423 réponses à ce sujet

[Blacklash93]

Aynslie wrote...

And the reason it is hard to have both, the best graphics AND story and gameplay, probably has to do with the amount of information that can be put on a disc. Lets be honest Bioware games are generally not short, I would hate for loose that for top of the line graphics.

So put it on 2 discs. ME2 did that.

[Liablecocksman]

Blacklash93 wrote...
ME2 had everything right. Why can't DA2?

And you realize that lower quality graphics rarely ever means better gameplay and story, right? Different teams work on all of those aspects. You don't "trade" the quality of one aspect of a game for an increase in another with a company such as Bioware.

Well... It had nice graphics, yeah... But a plot? No.

Mass Effect 2 felt like a gigantic "filler" to me. You're recruiting a bunch of dudes, kill some robotic creature, and you're done. That's it.

[ladydesire]

Blacklash93 wrote...

ladydesire wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

those are screens of a video diary taken with an image capture software after gow knows how many resizing from the original gameplay source and video sourse

the IGN screens are taken straight from the game.

which ones should you be looking at as a representation of the game's quality??

The folks that want to complain about the apparent low quality of those screen captures aren't going to believe you until they see the evidence on their PC screens. Why not just accept that they aren't listening and save your fingers. 

Watch the dev diary the shots are from. You'll see that the low quality of those screen captures is more than apparent.

Sure, if the screen captures are from the Stardard Definition version; I just watched the HD version and it's a lot better than the SD one. 

[crimzontearz]

Blacklash93 wrote...

Aynslie wrote...

And the reason it is hard to have both, the best graphics AND story and gameplay, probably has to do with the amount of information that can be put on a disc. Lets be honest Bioware games are generally not short, I would hate for loose that for top of the line graphics.

So put it on 2 discs. ME2 did that.

and remind me.......what was the drawback? oh yes!.....we lost a lot of content because we HAD to follow an order

[Onyx Jaguar]

Yeah we lost a few lines of dialogue



Back in my day content was... well at least variance. Different VA's saying varying things that mean the same isn't that compelling. One would think

[Blacklash93]

ladydesire wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

ladydesire wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

those are screens of a video diary taken with an image capture software after gow knows how many resizing from the original gameplay source and video sourse

the IGN screens are taken straight from the game.

which ones should you be looking at as a representation of the game's quality??

The folks that want to complain about the apparent low quality of those screen captures aren't going to believe you until they see the evidence on their PC screens. Why not just accept that they aren't listening and save your fingers. 

Watch the dev diary the shots are from. You'll see that the low quality of those screen captures is more than apparent.

Sure, if the screen captures are from the Stardard Definition version; I just watched the HD version and it's a lot better than the SD one. 

So did I and it doesn't make any of it look any better. Bad textures and bad lighting are what they are and resolution doesn't change that.

[AmstradHero]

Blacklash93 wrote...

Aynslie wrote...

Games with the incredible top of the line graphics generally have bad or even missing storylines. You want a pretty game go play Final Fantasy, you want a kick ass story will deep developing companions, and choices throughout the story then play Bioware. Personally I'm happy they go for the lower level graphics to give us such quality in story and gameplay.

ME2 had everything right. Why can't DA2?

And you realize that lower quality graphics rarely ever means better gameplay and story, right? Different teams work on all of those aspects. You don't "trade" the quality of one aspect of a game for an increase in another with a company such as Bioware.

How about "ME2 was made using the Unreal engine, which is one of the best engines available (hence why it's used by so many games) whereas DA:O/DA2 are made using a BioWare created engine"? BioWare have some very talented people, but they don't have the long running expertise of Epic in making 3D graphics engines.

Some games have better graphics than others. It's that simple. I don't consider DA2's graphics to be bad. Sure, they could be better, but then so could the graphics of a lot of different games.  They are stylised, certainly, but they're not "a generation behind" or whatever trollop people love to spout. It's just that people appear to have it in their head that every single game has to have equivalent graphics to {insert favourite game with jaw-dropping graphics here}. They don't. I'm not sure why people feel the need to tear down a game they haven't even played because "the graphics aren't as good as" {whatever}.

Yes, graphics are important.  But they are not the be-all and end-all of a game. I'd say that those screenshots of Witcher 2 and Diablo 3 look more impressive than the shots from DA2. However, I have no desire to player Witcher 2 because of the painful design flaws and weaknesses in the original game. I'm interested in Diablo 3, but it's not exactly competition for DA2 - they're two very different types of games.

But, I suppose nothing will quell the dissenting words of people who have already passed judgement on a game based on screenshots alone. I imagine that it will be their loss.

[crimzontearz]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Yeah we lost a few lines of dialogue

Back in my day content was... well at least variance. Different VA's saying varying things that mean the same isn't that compelling. One would think

we lost Dialogue and we lost freedom of choice and we were given forced story missions.....I'd say that's a big drawback

[AlexXIV]

crimzontearz wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Yeah we lost a few lines of dialogue

Back in my day content was... well at least variance. Different VA's saying varying things that mean the same isn't that compelling. One would think

we lost Dialogue and we lost freedom of choice and we were given forced story missions.....I'd say that's a big drawback

Are there not always forced story missions? I mean the main plot is always required to finish the game.

[Blacklash93]

Yes, DA2's engine is what makes those textures look so terrible and blurry...

The engine isn't the problem here.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 16 janvier 2011 - 03:12 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

crimzontearz wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Yeah we lost a few lines of dialogue

Back in my day content was... well at least variance. Different VA's saying varying things that mean the same isn't that compelling. One would think

we lost Dialogue and we lost freedom of choice and we were given forced story missions.....I'd say that's a big drawback

However the content would be the same regardless.

[AmstradHero]

Blacklash93 wrote...

Yes, DA2's engine is what makes those textures look so terrible and blurry...

The engine isn't the problem here.

Right, so the engine's culling mechanism, the level design, how many different textures need to be loaded onto the GPU's memory based on all the objects potentially visible at any one time, the need to preload textures so as to prevent possible glitches or slowdowns if something needs to suddenly be shown for which textures aren't loaded, the relevant size of those individual textures, any mip-maps that might exist to assist with LOD rendering... etc, etc, etc, none of that has anything to do with the game's engine?

There's a reason OGRE can't be used to produce games that look as good as the Unreal Engine.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 16 janvier 2011 - 03:28 .

[RavenStorm]

crimzontearz wrote...
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

 
I agree with you. Just saying the devs claim they used an inhouse engine.

[AlanC9]

AlexXIV wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Yeah we lost a few lines of dialogue

Back in my day content was... well at least variance. Different VA's saying varying things that mean the same isn't that compelling. One would think

we lost Dialogue and we lost freedom of choice and we were given forced story missions.....I'd say that's a big drawback

Are there not always forced story missions? I mean the main plot is always required to finish the game.

ME2's forced percentage is much, much smaller than DAO's forced percentage.

[uzivatel]

crimzontearz wrote...

you do realize that "usually" in sequels you aim to create meshes with the same or LESS polygon counts than a prequel while using the same engine (unless there is a generation/engine jump) right? I mean look at Bungie, I cannot count the numbers of times they said that meshes in Halo 2 had less polygons than halo 1 for instance

Halo 2 introduced normal mapping (as well as other new technologies not used in Halo:CE), which means the polygon budget was lower, but it did not matter as the the technique provided better results for the most part.

[Walker White]

The problem with DA:O was not the polygon count. It was the horrible antialiasing around the characters that made them pop out of the background. It was particularly bad with fire and hair. Watching Morrigan's hair go by was like seeing a Predator-style distortion field.



That and the sexual animations reminded me of Team America: World Police.



If these are fixed, it will be a fine game.

[Xebioz]

Walker White wrote...

The problem with DA:O was not the polygon count. It was the horrible antialiasing around the characters that made them pop out of the background. It was particularly bad with fire and hair. Watching Morrigan's hair go by was like seeing a Predator-style distortion field.

That and the sexual animations reminded me of Team America: World Police.

If these are fixed, it will be a fine game.

I never actually thought while playing DA:O "those are some bad graphics". Yes there are games more pleasing to the eye, but that does not mean I like those games. And Bioware's job is not to provide digital porn so the more focus we have on character interaction, and the less on those sex scenes the better if you ask me. Those sex scenes never really accomplished anything for me.

Oh, and about TW. I played that game for quite some time, but I stopped playing it halfway through just because I didn't find it to be my kind of game (much too hack and slash oriented in my opinion). I want a strategic RPG and I am certain Bioware will give me what I want as they have never failed me before.

[0x30A88]

Arcania - Gothic 4 had the best graphics I have seen ingame. It beats crysis with a dynamic light even more powerful than DA's static lightmap. And that ran on a 200$ GFX card (HD 6870). But how do Dragon Age pawn that game? The enemies were smart, the story is well written - the other game has a very poor story.

Dragon Age II's later screenshots have great graphics. There's also mods to improve DA textures if you want to.

Answer to why graphics are starting to hang behind - console players are the greatest market.

Modifié par Gisle Aune, 16 janvier 2011 - 03:56 .

[slimgrin]

Gisle Aune wrote...

Answer to why graphics are starting to hang behind - console players are the greatest market.

Now you've done it....

*ducks for cover*

[Walker White]

Xebioz wrote...

And Bioware's job is not to provide digital porn so the more focus we have on character interaction, and the less on those sex scenes the better if you ask me. Those sex scenes never really accomplished anything for me.

I agree.  I would consider that an acceptable definition of "fixed".

[EpicBoot2daFace]

slimgrin wrote...

Gisle Aune wrote...

Answer to why graphics are starting to hang behind - console players are the greatest market.

Now you've done it....

*ducks for cover*

It is true, though.

[uzivatel]

Gisle Aune wrote...

Answer to why graphics are starting to hang behind - console players are the greatest market.

Seeing its even console players complaining about graphics, there is probably more to it.

...and Gothic 4 is multiplatform.

[Noctis2.0]

Aynslie wrote...

Games with the incredible top of the line
graphics generally have bad or even missing storylines. You want a
pretty game go play Final Fantasy, you want a kick ass story will deep
developing companions,Personally I'm happy they go for the lower level graphics to
give us such quality in story and gameplay.

I find Final Fantasy manages to keep and engrossing storyling and likable companions if even while improving there graphics with each new instalment.

[druplesnubb]

So when a company finally decides to not waste their budgets on graphics but on improving the actual game they get hated for it? This might even have been somewhat understandable if the graphics looked in any way but they don't, they look fine.

[ladydesire]

druplesnubb wrote...

So when a company finally decides to not waste their budgets on graphics but on improving the actual game they get hated for it? This might even have been somewhat understandable if the graphics looked in any way but they don't, they look fine.

True; if graphics were king, no one would still be playing Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Icewind Dale and other games like that, and said games wouldn't still be available to buy new as digital downloads on GOG.com.