255 réponses à ce sujet

[Chromie]

Atakuma wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Correct Neppa. Porting down is far easier than porting up. Makes a hell of a lot more sense as well.

If that were true, then everyone would do it.

Probably takes more work to make a game on PC first then port back then making a game on a console and porting to PC.

[thesilverlinedviking]

Melca36 wrote...

Actually I don't blame the developers for wanting to branch out.

I do think there is a HUGE segment of console gamers who are extremely lazy when it comes to gaming and want everything handed to them.

COD proves this

[Ariella]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Correct Neppa. Porting down is far easier than porting up. Makes a hell of a lot more sense as well.

DA2 isn't a port, it was developed for all three platforms similtaniously, not exactly the definition of a port.

@OP Deal with it. As someone who's played both DAO and DA2 on PC and Xbox, the UI improvements on DA2 are wonderful and more informative than DAO's Xbox version, and gives a very goiod standardized performance on both of those systems. Be offended, fine, but deal with it, as it's not going to change.

[Merci357]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Lets be completely honest here. If forced to develop only for a single platform, most developers would pick consoles. That's a simple truth. So be thankful rather than disgusted.

But on the PC we get the game much better despite the UI. Like full use of our keyboard, a ton more hotbar spots and higher resolution textures (if you download them). We can already run games at settings the consoles cant.

And we also get mods. The toolset they put out for Origins is pure non-lazy PC goodness, and works for DA2 as well. And there is talk of updating that further.

So not really seeing the 'disgust' aspect. Disappointment, sure.

Sure, I'm not happy about sloppy console ports - the list is quite long, and honestly, DA2 isn't the worst offender, either. To name just a recent game, anyone played Hunted? Or to name a BioWare game, ME2 is a pure console port, including a save game limit.

So if it's either a console port with no or almost none improvements, or no PC release at all, then I take the PC release.

Can you blame a developer for catering where the money is? PC sales are a fraction of console sales. I'd love to see games developed for the PC, of course, and I guess it's somewhat obvious that the current consoles are holding back any significant advancements due to their dated tech and it's limitations, but it's also obvious we'll see any leap forward not before the next gen consoles are released.

Disappointing? Maybe. But why blame developers when they cater to the majority of their customers?

[Melca36]

We actually should be thankful they developed this for the PC. Most gaming companies don't even bother.

I can't begin to describe how many bad games I have purchased that were ported from consoles.

I applaud Bioware for NOT doing that.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Ariella wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Correct Neppa. Porting down is far easier than porting up. Makes a hell of a lot more sense as well.

DA2 isn't a port, it was developed for all three platforms similtaniously, not exactly the definition of a port.

@OP Deal with it. As someone who's played both DAO and DA2 on PC and Xbox, the UI improvements on DA2 are wonderful and more informative than DAO's Xbox version, and gives a very goiod standardized performance on both of those systems. Be offended, fine, but deal with it, as it's not going to change.

Your post lost all relevance when you stated DA2's UI was somehow an improvement, unless you're just stating so for the 360. On the PC it most certainly was not.

[Skilled Seeker]

There are 2 ways to develop multiplatform games, a cheap lazy bad method and a good method.

Bad method is to develop for the lowest common denominator, in this case the 360, then port to the more powerful platforms and maybe add a few gimmicks to make it look like you tried e.g DX11. The more powerful platforms end up with a subpar experience that doesn't make use of the platforms' strengths.

Examples: Dragon Age 2, Modern Warfare 3.

Good method is to develop for the most powerful system, in this case the strongest available PC hardware, then scale and dumb down for the weaker systems, which means consoles and graphic settings for PC. This way everyone gets an optimal experience that makes full use of all platforms but obviously takes more effort.

Examples: The Witcher 2, Battlefield 3.

Modifié par Skilled Seeker, 04 juin 2011 - 08:00 .

[erynnar]

neppakyo wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

OP, Luke speaks the truth. And are you seriously going to blame developers for wanting to support multiple platforms? You know they are trying to make a living from this. They are not your servants.
Praise and support those courageous enough to develop for the PC only, but you can't really blame others or become "disgusted".

I don't think he's against multi-platform, just asking for features for the PC version since it can handle 2-5x more than the 360.

Personally I think its better to design for the PC first, then streamline heavy resource features out for the console version.

Isnt this how Battlefield 3 is being developed? PC first, then trickle down to the consoles? This way imho, everyone gets a better game.

That's my take on it too. I am a PC player, but no elitist. It seems doing what CDP Red is doing is the way to go. The company that makes Assassin's Creed is swinging toward PC games and not consoles. I don't want BioWare doing that but PC first then streamlining out the heavy resource features I would think would make a better game for everyone.

[Chromie]

To be fair Call of Duty never tries to be a good product.

[TEWR]

I admit PC players should get more bang for their buck. I'd be a PC player too for some games if I had a decent PC. It's not unreasonable to want a game to be at its very best and look its very best.


That doesn't mean though that consoles are incredibly inferior products that can't have amazing graphics.

I agree with the sentiment of PC first, console afterwards.


and I have to ask, why do these forums show so much vitriol for Call of Duty? And no, I don't want "because that's the crowd Bioware was aiming for with DA2" as an answer. I want an honest, good, well thought out answer.

[AngryFrozenWater]

BrunoB1971 wrote...

Lord_Valandil wrote...

*Pc Elitist Babble*

pleeease lets not start a console vs pc debate..you should have gotten your  high version port of DA2 and i should have gotten the same...

the pc vs console debate is pointless...

the debate is that bioware is telling us that the game was designed to accomodate everyone  across the board and because of that quality suffered, shortcuts were taken and design choices were made in that effect...

even as a pc user i am punished at this moment because the hgih qaulity textures are supported by a dx 11 cards for some features, so i am paying for that...

how come the witcher 2 can be designed on older direct x codes and look so fantastic while da2 barely manages to not look dated.

i love the big boobs though , ill give them credits for that part! 

I agree with the OP and the reply above 100%. In addition to that too many shortcuts have been taken just for cost savings purposes. Not accomodating for PC specific issues fits nicely in that picture. BW can keep up playing the innocent victim of the game being bashed, but for me it is obvious why the game has lost it's soul. DA2 is not an improvement, instead it is a poor economic experiment which tries to swap their old fan base for a new one.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 04 juin 2011 - 07:44 .

[erynnar]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I admit PC players should get more bang for their buck. I'd be a PC player too for some games if I had a decent PC. It's not unreasonable to want a game to be at its very best and look its very best.


That doesn't mean though that consoles are incredibly inferior products that can't have amazing graphics.

I agree with the sentiment of PC first, console afterwards.


and I have to ask, why do these forums show so much vitriol for Call of Duty? And no, I don't want "because that's the crowd Bioware was aiming for with DA2" as an answer. I want an honest, good, well thought out answer.

ROFL! I wondered the same thing about CoD. Is it really that bad?

*waves at Eth*

[Mr.House]

CoD died after CoD4.

[Aaleel]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I admit PC players should get more bang for their buck. I'd be a PC player too for some games if I had a decent PC. It's not unreasonable to want a game to be at its very best and look its very best.


That doesn't mean though that consoles are incredibly inferior products that can't have amazing graphics.

I agree with the sentiment of PC first, console afterwards.


and I have to ask, why do these forums show so much vitriol for Call of Duty? And no, I don't want "because that's the crowd Bioware was aiming for with DA2" as an answer. I want an honest, good, well thought out answer.

I've only played one COD game, Call of Duty 4 - Modern Warfare and I don't see why people would hate the COD games so much.  But i have only played 3 shooters.  COD4, BF2-BC, and Crysis, so what do I know.

[Halo Quea]

Melca36 wrote...

That new Nintendo Console coming out will be able to handle games better than the 360 or PS3

Nintendo is going with a 3 year old off-the-shelf R700, AND it won't even be out until the Fall of 2012.  That does not scream next gen to me at all, so I'm not excited in the least bit about the arrival of the Wii2. 

[Halo Quea]

Aaleel wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I admit PC players should get more bang for their buck. I'd be a PC player too for some games if I had a decent PC. It's not unreasonable to want a game to be at its very best and look its very best.


That doesn't mean though that consoles are incredibly inferior products that can't have amazing graphics.

I agree with the sentiment of PC first, console afterwards.


and I have to ask, why do these forums show so much vitriol for Call of Duty? And no, I don't want "because that's the crowd Bioware was aiming for with DA2" as an answer. I want an honest, good, well thought out answer.

I've only played one COD game, Call of Duty 4 - Modern Warfare and I don't see why people would hate the COD games so much.  But i have only played 3 shooters.  COD4, BF2-BC, and Crysis, so what do I know.

They really don't hate COD or shooters in general.  They hate what shooters have come to represent for the RPG genre.   Role playing gamers are frustrated that so much about role playing has been sacrificed in order to accomodate the shooter demographic..................that also admits that don't like playing and/or finishing the SP campaigns of games like COD, BF, etc.  

So you have Bioware knocking themselves out for a shot at better numbers with gamers that don't like rpgs or SP campaign mode,  the singular mode of play for rpgs.  lol.    Most gamers I know whose favorite genre is shooters have told me that ME3 isn't anywhere on their radar. 

[Skilled Seeker]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I admit PC players should get more bang for their buck. I'd be a PC player too for some games if I had a decent PC. It's not unreasonable to want a game to be at its very best and look its very best.

Indeed, there is something bigger here that the majority of people fail to understand. If PC games deteriorate in quality then people will stop buying the latest hardware because nothing would make use of it. This means that hardware companies cannot make enough money to continously improve on the tech at the current level of development, which in turn means that consoles would end up far more expensive as the hardware companies have to make profit from somewhere and the improvement over the last console generation would be smaller than it could be. Therefore PC gaming needs to stay healthy for the sake of the development of console gaming. So console gamers should be supporting the cause for quality PC games as well, since it affects them indirectly.

[andar91]

I don't believe they could make the game equally good on consoles as on PC unless they build one build; the PC version will not be fully optimized without making it first and then porting it to the consoles, which would result in an even more inferior console version. Bioware did not want to do that; Origins' ports were criticized for it and they wanted to make all versions of the game, if not completely equal (the PC is better graphically), then at least in the same region of quality. As long as they want to make games for PC and consoles, I doubt the PC will ever use the absolute highest standard because they'll want them to be somewhat similar in quality.

From a PC standpoint, people say that the PC version was dumbed down so the consoles didn't suck.

From a console standpoint, people say that, unlike last time, the game had a better graphical quality because Bioware spent the time to make it decent.

Either way, somebody loses. Seeing as a huge portion of the market plays on consoles, what was Bioware supposed to do? Tell everybody, "Well, we realize a lot of you play consoles out there, but we'd rather cater to the PC crowd and screw you over."

[Skilled Seeker]

But that is a wrong method of thought. Games shouldn't be of equal quality across all platforms. I paid much more for my PC than your console, if I don't get a better product then what is the point. Would you have 360/PS3 games on the same level of quality as Wii games because then it isn't fair on the Wii gamers? This is a very flawed method of thinking and is just a silly excuse to justify this laziness of PC development.

And I fail to see how console gamers would be screwed over.

Modifié par Skilled Seeker, 04 juin 2011 - 08:12 .

[Aaleel]

Halo Quea wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I admit PC players should get more bang for their buck. I'd be a PC player too for some games if I had a decent PC. It's not unreasonable to want a game to be at its very best and look its very best.


That doesn't mean though that consoles are incredibly inferior products that can't have amazing graphics.

I agree with the sentiment of PC first, console afterwards.


and I have to ask, why do these forums show so much vitriol for Call of Duty? And no, I don't want "because that's the crowd Bioware was aiming for with DA2" as an answer. I want an honest, good, well thought out answer.

I've only played one COD game, Call of Duty 4 - Modern Warfare and I don't see why people would hate the COD games so much.  But i have only played 3 shooters.  COD4, BF2-BC, and Crysis, so what do I know.

They really don't hate COD or shooters in general.  They hate what shooters have come to represent for the RPG genre.   Role playing gamers are frustrated that so much about role playing has been sacrificed in order to accomodate the shooter demographic..................that also admits that don't like playing and/or finishing the SP campaigns of games like COD, BF, etc.  

So you have Bioware knocking themselves out for a shot at better numbers with gamers that don't like rpgs or SP campaign mode,  the singular mode of play for rpgs.  lol.    Most gamers I know whose favorite genre is shooters have told me that ME3 isn't anywhere on their radar. 

Well that's unfortunate for BW because from what I've heard ME3 is going to be far more shooter than the other 2.

http://ps3.ign.com/a.../1172200p1.html

This was an interesting read.  I don't think there's a way to make RPGs appeal to those gamers because it will always be too much downtime, and dialogue.  Then throw in the lack of multiplayer and I think that would be the deathnail.

[Skilled Seeker]

Aaleel wrote...

Halo Quea wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I admit PC players should get more bang for their buck. I'd be a PC player too for some games if I had a decent PC. It's not unreasonable to want a game to be at its very best and look its very best.


That doesn't mean though that consoles are incredibly inferior products that can't have amazing graphics.

I agree with the sentiment of PC first, console afterwards.


and I have to ask, why do these forums show so much vitriol for Call of Duty? And no, I don't want "because that's the crowd Bioware was aiming for with DA2" as an answer. I want an honest, good, well thought out answer.

I've only played one COD game, Call of Duty 4 - Modern Warfare and I don't see why people would hate the COD games so much.  But i have only played 3 shooters.  COD4, BF2-BC, and Crysis, so what do I know.

They really don't hate COD or shooters in general.  They hate what shooters have come to represent for the RPG genre.   Role playing gamers are frustrated that so much about role playing has been sacrificed in order to accomodate the shooter demographic..................that also admits that don't like playing and/or finishing the SP campaigns of games like COD, BF, etc.  

So you have Bioware knocking themselves out for a shot at better numbers with gamers that don't like rpgs or SP campaign mode,  the singular mode of play for rpgs.  lol.    Most gamers I know whose favorite genre is shooters have told me that ME3 isn't anywhere on their radar. 

Well that's unfortunate for BW because from what I've heard ME3 is going to be far more shooter than the other 2.

http://ps3.ign.com/a.../1172200p1.html

This was an interesting read.  I don't think there's a way to make RPGs appeal to those gamers because it will always be too much downtime, and dialogue.  Then throw in the lack of multiplayer and I think that would be the deathnail.

Indeed Bioware are slowly dooming themselves by trying to find this nonexistant sweet spot between deep RPG and casual beat them up that appeals to everyone. They need to choose to commit fully one way or the other.
 or they will alienate everyone. You can't please everyone in a single game Bioware, different people have different tastes.

Modifié par Skilled Seeker, 04 juin 2011 - 08:19 .

[Lumikki]

In my opinion UI and how to control, should be done so that they do support each platforms as best they can. Not so that one kind of UI and control is tryed to get work in every platform.

Every game should be best what they can be in they own platform and no game should be limited in they platform, because some other platform.

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 juin 2011 - 09:01 .

[TEWR]

erynnar wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I admit PC players should get more bang for their buck. I'd be a PC player too for some games if I had a decent PC. It's not unreasonable to want a game to be at its very best and look its very best.


That doesn't mean though that consoles are incredibly inferior products that can't have amazing graphics.

I agree with the sentiment of PC first, console afterwards.


and I have to ask, why do these forums show so much vitriol for Call of Duty? And no, I don't want "because that's the crowd Bioware was aiming for with DA2" as an answer. I want an honest, good, well thought out answer.

ROFL! I wondered the same thing about CoD. Is it really that bad?

*waves at Eth*

in my opinion? No they aren't. I've played 5 CoD games: Big Red One, CoD3, Modern Warfare, Modern Warfare 2, and Black Ops.

The stories in anything prior to Modern Warfare weren't anything special, but it was nice playing them. When Modern Warfare came along I thought it had a great story. Then Modern Warfare 2 came by and told a great story as well that just made me think it was amazing. I even felt a connection to one of the main characters in MW2 and felt sorry that I had to kill him.

Black Ops story connects to a prior CoD game, World at War.

In my opinion the more recent Call of Duty games are games that tell good stories. But most people on here probably wouldn't know that because they're so mired in their vitriolic hatred of the series for.... some reason.

I expect I'm going to be attacked for thinking the stories are great, but you know what people?

I don't care. If people get their jollies by attacking my own personal taste (which I admit I may have done a few times on here to other people, and for that I apologize because I thought I would've been above that) then there's something wrong there. Why should they care what I like? Are they going to save me from what they see as my horrendous taste in video games?

[TheTranzor]

erynnar wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I admit PC players should get more bang for their buck. I'd be a PC player too for some games if I had a decent PC. It's not unreasonable to want a game to be at its very best and look its very best.


That doesn't mean though that consoles are incredibly inferior products that can't have amazing graphics.

I agree with the sentiment of PC first, console afterwards.


and I have to ask, why do these forums show so much vitriol for Call of Duty? And no, I don't want "because that's the crowd Bioware was aiming for with DA2" as an answer. I want an honest, good, well thought out answer.

ROFL! I wondered the same thing about CoD. Is it really that bad?

*waves at Eth*

Yes, it is... and this is coming from a CoD player.  CoD4 was the best, and they've gone downhill since... of course, apparently I didn't learn my lesson, because I've bought the three CoD incarnations since CoD4, and they just keep getting crappier.

So of course... I'm not buying the one coming out this year.  (I probably will though... because I'm dumb). 

[andar91]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

But that is a wrong method of thought. Games shouldn't be of equal quality across all platforms. I paid much more for my PC than your console, if I don't get a better product then what is the point. Would you have 360/PS3 games on the same level of quality as Wii games because then it isn't fair on the Wii gamers? This is a very flawed method of thinking and is just a silly excuse to justify this laziness of PC development.

And I fail to see how console gamers would be screwed over.

I mean within the context of a game that is coming out on multiple platforms as one build.  That's a decision Bioware made.  I don't mind the PC version being better since the machines can handle more than consoles, I just wouldn't want it ot be miles above the console version if it's essentially the same game.

For example, Star Wars the Force Unleashed came out on many different platforms; the PS3 and 360 versions were virtually identical, but the other versions (Wii, DS, and PS2) games each had different features and were related, but different games.  For example, the Wii had versus while the DS had other features and so on.

DA:O was the same game on both platforms except for controls and graphics.  The controls had to be different, obviously, but the graphics made a lot of eyebrows raise (at least in reviews I've seen).

At least that's my thought process.  Again, I have no issue with the PC version having perks as long as the console versions don't suffer too much.  The same thing I've seen PC players say about the console versions.

In the end, I agree with the other poster:  both versions should ideally be the best that they can realistically be.  But realistically, the PC is probably going to give up a little to let the consoles stay in the same zone.  And that is Bioware's choice (not to the mention the market, in a way).