423 réponses à ce sujet

[RavenStorm]

So what are we talking here $20 armor packs?

[Naitaka]

RavenStorm wrote...

So what are we talking here $20 armor packs?

Oh it'll be something like the infamous $2.50 horse armor from that certain other popular RPG franchise I think?

[AlexXIV]

RavenStorm wrote...

So what are we talking here $20 armor packs?

Just remember they are optional. So if you don't think it is worth to spend money on it you can just go without and still enjoy all of the important content

I don't think there will be special armor packs, but they probably make content DLCs which include new armor. Like Warden's Keep DLC.

[Cutlasskiwi]

Sareth Cousland wrote...

Development resources are limited. Licensing a powerful graphics engine or developing a new one is expensive. I rather like what the Dragon Age team is doing with their funds.

Amen to that!
As far as I know BioWare has no tree on which endless money grows on. I will always pick story or gameplay over graphics. 

[mad825]

slimgrin wrote...

.....both can be had nowadays.

It cannot as many games have proved that and besides grapics today is about Photorealism which is rather gimmicky as it adds nothing to the gaming  mechanics, some may aruge that it adds 'immersion' to the game but that's to be debated as the story and gameplay play a larger part.

Like a user has already stated on this thread, the age will also play another factor in which you'll more likly to find a typical CoD or GoW fan to be mindlessly hyped by graphics.

Modifié par mad825, 15 janvier 2011 - 12:39 .

[Beaner28]

I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks DA 2's graphics are terrible. Looking at those screenshots from the IGN preview reveals little, if any, anti-aliasing. Jaggies galore. Not surprised though, console ports tend to set the bar pretty low. The PC community is really getting the shaft with this release.

Modifié par Beaner28, 15 janvier 2011 - 12:42 .

[DPB]

Beaner28 wrote...

I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks DA 2's graphics are terrible. Looking at those screenshots from the IGN preview reveals little, if any, anti-aliasing. Jaggies galore. Not surprised though, console ports tend to set the bar pretty low. The PC community is really getting the shaft with this release.

Those are console screenshots, hence the lack of antialiasing, it has no relevance to the PC version. Given that it uses the same engine DAO there will almost certainly be various antialiasing options, and failing that you'll be able to force it on in the graphics card control panel.

Modifié par dbankier, 15 janvier 2011 - 12:53 .

[volus is king]

hey guys what's happening???
ooohh....another graphic battle.
*closes the door*

Modifié par volus is king, 15 janvier 2011 - 01:03 .

[crimzontearz]

RavenStorm wrote...
 After we're done praising The Witcher 2's awe-inspiring graphics. We can complain that we don't get to create our own character. We're stuck playing as that fugly white haired Witcher. Maybe I want to be one of those elves. Or one of those Monsters. Oh don't forget about that Hack and slash combat. Plus aren't they adding quick time events? By the Gods What will we do ? (Oh yeah and he even had a Voice Actor in the first game )
 Oh and I don't think Darksiders used the Unreal Engine: community.darksiders.com/forums/topic/456
 Speaking of Unreal they have made available UDK for free for non commercial purposes. So why doesn't the community get together and give Bioware some competition? (If you put Elves in your game, Please take inspiration from Drew Hayes-Poison Elves) Or you could use Unity 3. ???

Yeah it uses a re-write of the unreal engine just like Dark Sector as far as I've been told (ask a developer and they will tell you it's an in house engine but people know it is based off the UE3)

let's assume the 2 engines are totally different tho for sake of simplicity then and let's just look at the results. My point stands....Is Darksiders less worthy of merit visually because of the choice in art direction?

no

[_Aine_]

The screenshots that came out in the ign interview were *considerably* better than what we had seen even just a month before. While I too am tempted to judge, and have admittedly because it is SO easy because the pictures are put out there for us to see and to sell us the game, in the end it isn't so simple. We are basically judging a game by a few pictures and videos that may or may not be relevant by the time the game actually comes out. DA:O didn't have the most cutting edge graphics by any means, and it didn't stop it from being a fantastic enjoyable game. Sometimes the whole IS more than just the sum of its parts. If ONE aspect, or even two is game-breaker to you then that is everyone's right to make decisions based on your own criteria.

But, honestly, to pre-emptively judge a game by it's graphics and style? Maybe that means it is not for *you* (said generally, not pointing to anyone in particular) but until we actually play the game in its *final* state, or at least hear eye-witness reports from people who have, anything we decide is based on assumption.

I have been impressed at the graphical *improvements* since early pictures and despite a few reservations of things I am a bit *nervous* about ( read: not against, just nervous) I am going to wait and see how it plays out for me personally. Maybe I will love it as I did DA:O. Chances are very good of that. There are a lot of games that are all levels and combat with less story, and I love many of those too. But in the end if the combat is fun and responsive, the story is engaging I will be pretty happy. YES, it will be different than DA:O in many respects, as I would hope! Only time will tell if taking a chance with change in the name of progress and evolution is a good thing ( it usually is, despite our always wanting to hold on to the things we know and love) But despite having positive or negative *perceptions* of what it will be (which we are entitled to have of course) I personally will wait and see. I'm excited for it, myself.

I *love* graphics. I tend to use PC versions simply so I can mod it to my own personal preference. But making a game the *best* graphic of any game doesn't make a boring/bad/mediocre game good. I think making the focus of the games evolution to keep a great story that doesn't become stagnant and repetitive, fun gameplay and constantly improving it both tactically and graphically a good goal for a company.

Modifié par shantisands, 15 janvier 2011 - 02:35 .

[nijnij]

I'm a PC gamer and I'm actually worried that I might not be able to play DA2 because of graphics (well, I meet all requirements except the graphics card but it worked fine with Origins though, even with maxed out settings).



Also I wanna do DAO's graphics some justice ; the colors were perhaps a bit too contrasted (that green in the Korkari Wilds, eew) although other environments were top-notch color-wise (Denerim for example is really harmonious and I love doing all the quests there in a row).



The animations were great (I keep posing every second whenever there's a finishing move just to be able to rotate the camera and it generally looks awesome from every angle). Some of the conversations were really well-scripted (the one in Ostagar in which you and Duncan walk or the one with Zathrian in the Dalish camp). Even when it was more static, I found the dialogue, characters and VAs interesting enough not to mind. I don't know, my previous RPG reference was Oblivion which is very static so I may be biased but I do believe some ask too much of graphics.



Regarding art direction : the architecture in general (Ostagar, Sacred Ashes, Redcliffe, Denerim...) had a very neat look ; some costumes were a bit generic and not too good-looking (especially those plaid shirts with suspenders, but also mage robes and leather armors), but all the monsters looked awesome and really scary and that's really important immersion-wise (I think my top 3 favorite moments are the Broken Circle questline -including the Fade, yes- with all its different demons, the encounter with the Broodmother (best monster seen in a game, not so much for the fight as for the whole concept) and the one with the high dragon.



Another highlight : the spells, not only are they awesome but they all look great, including the low-level ones, which makes them fun to use in all circumstances ; that's pretty rare I think.



I think gameplay should always be the primary focus ; if it's good enough, then there's immersion and the graphics are transcendable. If you just have good graphics but an irritating gameplay, you remember you're playing a game and lose that suspension of disbelief.

[Melca36]

simfamSP wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

I wonder what is the age range of  the people who prefer graphics and those people who do not consider a graphics a main priority and just want an overall good game as a whole. :innocent:

Don't think age has anything to do with it, it's when you start gaming as a whole. I am 15, but I would consider Baldur's gate II the best RPG of all time rather than Oblivion. And I know there are loads of people in their 30s or 20s who would prefer Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 to a game like Operation Flashpoint (not Dragon Rising).

You sir, are the most wisest sounding 15 yr old I have heard in ages.

I though every player under 23 was all about high bench marking and pushing the limits on their rig:wizard:.

[Naitaka]

simfamSP wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

I wonder what is the age range of  the people who prefer graphics and those people who do not consider a graphics a main priority and just want an overall good game as a whole. :innocent:

Don't think age has anything to do with it, it's when you start gaming as a whole. I am 15, but I would consider Baldur's gate II the best RPG of all time rather than Oblivion. And I know there are loads of people in their 30s or 20s who would prefer Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 to a game like Operation Flashpoint (not Dragon Rising).

I can safely say that you're an exception to the norm, otherwise COD:Black Op would be a isometric real time tactical combat simuation with deep character customization and developement. It also must sport a hefty 80 hours single player campaign to even be consider a game worthy of a full price purchase.

Modifié par Naitaka, 15 janvier 2011 - 04:56 .

[nijnij]

Melca36 wrote...
I though every player under 23 was all about high bench marking and pushing the limits on their rig:wizard:.

Pff, I just turned 23 and my favorite game is Monkey Island 2, 1991 powa ! The graphics are as beautiful as it could get for a 320x200 pixels game (first game in which the backgrounds are actually scanned paintings I reckon), the humor is absolutely unique and not all about farts like most "funny" games today ; I find more wisdom in many MI2 quotes than in Woody Allen or the Simpsons ! There are thousands of lines of dialogue and they're all hysterical.

The puzzles are sometimes crazy but all story-driven unlike most puzzle-based games. The length is very decent, there's hardly a bug, the characters are memorable. The music is beautiful -and I'm not saying this out of nostalgia, it may all be MIDI but like they say, the guitar doesn't make the guitarist. That game used the i-muse system, a little wonder that has no equivalent nowadays : the music (which is really cool and Danny-Elfmanesque) would adapt to your timing : instead of just fading, it would use special transitions according to what was happening in your game, or say, the drums would join in when you start moving your boat.

I'm gonna stop that long digression before I get a nerdgasm but I really think graphics should exist as a whole and not to make up for good gameplay.

[Sordahon1]

Mass Effect had magnificent graphics. I have no idea what point you are trying to get across. It seems like you want to get flamed.

[Blacklash93]

shantisands wrote...

The screenshots that came out in the ign interview were *considerably* better than what we had seen even just a month before. While I too am tempted to judge, and have admittedly because it is SO easy because the pictures are put out there for us to see and to sell us the game, in the end it isn't so simple. We are basically judging a game by a few pictures and videos that may or may not be relevant by the time the game actually comes out. DA:O didn't have the most cutting edge graphics by any means, and it didn't stop it from being a fantastic enjoyable game. Sometimes the whole IS more than just the sum of its parts. If ONE aspect, or even two is game-breaker to you then that is everyone's right to make decisions based on your own criteria.

But, honestly, to pre-emptively judge a game by it's graphics and style? Maybe that means it is not for *you* (said generally, not pointing to anyone in particular) but until we actually play the game in its *final* state, or at least hear eye-witness reports from people who have, anything we decide is based on assumption.

I have been impressed at the graphical *improvements* since early pictures and despite a few reservations of things I am a bit *nervous* about ( read: not against, just nervous) I am going to wait and see how it plays out for me personally. Maybe I will love it as I did DA:O. Chances are very good of that. There are a lot of games that are all levels and combat with less story, and I love many of those too. But in the end if the combat is fun and responsive, the story is engaging I will be pretty happy. YES, it will be different than DA:O in many respects, as I would hope! Only time will tell if taking a chance with change in the name of progress and evolution is a good thing ( it usually is, despite our always wanting to hold on to the things we know and love) But despite having positive or negative *perceptions* of what it will be (which we are entitled to have of course) I personally will wait and see. I'm excited for it, myself.

I *love* graphics. I tend to use PC versions simply so I can mod it to my own personal preference. But making a game the *best* graphic of any game doesn't make a boring/bad/mediocre game good. I think making the focus of the games evolution to keep a great story that doesn't become stagnant and repetitive, fun gameplay and constantly improving it both tactically and graphically a good goal for a company.

The gameplay,design, and story are already in place. There should be nothing left to do do except polish the hell out of everything this last month of development. The graphics team is only going to work on the graphics so it's not like making one last big effort to improve the visuals will detract from anything else.

The new dev diary looked very bad in quite a few spots. The Deep Roads scene where Hawke slits some guy's throat at about 1:10 had some really horrible textures on the walls/pillars and floor. Then there's seeing the same NPC models like 4 times in the crowd shots. I don't want to see stuff like that in a Bioware title. I expect more from the same company that made the visually impressive ME2. I expect something at least on par with that.

The IGN screens have me more hopeful, but I won't be a believer until I see the final (or at least near-complete) game for myself.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 15 janvier 2011 - 10:01 .

[uzivatel]

AlexXIV wrote...

Well let's say people who played games ... like 15-20 years ago already are not so much put off by bad graphics

Really? I started on NES, but even I dont see any reason a full-priced AAA releases from majot publisher should have substandard graphics (or be substandard in any other way for that matter).
Those games are $60 (even on PC), its not some budget priced indie games we are talking about.

Maybe they should not spend their entire graphics budget on pre-rendered trailers... 

[Devilhound]

A lot of people are saying, "As long as it has a good story, I don't care about the graphics..", but why can't a game have a great story and great graphics, they don't have to be mutually exclusive. I also had higher hopes for Dragon Age 2 when they said they were reworking the graphics, oh well. (ME2 did look great, however). And, I don't think it makes you shallow or immature to want both, why not expect the best from a first class developer like Bioware. Obsidian Entertainment is the same way, they have some talented people making RPG's, but they can't make a game that looks any good.

[AlexXIV]

uzivatel wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Well let's say people who played games ... like 15-20 years ago already are not so much put off by bad graphics

Really? I started on NES, but even I dont see any reason a full-priced AAA releases from majot publisher should have substandard graphics (or be substandard in any other way for that matter).
Those games are $60 (even on PC), its not some budget priced indie games we are talking about.

Maybe they should not spend their entire graphics budget on pre-rendered trailers... 

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

What we don't have are the very best graphics possible on a platform, and that's for a very good reason: we're spending our processor and graphics resources in different places.

Asking why Dragon Age doesn't have industry leading graphics is like asking to know why you can't simultaneously issue orders and control 4 crysis suit dudes in Crysis 2, because you can control 4 people simultaneously in Dragon Age 2. Different games, different focus.

Game development is about choices and priority. That said, our graphics have consistently gotten better with each title in our franchises, and we're quite pleased with that.

^This.

Edit: Maybe I should add I realize the 15-20 years span was a bit long, let's say 10-15
And exceptions are of course possible.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 16 janvier 2011 - 12:57 .

[crimzontearz]

Devilhound wrote...

A lot of people are saying, "As long as it has a good story, I don't care about the graphics..", but why can't a game have a great story and great graphics, they don't have to be mutually exclusive. I also had higher hopes for Dragon Age 2 when they said they were reworking the graphics, oh well. (ME2 did look great, however). And, I don't think it makes you shallow or immature to want both, why not expect the best from a first class developer like Bioware. Obsidian Entertainment is the same way, they have some talented people making RPG's, but they can't make a game that looks any good.

uhm......as I said a couple of times before some people are (even in the case of dragon age) calling "bad graphics" a different art direction.

can people not see the amout of work and attention to details that went in Dragon Age 2's visual department? just because it does not look like Skyrim, Crysis or GoW that does not mean it is "bad"

of course if it went the OPPOSITE direction from something that certain people wanted I can understand the disappointment BUT from that to call it "bad" there's a lot of road to go through





and you know what?

I hope Dragon Age 3 takes the route of Darksiders......(visually speaking)

there I said it


and for god's sake Bioware you guys gotta hire MArk Hamill and make him use his AWESOME joker voice 

[Blacklash93]

Bad textures are bad textures. Is it part of the art style for some to look good, but others terrible? I don''t think so.

Go to 1:10 in the new dev diary and tell me the blurry, low-res marks on the nearby pillars are just part of the art style. Look at the texture next to the guy's head at 1:13 and tell me that's just stylized.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 16 janvier 2011 - 01:15 .

[crimzontearz]

Blacklash93 wrote...

Bad textures are bad textures. Is it part of the art style for some to look good, but other terrible. I don''t think so.

Go to 1:10 in the new dev diary and tell me the blurry, low-res marks on the walls are just part of the art style.

they are not, but go to the new screenshots and look at the ground textures 

like this


and tell me they are not a step forward compared to what we got in origins (Console version and no mods)

[AlexXIV]

crimzontearz wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

Bad textures are bad textures. Is it part of the art style for some to look good, but other terrible. I don''t think so.

Go to 1:10 in the new dev diary and tell me the blurry, low-res marks on the walls are just part of the art style.

they are not, but go to the new screenshots and look at the ground textures 

like this

and tell me they are not a step forward compared to what we got in origins (Console version and no mods)

Honestly? No. It doesn't look like a step forward compared to Origins to me. It more looks like the same or bit worse. But I am talking about PC.