77 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

nicethugbert wrote...

Other companies make game engines for licensing. Why can't BW? Maybe that would entail providing tools to the competition and BW does not want that?

The first Witcher was built using modified engine licensed from BioWare...

[Atakuma]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

Origins looks way better than DA2. The combat is lightyears ahead of DA2 and the combat animations are so much more professionally done. The sound is better, the lighting is better, the environments are more varied and more detailed.

The environments were certainly more varied and detailed, but everything else you said is BS. DA2 has much better lighting than Origins and just because the animations don't appeal to you does not make them less professional. And saying it has better sound is just reaching for things to bash.

[tmp7704]

Atakuma wrote...

DA2 has much better lighting than Origins

It seems more of a "some improvement here, some loss there" situation. Self-shadowing and some other touches are nice, but on the other hand there's something weird and quite bad looking going with how the lighting affects characters and hair... unless that's something botched with the shaders for some reason.

[Ariella]

tmp7704 wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

Other companies make game engines for licensing. Why can't BW? Maybe that would entail providing tools to the competition and BW does not want that?

The first Witcher was built using modified engine licensed from BioWare...

Bioware was an independant developer then and it made sense to licence Aurora to bring in revenue fees, plus Aurora was developed at the behest of the same publisher PCDR uses for Witcher (AKA Atari). Probably a lot more hoops to jump through now.

[0x30A88]

The visual engine for DA2 is a bit unoptimized. The Witcher 2 ran smoother on my computer (high w/o uber vs DA2 very high HD textures).

[alex90c]

Atakuma wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...

Origins looks way better than DA2. The combat is lightyears ahead of DA2 and the combat animations are so much more professionally done. The sound is better, the lighting is better, the environments are more varied and more detailed.

The environments were certainly more varied and detailed, but everything else you said is BS. DA2 has much better lighting than Origins and just because the animations don't appeal to you does not make them less professional. And saying it has better sound is just reaching for things to bash.

Ehhh, I didn't think the lighting was very good at all. Perfect example of poor lighting would be Alistair (dark lighting) vs. Alistair (bright).

[Morroian]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

Origins looks way better than DA2. The combat is lightyears ahead of DA2 and the combat animations are so much more professionally done. The sound is better, the lighting is better, the environments are more varied and more detailed.

Thats the aesthetics and the art design not the engine itself.

[Hurbster]

A decrease in low-res textures would make the game (in ANY engine) look better. Those almost faceless NPC's just reek of laziness.

[Savber100]

Morroian wrote...
No offence but that screenshot of DA2 is not the best that could be chosen, you could prove your point without choosing a clearly non representative shot.

It was the only open environment I could find besides the mountains and Kirkwall which I thought was even more bland than this.

Sparrow Hawke wrote...
To be fair, this isn't THAT bad of a
screenshot showing off a location in DA2, granted it's of a location
without much significance in the story and it's 'recycled' throughout
the game. But it really comes down to Bioware showing off more scenery
in their games than actual graphical fidelity.

Point being I'd
simply like to see more outside environments in future content that
actually shows something rather than read about it in a codex page or
something similar. In the future I'd love to see the DA series get a new
engine or upgrade at least.

I wanted to be fair and not just toss in some ugly DA screenshot to prove my point. This screenshot was what Bioware released to assure fans that the graphics are good and so I brought the best of DA2 with the best of The Witcher 2.

Yes, Bioware should show more sceneries but my point still stands which is that this engine is outdated. Look closely at the bones at the bottom and look at the texture quality. The quality and detail might have been acceptable in last console generation but not now.

Mind you. DA2's engine is not the worst game engine ever. The art team has done pretty well with this limited engine like the rock wraith:




For this engine, the team occasionly did a great job in using a variety of color palettes to hide low-rez textures (look closely at the rock wraith)

But as said, the engine limitation is showing and DA3 needs to either VASTLY improve it or switch engines.

nerdage wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

*lots of stuff*

There's
certainly more going on, but my original point remains; you can't say
something's "bland and ugly" as a fact. I was never trying to argue that
one was better than the other.

And I'm saying graphic-wise, yes you can.  I can't argue objectively that the style/art direction is bad because it's simply subjective but I can complain about bad textures, low-rez models which is objective. After all I said, there's a difference as I call out DA2's bad graphics and not bashing DA2's aesthetics.

Modifié par Savber100, 01 août 2011 - 01:56 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

I think most would argue that staying with the old engine, as well as the old game design, would've been the best course for the series.

I mean, from a developer's perspective I honestly cannot fathom how BioWare went from "Alright, our game is critically acclaimed and sold millions of copies." to "Okay, let's overhaul the entire engine, graphical design and gameplay design." It simply doesn't make any sense! What you'd expect is a simple "Listen up, guys: we're gonna keep doing the exact same thing that apparently worked so well last time, at least for a couple more games until the fans tire of it. We've got a working engine, let's just tweak a few things and add some more options."

I just don't get it...

[Savber100]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

I think most would argue that staying with the old engine, as well as the old game design, would've been the best course for the series.

I mean, from a developer's perspective I honestly cannot fathom how BioWare went from "Alright, our game is critically acclaimed and sold millions of copies." to "Okay, let's overhaul the entire engine, graphical design and gameplay design." It simply doesn't make any sense! What you'd expect is a simple "Listen up, guys: we're gonna keep doing the exact same thing that apparently worked so well last time, at least for a couple more games until the fans tire of it. We've got a working engine, let's just tweak a few things and add some more options."

I just don't get it...

Exactly.

I was more amused how Bioware went from "spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate" to "HIT A FOR AWESOME!" in less than than 18 months. I get that DA:O wasn't the prettiest nor was it the smoothest game but to make so many key changes to the point that you alienate a great majority of DA:O fans that was attracted to the DA original tagline of being what Baldur's Gate was and then suddenly change it by making it more "cool" and "awesome" bewilders me.

It says a LOT when Brent Knowles, the former lead designer for DA, commented on Bioware's attitude towards DA:O during the development of DA2, "To be honest as a fan of the first game some of the comments being said (by Silverman)  are marginally offensive... kind of like telling the Dragon Age 1 fans that don't have good taste for liking the first one. I'm sure that's mostly miscommunication but I can understand the frustration in some fans at how they are being spoken to."

He also pointed out a key fundamental flaw with DA2:

"Really DA2 is neither an action game or a tactical semi-turned based RPG (like BG2 was and to a lesser degree DA:O was). It falls in the middle somewhere and like anything that doesn’t really define itself it has the potential to alienate players at either end of the spectrum. Itis difficult to make both styles of gameplay awesome in the same game. As an action game it is not responsive enough (i.e., I was clobbered  by the ogre even after I was on the other side of the map several times) and as a tactical game I really mostly only controlled one character  unless it died… there was no need, at least in the demo, to control party members."
I miss Mr. Knowles.

No more middle grounds, Bioware. Either go full-action or go full-tactical. Pick an audience and be honest with it.

But enough of me derailing this topic.

Modifié par Savber100, 01 août 2011 - 03:21 .

[jds1bio]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

I think most would argue that
staying with the old engine, as well as the old game design, would've
been the best course for the series.

I mean, from a developer's
perspective I honestly cannot fathom how BioWare went from "Alright, our
game is critically acclaimed and sold millions of copies." to "Okay,
let's overhaul the entire engine, graphical design and gameplay design."
It simply doesn't make any sense!

But this is what Naughty Dog has done with their Uncharted games.  This is what CDPRojekt RED did with The Witcher 2.  This is why Crytek did with Crysis 2.  This is what Rocksteady is doing with the next Batman game.  This is what COD continues to do by alternating dev houses every year.  All of these, including DA2, have been commercial successes.

Modifié par jds1bio, 01 août 2011 - 03:22 .

[Savber100]

jds1bio wrote...
But this is what Naughty Dog has done with their Uncharted games.  This is what CDPRojekt RED did with The Witcher 2.  This is why Crytek did with Crysis 2.  This is what Rocksteady is doing with the next Batman game.  This is what COD continues to do by alternating dev houses every year.  All of these, including DA2, have been commercial successes.

lol.

Naughty Dog always aimed for a cinematic adventure game with Uncharted, so they took that core concept and improved in Uncharted 2.

CD Projekt Red always wanted a deep RPG where your choices can affect the entire story, so they took the core concpet and improved in The Witcher 2

Rocksteady wanted a more open-world Batman while enriching and improving
the near perfect combat in AA. The hype for the game has never been
better but we'll see if it delivers.

Crytek wanted a more linear, action game compared Crysis 1 more non-linear approach. They earned the angry ire of gamers who disliked this new direction as the open gameplay as one of the things that made Crysis good. (Don't believe me? Take a walk around any major Crysis forum. If anything, Crysis 2 and Dragon Age 2 were being used as examples of dumbed down console games).
Call of Duty.. wait, you did NOT just use COD as an example of a developer improving on a product.

I want sources that actually prove that DA2 sold better than DA:O. If anything, it was underselling according to several sites like vgchartz.com etc.

The problem is that Bioware didn't IMPROVE and POLISH the edges like CD Projekt RED or Naughty Dog. They stripped away the original concept of "Baldur's Gate successor" and a "gritty, dark world akin to Game of Thrones" to something entirely different.

Some people like it, some people don't.

I can't speak for them but I don't think Bioware should feign surprise why DA2 was underwhelming for many fans compared to DA:O.

Modifié par Savber100, 01 août 2011 - 03:35 .

[Nerdage]

Savber100 wrote...

nerdage wrote...

Savber100 wrote...

*lots of stuff*

There's
certainly more going on, but my original point remains; you can't say something's "bland and ugly" as a fact. I was never trying to argue that one was better than the other.

And I'm saying graphic-wise, yes you can.  I can't argue objectively that the style/art direction is bad because it's simply subjective but I can complain about bad textures, low-rez models which is objective. After all I said, there's a difference as I call out DA2's bad graphics and not bashing DA2's aesthetics.

My post that you originally quoted was just me telling someone that "bland and ugly" is a matter of opinion, the fact that other people feel differently is pretty much proof of that. I was never suggesting he was wrong to call it those things, that's his opinion after all, but I'm pretty sure it was originally  a commentary on the aesthetics anyway. I'm not really sure what you're arguing with me about..

Incidentally though, whether or not TW2 looks better than DA2 has no bearing on whether DA2 looks good or bad. The only things I'd say are bad about DA2 graphically (how I think you're defining it) are the barren vista shots and the low-res filler NPCs, otherwise I think it's a good looking game in its own right. Whether or not those things require the engine to be re-worked or even replaced, I don't know. Sure, there are other things that could be improved, but that doesn't make them 'bad', in the end pretty much everything always has room for improvement, doesn't make everything bad.

Maybe I'm just less picky about graphics. I'm still not sure what so many people's problem with DAO's graphics was. Frankly, so long as I don't actually notice the graphics I'd consider that they're doing their job, like any other UI. I'm supposed to be looking through the graphics to what's actually happening, if I'm ever thiking about something like model resolutions when I'm playing then they've distracted me from the game, and the only times in DA2 that the 'graphics' ever caught my attention were the two issues I mentioned. So for the most part I think DA2 is 'graphically' a good game, art aside, but that comes down to what I consider "good" or "bad", which is subjective.

Phew.. I need a drink.

[Range Rover]

All these people crying about the game... Keep on till you all make Bioware stop putting time in their game's and give you all Call of Duty type garbage. I mean whats all the complaining about they've givin' you all so much. Story game play loot, even went as far as making most of you nerds kinda feel what it's like to actually have a girl(boy)friend. lol

I give up with this forum, but don't be surprised if future stuff gets toned down cause you people can't appreciate Biowares time. It not about you all please get your heads outta your asses.

[Sharn01]

I am still of the school that thinks RPG's dont need the latest and best engines and graphics, the focus on graphics is the main reason rpgs keep getting shorter and more linear.

[Savber100]

nerdage wrote...
My post that you originally quoted was just me telling someone that "bland and ugly" is a matter of opinion, the fact that other people feel differently is pretty much proof of that. I was never suggesting he was wrong to call it those things, that's his opinion after all, but I'm pretty sure it was originally  a commentary on the aesthetics anyway. I'm not really sure what you're arguing with me about..

Incidentally though, whether or not TW2 looks better than DA2 has no bearing on whether DA2 looks good or bad. The only things I'd say are bad about DA2 graphically (how I think you're defining it) are the barren vista shots and the low-res filler NPCs, otherwise I think it's a good looking game in its own right. Whether or not those things require the engine to be re-worked or even replaced, I don't know. Sure, there are other things that could be improved, but that doesn't make them 'bad', in the end pretty much everything always has room for improvement, doesn't make everything bad.

Maybe I'm just less picky about graphics. I'm still not sure what so many people's problem with DAO's graphics was. Frankly, so long as I don't actually notice the graphics I'd consider that they're doing their job, like any other UI. I'm supposed to be looking through the graphics to what's actually happening, if I'm ever thiking about something like model resolutions when I'm playing then they've distracted me from the game, and the only times in DA2 that the 'graphics' ever caught my attention were the two issues I mentioned. So for the most part I think DA2 is 'graphically' a good game, art aside, but that comes down to what I consider "good" or "bad", which is subjective.

Phew.. I need a drink.

*hands nerdage a cup of water*

Well as you pointed out, no one really likes barren vistas, half-empty cities, ugly textures, or low rez NPCs. Who does?

haha, as long as we can agree that DA can look a lot better in graphic terms rather than aesthetically, I'm satisfied. :happy:

Range Rover wrote...
All these people crying about the
game... Keep on till you all make Bioware stop putting time in their
game's and give you all Call of Duty type garbage. I mean whats all the
complaining about they've givin' you all so much. Story game play loot,
even went as far as making most of you nerds kinda feel what it's like
to actually have a girl(boy)friend. lol
I give up with this
forum, but don't be surprised if future stuff gets toned down cause you
people can't appreciate Biowares time. It not about you all please get
your heads outta your asses.

So if Bioware releases a bad game that some feel is too streamlined and dumbed down, I can't complain because I should appreciate Bioware's time for making what I (and others) think is a bad game? And if I do complain about the dumb down mechanic, Bioware would try to make MORE of the same?

Huh, I don't think we're the ones that need to get his head out of his ass.

Modifié par Savber100, 01 août 2011 - 03:58 .

[Nerdage]

*boils water, adds coffee*

Much appreciated.

[Range Rover]

Sharn01 wrote...

I am still of the school that thinks RPG's dont need the latest and best engines and graphics, the focus on graphics is the main reason rpgs keep getting shorter and more linear.

+1

[Morroian]

Sharn01 wrote...

I am still of the school that thinks RPG's dont need the latest and best engines and graphics, the focus on graphics is the main reason rpgs keep getting shorter and more linear.

+2

[Savber100]

Sharn01 wrote...

I am still of the school that thinks RPG's dont need the latest and best engines and graphics, the focus on graphics is the main reason rpgs keep getting shorter and more linear.

The Witcher 2.

'Nuff said

But I agree that graphics don't define the game and I haven't said otherwise. 

A game might look uglier than hell but it doesn't break it unlesss it's bad enough to distract. 

But what's wrong with people like me that want Bioware to up the ante in providing both a rich experience and a pretty game which I believe is critical for immersion? CD Projekt RED has set the bar for both immersion and graphics in a RPG and I want Bioware to top it. Also a better graphic engine does not necessarily relate to a shorter RPG; I believe that a short, rushed development causes a RPG to be more linear and short than a focus on graphics. Look at Dragon Age 2 and then look at Skyrim and the Witcher 2. Does a focus on making better graphics necessarily equal a shorter, linear RPG? Hardly as graphics in the end don't really cause our industry to churn up bad sequels and linear crapfrests. It's both a desire to rush a game to capitalize on previous success and pure greed that caused the industry to be where it is now. 

Modifié par Savber100, 01 août 2011 - 05:35 .

[csfteeeer]

Sharn01 wrote...

I am still of the school that thinks RPG's dont need the latest and best engines and graphics, the focus on graphics is the main reason rpgs keep getting shorter and more linear.

You obviously Haven't Played The Witcher 2 if you say that.

But it's true that Graphics don't make a game, but nobody here has said otherwise.

Not to mention the DA series just doesn't look good enough, it needs an BIG update.

[Teddie Sage]

A new engine would mean no grey warden from Origins or Awakening and probably no one from DA2. I have a feeling that they're going to remain on DA2's engine. I can see a pattern going there, because they're trying to make it more like Mass Effect. It's possible we may not have a new engine before Hawke's storyline is definetly over.

Modifié par Teddie Sage, 01 août 2011 - 06:16 .

[Morroian]

csfteeeer wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

I am still of the school that thinks RPG's dont need the latest and best engines and graphics, the focus on graphics is the main reason rpgs keep getting shorter and more linear.

You obviously Haven't Played The Witcher 2 if you say that.

But it's true that Graphics don't make a game, but nobody here has said otherwise.

Not to mention the DA series just doesn't look good enough, it needs an BIG update.

No it doesn't, it looks fine and adequate for what they want to achieve. Its middle of the road, not the worst not the best but they will never be the best because its a tactical game not a single character game. They need to improve the areas where the graphics are still low res but apart from that the main complaints are around the art design not the engine.

[Malistix]

i have DA2 on ps3 and pc. now i gotto say on PC it looks like "ok" but on PS3 it looks really good.
Now something i noticed is altough DA2 on "high end" systems might not look that impressive. it looks really really good on lower settings, for easyer hardware. i say its a solid engine but it could use some extra high-end galore.