204 réponses à ce sujet

[Kidd]

neppakyo wrote...

Perhaps make the memory and GPU modular? Like down the line when lack of memory is a problem, the company can release a module upgrade for memory to increase the size.

and so on.. you get my point hehe

That'd remove the point of having a console. The strength of the console platform is that you can make a semi-expensive "computer" purchase every 6-7 or so years and play every game released on that platform without any worries of having to spend extra money on upgrades. Developers will also be able to optimise their code for the target platform in a way that simply isn't possible for PC since you have to make sure your code can run on pretty much any kind of hardware.

That one platform holds the other back isn't new by any means. When the next console generation comes out, it will be the console gamers who complain about lousy PC ports because the PC can't keep up. Then after a while the PC will catch up, until it finally goes beyond the consoles. That's how it's been every generation so far and that's how it will continue. Just the nature of the platforms.

WilliamShatner wrote...

The ability toolbar NEEDS to be brought to consoles.

The radial menu is a pain. I end up only using the six abilities bound to my buttons because I forget about/they're a pain to access the abilities hidden in the radial menu.

Eh, how is pressing "left, left, left, left, action button" easier and faster than "press radial menu button, hold a single direction, action button"? You confuse me =D Radial menus are awesome, since they make menu navigation pretty much instantaneous.

Brockololly wrote...

Hell, the N64 already had modular memory with the Expansion Pak upgrade:

Yeah and only a very few set of games supported it. I've always been of the idea that releasing new hardware for a console after a while is doomed to failure, since it goes against the very idea of a console. If you were to develop an n64 game, would you prefer to assume the user has 8mb RAM in their machine and thus be able to sell your game to the, say (I'm making this number up), 5 million n64 players out there... or would you instead develop for the baseline 4mb of RAM to be able to attract the entire 33 million n64 user base? You can't really say 'both' realistically since that'd mean having every texture on the game media twice. In reality that means your game can only be about half as large, or you'll have to ship the game with two separate game media in the same box. That's quite an extra cost to implement two features that are mutually exclusive. Not only printing the media itself - do you want to pay the development cost for this?

I was an early adaptor of the extra 4mb RAM of the n64 and I can remember owning a great total of three games that used it. Zelda Majora's Mask which required the RAM, Perfect Dark which only required it for the single player campaign and Rogue Leader where it was completely optional (and hilariously I always ran with the low res textures since the frame rate was better anyway xD).

In this same way, games that require Kinect, require Move, require Wii Motion+, require the Sega CD, require the extra RAM for the n64 are doomed to sell less and thus most games aren't designed with them in mind.

neppakyo wrote...

Yeah, it was created with PC in mind first, and scalability for consoles. Just saying all multiplatform games should take the same approach. Everyone would get a better game for it

Graphics-wise, I'm inclined to agree, I guess. The console can't run anything better looking than a certain level no matter if PC has higher graphics or not after all. But that line of thinking is dangerous when you're applying it to anything other than texture size or polygon count.

You can't make a game dependant on having a mouse and then "scale" it for consoles as an after thought, obviously. Just like you can't make a game on consoles and then expect people to be able to hit and/or hold 10 or so different buttons with no finger travel time on PC. You need to take both sides' input difficulties into mind when making a multiplatform game, and limit things on both sides. Or spend exclusive time during development to fine tune the game play to each platform's input devices. That's sadly the inherent weakness in multiplatform games.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

NWN easily had BioWare's best inventory system.  That is the standard to which they should aspire.

Lists are bad.  Lists are always bad.  There's no way to overcome the fundamental problems with a list inventory without abandoning the list format.

I find myself agreeing =) Tetris inventory or weight-based inventory with limitless "slots" in the list, please ^^

[WilliamShatner]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

WilliamShatner wrote...

The ability toolbar NEEDS to be brought to consoles.

The radial menu is a pain. I end up only using the six abilities bound to my buttons because I forget about/they're a pain to access the abilities hidden in the radial menu.

Eh, how is pressing "left, left, left, left, action button" easier and faster than "press radial menu button, hold a single direction, action button"? You confuse me =D Radial menus are awesome, since they make menu navigation pretty much instantaneous.

How is hiding most of the things you can do behind two, sometimes three screens more user friendly than having them all visible all the time at the bottom of the screen? 

And I'm sure if the toolbar has no barriers and allows the player to go both left and right at the end of the toolbar, as well as pressure sensitive scroll-speed it would be much quicker than the radial menu as well (which usually takes me too long to access what I want because I forget where they are).

[Kilshrek]

Having played the 360 demo of DA 2 I don't know if I could ever warm to a radial menu, simply because I'm so used to having a handy bar at the bottom of my screen, and numbers 1-0 on my keyboard, plus any other hotkeys that may or may not be mappable.

I understand that the radial menu is perhaps the best way to go about it, given the limitations a controller has, especially when it comes to a game like DA 2 where there could be up to a dozen abilities to choose from. Implementing a toolbar in a console game doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, because you'd have to scroll a whole lot if you have a long list of abilities. That was more of a problem in DAO, DA 2 is streamlined.

[Pasquale1234]

I really do miss the conversation log we had in DA:O.

I'm imagining a combat log including entries like:
- 4 more assassins paratroop onto Anders
- Isabela teleports, backflips, and backstabs genlock (olympic committee score: 7.8)
- A rage demon arises
- Enemy blood mage shields
- Boss generates gravitic ring, pulling Aveline and Fenris
etc.


My biggest complaint about the DA2 UI is that I can't read the journal from a normal television viewing distance, with the teeny compressed san-serif font. Had no such problem with DA:O.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

UI is a tool to interact with the game. Ideally, there would be no UI. You would just interact with the game world. Less UI = better, because then there is less poop on the screen. Don't poop on the screen. It's bad.

BioWare, please take note.

I don't need to know my cleric used Giggle Bunny for 4 points of Doe-See-Dough. Put that info in the game. Make the blood splash half as large as 8 points. That's a good interface... not just transparent, but invisible.

Modifié par RinpocheSchnozberry, 02 juin 2011 - 04:52 .

[WilliamShatner]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

UI is a tool to interact with the game. Ideally, there would be no UI. You would just interact with the game world. Less UI = better, because then there is less poop on the screen. Don't poop on the screen. It's bad.

BioWare, please take note.

I don't need to know my cleric used Giggle Bunny for 4 points of Doe-See-Dough. Put that info in the game. Make the blood splash half as large as 8 points. That's a good interface... not just transparent, but invisible.

Fable III proves otherwise.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

WilliamShatner wrote...

Fable III proves otherwise.

Fable III would be better with smarter UI.  (Also, they should add some fun to it.)

Modifié par RinpocheSchnozberry, 02 juin 2011 - 05:07 .

[In Exile]

neppakyo wrote...

Yeah, it was created with PC in mind first, and scalability for consoles.

No, it wasn't. It was console first, with the tech taking advantage of the PC. Look at the list inventory, the radial menu when you hold down shift, the fact that alchemy is now full-screen and you don't need to use the mouse to switch out ingredients, the fact that it auto-sorts ingredients to begin with to make potions...

It's console first, UI & gameplay wise.

But it's a PC engine that scales down for consoles. In a UI thread, though, TW2 did the exact same thing as Bioware did for DA2: take a PC first interface and make it for consoles.

Just saying all multiplatform games should take the same approach. Everyone would get a better game for it

I'm all for better care for PC. With the camera, for example, we got the middle finger. But TW2 didn't design for the PC first. They misled us, as much as Bioware did with choices.

[Dragoonlordz]

Luke Barrett wrote...

Due to the cross-platform nature of our games expensive UIs (those that have lots of doodads and whatcha-hoozits) are very taxing on consoles and often limit how much other content we can put in to a scene at any one time without suffering a hefty framerate loss. Now, you could try to suggest that PC games should have a more advanced UI to support their superior (/flex) systems but I'm not sure how much weight that would carry, to be blunt.

Fable 3 released their PC version with a complete rebuild on the UI for PC gamers and improvements, in a ideal world I would like the same from Bioware. Somehow I get the feeling that ideal is more in the realm of fantasy than Skyrim selling zero copies.

[Atakuma]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Luke Barrett wrote...

Due to the cross-platform nature of our games expensive UIs (those that have lots of doodads and whatcha-hoozits) are very taxing on consoles and often limit how much other content we can put in to a scene at any one time without suffering a hefty framerate loss. Now, you could try to suggest that PC games should have a more advanced UI to support their superior (/flex) systems but I'm not sure how much weight that would carry, to be blunt.

Fable 3 released their PC version with a complete rebuild on the UI for PC gamers and improvements, in a ideal world I would like the same from Bioware. Somehow I get the feeling that ideal is more in the realm of fantasy than Skyrim selling zero copies.

You're joking right? There was no improvement and the PC UI was just slapped together.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wulfram wrote...

I disagree, strongly.  Actually, DA2's inventory is pretty functional

You can't display it all on screen at the same time, and every time you want something from it you need to go navigating through the UI looking for it.

A NWN style grid allows the player to arange his gear such that everything is available where he wants it, without having to find it each time.

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

That one platform holds the other back isn't new by any means. When the next console generation comes out, it will be the console gamers who complain about lousy PC ports because the PC can't keep up. Then after a while the PC will catch up, until it finally goes beyond the consoles. That's how it's been every generation so far and that's how it will continue. Just the nature of the platforms.

I'm not confident that pattern will continue, because I'm not confident the PC will persist as a platform.  Windows 8 is a Tablet OS.

I find these new developments depressing.

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

UI is a tool to interact with the game. Ideally, there would be no UI. You would just interact with the game world. Less UI = better, because then there is less poop on the screen. Don't poop on the screen. It's bad.

BioWare, please take note.

I don't need to know my cleric used Giggle Bunny for 4 points of Doe-See-Dough. Put that info in the game. Make the blood splash half as large as 8 points. That's a good interface... not just transparent, but invisible.

I find that I disagree with almost everything you say.

That said, putting all the UI elements in a frame as I've suggested does, to some degree, acheive that you want.  It prevents the UI from getting in the way of your view of the game world.

I'm not going to accept no UI because I want a text box with combat feedback and a conversation log.

[Dragoonlordz]

Atakuma wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Luke Barrett wrote...

Due to the cross-platform nature of our games expensive UIs (those that have lots of doodads and whatcha-hoozits) are very taxing on consoles and often limit how much other content we can put in to a scene at any one time without suffering a hefty framerate loss. Now, you could try to suggest that PC games should have a more advanced UI to support their superior (/flex) systems but I'm not sure how much weight that would carry, to be blunt.

Fable 3 released their PC version with a complete rebuild on the UI for PC gamers and improvements, in a ideal world I would like the same from Bioware. Somehow I get the feeling that ideal is more in the realm of fantasy than Skyrim selling zero copies.

You're joking right? There was no improvement and the PC UI was just slapped together.

[Chromie]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

UI is a tool to interact with the game. Ideally, there would be no UI. You would just interact with the game world. Less UI = better, because then there is less poop on the screen. Don't poop on the screen. It's bad.

BioWare, please take note.

I don't need to know my cleric used Giggle Bunny for 4 points of Doe-See-Dough. Put that info in the game. Make the blood splash half as large as 8 points. That's a good interface... not just transparent, but invisible.

That's just terrible. 

[Atakuma]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Luke Barrett wrote...

Due to the cross-platform nature of our games expensive UIs (those that have lots of doodads and whatcha-hoozits) are very taxing on consoles and often limit how much other content we can put in to a scene at any one time without suffering a hefty framerate loss. Now, you could try to suggest that PC games should have a more advanced UI to support their superior (/flex) systems but I'm not sure how much weight that would carry, to be blunt.

Fable 3 released their PC version with a complete rebuild on the UI for PC gamers and improvements, in a ideal world I would like the same from Bioware. Somehow I get the feeling that ideal is more in the realm of fantasy than Skyrim selling zero copies.

You're joking right? There was no improvement and the PC UI was just slapped together.

I take it you haven't actually played the game then.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That said, putting all the UI elements in a frame as I've suggested does, to some degree, acheive that you want.  It prevents the UI from getting in the way of your view of the game world.

Boring.  No UI = win.  Any UI at all = fail.  Stats = fail.  UI is necessary, so all UI design is management of fail.

I'm not going to accept no UI because I want a text box with combat feedback and a conversation log.

Convo log I'll high five you on.  Have a button that brings it up.  Combat feedback should be immediate, visual, and visceral.  Not numbers based.  Numbers are boring.

[Chromie]

^ Wow this is why hardcore rpgs are dying.

[neppakyo]

Ringo12 wrote...

^ Wow this is why hardcore rpgs are dying.

Not dying. Becoming dumber to appease idiots like him.

[Sylvius the Mad]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Boring.  No UI = win.  Any UI at all = fail.  Stats = fail.  UI is necessary, so all UI design is management of fail.

You're spouting baseless maxims.  It's like reading the later works of Friedrich Nietzsche.

Convo log I'll high five you on.  Have a button that brings it up.  Combat feedback should be immediate, visual, and visceral.  Not numbers based.  Numbers are boring.

Numbers are not boring.  How else can we convey quantitative data quantitatively?

How can I analyse immediate visceral feedback?  And why should it be visceral?  Why should gameplay be a visceral experience at all?  I certainly don't want that.  The experiences in the game are immediate and visceral for my characters.  I'm not there.  I'm sitting comfortable and safe in a quiet room by myself.  If I wanted a visceral experience, I'd go outside and do something.

What exactly are you trying to accomplish?

[aftohsix]

neppakyo wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

^ Wow this is why hardcore rpgs are dying.

Not dying. Becoming dumber to appease idiots like him.

You two are totes the best on this forum of adding constructive dialog to conversations.  This whole thread seems dangerously close to being a "consoles suck because they stagnate my super PC" thread.  Just sayin'  Watch it if you don't want it locked.

Modifié par aftohsix, 02 juin 2011 - 08:31 .

[Chromie]

aftohsix wrote...

neppakyo wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

^ Wow this is why hardcore rpgs are dying.

Not dying. Becoming dumber to appease idiots like him.

You two are totes the best on this forum of adding constructive dialog to conversations.  This whole thread seems dangerously close to being a "consoles suck because they stagnate my super PC" thread.  Just sayin'  Watch it if you don't want it locked.

Hmm don't remember saying anything about consoles. Someone on PC could not want combat logs or a UI that works for that platforum...though I don't understand why.

[Bundin]

The UI for ME1 was tweaked to PC though. Little extra's like rmb going back in a menu, not having to click an Accept button after highlighting an option but immediately selecting it. It made using the UI a lot easier with the default hardware it was played on (read: mouse). I'm not looking for an "expensive" UI but for one that is tailored to the equipment I use to play the game. If that's a controller (~12 buttons, 6 axes) and television, I have one set of preferences, if it's a mouse/keyboard (100+ keys!) and a significantly smaller screen, I prefer a different approach.

That would probably mean designing 2 (similarish) UIs, but it would go a long way in enjoyment. It's not all gfx and story, useability plays a big part too. I'm sure many people shiver when thinking back at ME1's console inventory management system. Mouse/keyboard users can handle a grid and dragging stuff around. It's second nature because operating systems (and many other games on the PC-platform) work that way. Controller-users would probably complain if that'd be implemented for them though.

It goes both ways, you're not forcing a mouse/keyboard-centered UI onto controller-users, please avoid doing the opposite as well. Offer both UIs to PC users because some people use controllers there as well.

Modifié par Bundin, 02 juin 2011 - 09:24 .

[RaenImrahl]

aftohsix wrote...

You two are totes the best on this forum of adding constructive dialog to conversations.  This whole thread seems dangerously close to being a "consoles suck because they stagnate my super PC" thread.  Just sayin'  Watch it if you don't want it locked.

I'll let this thread continue, as I think it has some value.  We do need to keep the discussion about the game, and not about the virtues of various platforms or the presumed intelligence of our fellow gamers.  @neppakyo will have 24 hours to ponder that last item sans forum.

Meantime... carry on, please.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Numbers are not boring.  How else can we convey quantitative data quantitatively?

How can I analyse immediate visceral feedback?  And why should it be visceral?  Why should gameplay be a visceral experience at all?

Trying to draw out a quantitative relation from qualitative relation can be fun, though. That's science, in a nutshell.

I certainly don't want that.  The experiences in the game are immediate and visceral for my characters.  I'm not there.  I'm sitting comfortable and safe in a quiet room by myself.  If I wanted a visceral experience, I'd go outside and do something.

What exactly are you trying to accomplish?

It can still be an intellectual experience. Not saying that's what the poster wanted, but it could be. So there is a defence for it. Just not, I would say, in an RPG>

[In Exile]

To get back on topic, the DA2 UI is functional. Unlike the ME2 UI, I can use the mouse & keyboard to maximum effect. That makes a significant difference in the user experience. I prefer windows to screens, but that's just a reality of console UIs. Even much praised heroes of the PC realm like TW2 sacrifice the UI for the console. At the very least, DA2 is designed to take advantage of the mouse, instead of just getting a controller scheme converted.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Under no circumstances shoud the rules of the game be hidden from us. The purpose of the UI is to allow us to interact with the game, while at the same time providing necessary feedback.

How the rules are being applied is part of that feedback.