game mainly sold on console, so we're going the way of the audience."

This translates to :

We aren't gonna bother creating textures just for the PC version.

You took a translated quote and then translated it again into your simple, bashing language

The way things are said is important.  Especially since you took out the reason behind the change - which is apparently budgetary issues.  Now you might not think thats a big deal, but I imagine its a pretty big deal to a company and its employees. 

[MerinTB]

Piecake wrote...

MIke_18 wrote...

"With an aerial view we should cover much more ground and so [must] create other textures. Now, the game mainly sold on console, so we're going the way of the audience."

This translates to :

We aren't gonna bother creating textures just for the PC version.

You took a translated quote and then translated it again into your simple, bashing language

The way things are said is important.  Especially since you took out the reason behind the change - which is apparently budgetary issues.  Now you might not think thats a big deal, but I imagine its a pretty big deal to a company and its employees. 

Well, he did originally paraphrase it into - "The money is on consoles, we're going after the money, were not wasting funds on textures for the isometric camera" ?

So, yeah, I think he's mostly accurate - cynical and snarky, but mostly accurate.

[crimzontearz]

wow...that quote?



AGAIN?



it was explained like a dozen times by Laidlaw, hell if you want to bash at least do your homework