276 réponses à ce sujet

[addiction21]

What will kill DA3 for PC gamers?

Nothing I can think of since PC gamers are not one single homogeneous group who all enjoy the exact same thing.

As much as a few people would like to lead us to believe.

[Adrian68b]

"If my Warden left Redcliffe during the day, everyone dies. If my Champion does stuff, well, it doesn't change anything significant. This is what DA2 missed out on."

I think Bioware opted for a more realistic storyline. Hawke wasn't designed to be a God or a superhero, like in BG series. The consequences of his actions are less spectacular. But it's not a scale-down perspective, rather a realistic one. In their previous RPG's, the game environment was rather passive. For instance, in NWN (a similar city environment) every major NPC just waited for the Hero to save the day. DA2 is far more realistic: each character has a personal agenda, and act accordingly (even Hawke's companions). So yes, Hawke is powerless to change or stop the actions of the major players in Kirkwall. Still, the fact that the Champion supported the Circle rebellion was critical for the general outcome.

I will give you a historical example. Alexander the Great conquered his empire in about 10 years. However, his empire died with him (more or less). But his REAL enduring legacy is based on the spread of Greek culture. Just look around, and you will face his legacy (democracy, science, sport events... even RPG's are nothing more than theatrical drama with personal involvement).

[Adrian68b]

In short, Hawke is just a catalyst. But the essential one.

[Sylvius the Mad]

FemaleMageFan wrote...

i don't really role play

It's a roleplaying game.

[Danyu]

JakePT wrote...

Based on a bunch of interviews etc with David Gaider, it seems as if on DA2 there was an explicit attempt to 'fake' player agency and give an illusion of choice, I just hope on DA3 you aren't trying this again. This comment gives me some hope that you genuinely want to improve this area.

On the other hand, in the lead up to DA2, you called it "Our most reactive game yet" but I simply can't see how at any point you could have thought that was true, given how little substantive reactivity there was.

EDIT: Wasn't being very fair.

I can imagine you're referring to choices affecting the overall storyline and in that sense you're completely right. Choices seem more viable in Origins than in DA2. However, I think in some ways, choices are actually far more reactive in another context.

For instance, Hawke's voiceovers changed according to how you consistently respond to NPCs. Conversational responses feel a lot more fluid in DA2 to me. The conversations seem more life-like. While I probably overall enjoyed the characters in Origins, the characters speech patterns felt more realistic and pertaining on topic.

There's this overall flavor to the game that changes depending on choices made. Origins didn't have as much flavor. I know that a lot of people would rather have the reactivity Origins rather than the flavor DA2 had but I think it did give us something we never had before. And in that sense, it felt more reactive.

I hope DA3 gives us overarching storyline choices AND flavor. After all, if I'm a hardass supporting mages or something like that, I want NPCs to recognize that in the game while I'm deciding to destroy Thedas and getting to see it happen.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Nefario wrote...

I'm not sure I'm understanding your response here. Can you elaborate? What do you mean when you say the alternative was a broken game? That any RPG including an overhead, detached camera view would inherently break in a console version? Or do you mean to say that DA:O, specifically, could not have included a detached overhead view without breaking the game?

DAO specifically.  That was the explanation given by the developers for the removal of the overhead camera from the console version.  The consoles simply couldn't reliably render the world at an adequate framerate with the overhead camera active.

The low-angle third-person camera displayed fewer short-range textures, fewer creatures, and fewer polygons at a time.

Whatever it is that you mean, aren't we arguing about the goals of future game development, rather than what's been possible in past iterations of the franchise? So unless you mean to say that any sort of tactical camera is impossible in a console version of a future DA game, I don't see how your argument is relevant.

the point is that each platofrm has its own strengths and weaknesses, and accommodating the weakness of one routinely shortchanges the strengths of another.

The controller, I think, is the most obvious.  Note how ME2 mapped almost every positive interaction to one button.  On the PC, this was terrible design, but avoiding it on the console would have required an absurdly complicated system of holding multiple buttons at a time (because the console controllers simply have fewer buttons than a keyboard does).

[Zanallen]

What will kill DA3 for PC gamers? Bioware not releasing the game on PC.

[NedPepper]

Complistic wrote...

No self respecting pc gamer should even be considering picking up DA3 before it gets thoroughly reviewed.

Ah, elitism...take a good whiff...it smells like.....manure.

[Firky]

I like the use of "self respecting." I used to be very proud to call myself a PC gamer, old school etc. Not so much after DA2's backlash. Now I'm not sure I entirely like the generalised association.

It's a complicated issue, though. I think there's some common characteristics for the PC gamer, but they don't apply to everyone. They don't even, necessarily, have to do with mechanics.

I mean, you could argue mechanics of Witcher 2 endlessly, but it doesn't change that fact that I hated WASD. And, for reasons totally not to do with movement, I loved it.

Just like, with DAII, I don't like cutscenes and linear level design, but I adored DAII and Legacy for entirely other reasons.

And, I consider both very much consistent with what it means (to me) to be a PC gamer.

[Danyu]

I don't mind playing games on the PC but I made a decision to pretty much stick with games on consoles for the most part due to the sheer low volume of PC games I see on a Walmart shelf. When most games on the PC I've played feel like ports from their console versions or vice-versa, what's the point? Sure there may be a few perspective differences but I'm usually a story/controller kind of person anyways.

You can paint a car blue, but it's still the same car. Complaining about the color isn't going to change the car ~ at least for me.

[Nefario]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the point is that each platofrm has its own strengths and weaknesses, and accommodating the weakness of one routinely shortchanges the strengths of another.

The controller, I think, is the most obvious.  Note how ME2 mapped almost every positive interaction to one button.  On the PC, this was terrible design, but avoiding it on the console would have required an absurdly complicated system of holding multiple buttons at a time (because the console controllers simply have fewer buttons than a keyboard does).

You're right in what you're saying here, but I don't think it supports the idea that what makes the game good on PC is different from what makes it good on consoles.

A tactical camera is something that would make the game better on a console, were it included. That they haven't figured out how to get it in yet doesn't change the fact that it's a desirable feature (from my point of view, anyway). While there may be certain difficulties in actually working within technological limitations, that needn't change the actual design philosophy.

As far as input methods go, I'm not sure they're really an issue at this point. The interface they designed for Origins on console approximated the PC functionality well enough. There's no reason to assume that accomodating different methods of user input need have an effect on the design of a Dragon Age game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Danyu wrote...

I don't mind playing games on the PC but I made a decision to pretty much stick with games on consoles for the most part due to the sheer low volume of PC games I see on a Walmart shelf.

At this point, there's no reason for PC games to be physcially packaged.  They should all just be sold online.

A physical collector's edition, perhaps, but the base game doesn't need a box or physical media.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Nefario wrote...

You're right in what you're saying here, but I don't think it supports the idea that what makes the game good on PC is different from what makes it good on consoles.

A tactical camera is something that would make the game better on a console, were it included. That they haven't figured out how to get it in yet doesn't change the fact that it's a desirable feature (from my point of view, anyway). While there may be certain difficulties in actually working within technological limitations, that needn't change the actual design philosophy.

That's nonsense.  If it were a desireable feature, they would have included it.

You're judging each feature assuming all else is equal, and it isn't.  each feature carries an opportunity costs, and each console pays a different price.  As such, the optimal design for each platform is different.

As far as input methods go, I'm not sure they're really an issue at this point. The interface they designed for Origins on console approximated the PC functionality well enough. There's no reason to assume that accomodating different methods of user input need have an effect on the design of a Dragon Age game.

The inventory they used for Origins was clearly designed for a mouseless interface.

BioWare's PC only games never used list inventories.  Their multiplatform games have all used list inventories.

[Zanallen]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The inventory they used for Origins was clearly designed for a mouseless interface.

BioWare's PC only games never used list inventories.  Their multiplatform games have all used list inventories.

But that isn't necessarily a limitation due to consoles. There are a number of console games that use grid based inventory screens. They are generally used when the developers want to agressively limit the player's inventory space, like in surival games such as the Resident Evil franchise or in games like Deus Ex. Inventory type is a design feature, not based on limitations.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Zanallen wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The inventory they used for Origins was clearly designed for a mouseless interface.

BioWare's PC only games never used list inventories.  Their multiplatform games have all used list inventories.

But that isn't necessarily a limitation due to consoles. There are a number of console games that use grid based inventory screens. They are generally used when the developers want to agressively limit the player's inventory space, like in surival games such as the Resident Evil franchise or in games like Deus Ex. Inventory type is a design feature, not based on limitations.

Okay, what about hotbars?  Compare DAO on consoles to DAO on the PC.

Or better yet, an even more optimal PC hotbar system, NWN's hotbars (where you could call up different hotbars by holding down Shift, Ctrl, or Alt).

[Nefario]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Nefario wrote...

You're right in what you're saying here, but I don't think it supports the idea that what makes the game good on PC is different from what makes it good on consoles.

A tactical camera is something that would make the game better on a console, were it included. That they haven't figured out how to get it in yet doesn't change the fact that it's a desirable feature (from my point of view, anyway). While there may be certain difficulties in actually working within technological limitations, that needn't change the actual design philosophy.

That's nonsense.  If it were a desireable feature, they would have included it.

You're judging each feature assuming all else is equal, and it isn't.  each feature carries an opportunity costs, and each console pays a different price.  As such, the optimal design for each platform is different.

As far as input methods go, I'm not sure they're really an issue at this point. The interface they designed for Origins on console approximated the PC functionality well enough. There's no reason to assume that accomodating different methods of user input need have an effect on the design of a Dragon Age game.

The inventory they used for Origins was clearly designed for a mouseless interface.

BioWare's PC only games never used list inventories.  Their multiplatform games have all used list inventories.

You're confusing the desirable hypothetical feature with the actual "feature". The "tactical camera" as it existed in Origins didn't work on console. You're saying that since the "tactical camera" doesn't work, it isn't desirable. I'm saying that a new tactical camera that does work is something I find desirable.

Bioware's PC only games never used list inventories,
Bioware's multiplatform games have all used list inventories,
Therefore Origins was clearly designed for a mouseless interface.

Your premises do not support your conclusion. There are at least three additional premises required:
Origins was designed as a multiplatform game
Multiplatform games are designed for mouseless interfaces
Mouseless interfaces use (or are better suited by) list inventories

The first two I'd question. The third I'd flat out reject.

But I feel you're not really going to budge here, so I'll bow out.

[Zanallen]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Okay, what about hotbars?  Compare DAO on consoles to DAO on the PC.

Or better yet, an even more optimal PC hotbar system, NWN's hotbars (where you could call up different hotbars by holding down Shift, Ctrl, or Alt).

Hotbars, sure. It is part of the control structure and the differences in input systems necessitates a change.

[Wusword77]

PC gamer here, and I enjoyed DA2. I enjoyed the game FAR more than I did DA:O and will continue to support the game by purchasing new DLC for it as it releases. So please, don't go around saying that the WHOLE community hated DA2, it's just a blatant lie.

Addressing the OPs 2 Listed points:

1. Story disconnect is something I never felt in this game, at any point. Unimportant aspects to the main story (marriage of a party member for example) being done off screen and talked about in the next chapter suited me just fine, as Varric was telling the specific story that lead up to the end game events. For me it worked, for you it didn't but that does not mean it was a failed mechanic. It was a different approach that some people didn't like.

2. Combat was not "Xbox oriented" it was more akin to a MMO then any home console. I felt right at home with the interface, as it was very similar to my days of Everquest, Dark Age of Camelot, World of Warcraft, and other MMOs. While the idea of enemy "Waves" is more in line with a console game, WoW and other MMO's have used them for scripted encounters and Boss fights before DA2 was put to the drawing boards, perhaps even before the revered DA:O was put to those drawing boards as well.

As for what will kill DA3 for PC gamers? Only thing that will kill it is if Bioware makes it a fighting game with a built in dating sim. All that means is it'll sell like hot cakes in Japan.

[Skadi_Shroom]

Adrian68b wrote...

"If my Warden left Redcliffe during the day, everyone dies. If my Champion does stuff, well, it doesn't change anything significant. This is what DA2 missed out on."

I think Bioware opted for a more realistic storyline. Hawke wasn't designed to be a God or a superhero, like in BG series. The consequences of his actions are less spectacular. But it's not a scale-down perspective, rather a realistic one. In their previous RPG's, the game environment was rather passive. For instance, in NWN (a similar city environment) every major NPC just waited for the Hero to save the day. DA2 is far more realistic: each character has a personal agenda, and act accordingly (even Hawke's companions). So yes, Hawke is powerless to change or stop the actions of the major players in Kirkwall. Still, the fact that the Champion supported the Circle rebellion was critical for the general outcome.

I will give you a historical example. Alexander the Great conquered his empire in about 10 years. However, his empire died with him (more or less). But his REAL enduring legacy is based on the spread of Greek culture. Just look around, and you will face his legacy (democracy, science, sport events... even RPG's are nothing more than theatrical drama with personal involvement).

This is a very good way of looking at it, I hadn't really considered that point of view.I'm not used to the protagonist being a somewhat passive person within the game, but who still ties it all together as opposed to a more heroic presence. I guess what made it feel passive for me was no matter how hard I tried, Hawke couldn't make the impacts on plot regarding his family - even though it seem like you could. I get what the devs were going for, it just felt like failure instead of something important.

[bEVEsthda]

Wusword77 wrote...

PC gamer here, and I enjoyed DA2. I enjoyed the game FAR more than I did DA:O and will continue to support the game by purchasing new DLC for it as it releases. So please, don't go around saying that the WHOLE community hated DA2, it's just a blatant lie.

Most people understand that generalized statements can't ever be verbally, completely inclusive accurate. So "blatant lie" will always be a blatant lie itself. That said, even while I also feel DA2 was worst received by PC gamers, I don't really think the demarcation lines are that easy to mark out. Clearly, a lot of console players also hated DA2 and loved DA:O.

Addressing the OPs 2 Listed points:

1. Story disconnect is something I never felt in this game, at any point. Unimportant aspects to the main story (marriage of a party member for example) being done off screen and talked about in the next chapter suited me just fine, as Varric was telling the specific story that lead up to the end game events. For me it worked, for you it didn't but that does not mean it was a failed mechanic. It was a different approach that some people didn't like.

2. Combat was not "Xbox oriented" it was more akin to a MMO then any home console. I felt right at home with the interface, as it was very similar to my days of Everquest, Dark Age of Camelot, World of Warcraft, and other MMOs. While the idea of enemy "Waves" is more in line with a console game, WoW and other MMO's have used them for scripted encounters and Boss fights before DA2 was put to the drawing boards, perhaps even before the revered DA:O was put to those drawing boards as well.

As for what will kill DA3 for PC gamers? Only thing that will kill it is if Bioware makes it a fighting game with a built in dating sim. All that means is it'll sell like hot cakes in Japan.

From everything you have posted here, it doesn't seem as if you have the viewpoint to be able to say anything about what would kill DA3. You do for instance like DA2, while it's pretty obvious that the main threat to DA3 is precisely DA2 and its reception.

I'd say it has to do with what experience the gamer look for in the game. DA2 is very typically consolish in that regard. It's a very simplistic formula that goes a long way back. You play the single, simple mechanic-  in DA2's case the combat - advance, encounters a "boss" that takes a long time to whittle down, and advance to the "next level". All around this there are various decorations adorning the game and hopefully amusing the gamer.

What games like BG, Morrowind and, to some extent DA:Origins, offer is something different, whether you have noticed this or not. It's a complex weave of things to do, which all affects the adventure you experience. In contrast to this, the combat in DA2 is almost completely isolated from anything else. And anything else is not really part of gameplay, but rather just decoration.

I think everybody enjoys stories. It's something universally human. And for all those who find reading heavy and laborous, never really having taken to reading, I can well understand that Final Fantasy and DA2 offers a marvelous experience of a story, and "fun" combat on the side as a bonus. But that's not what I and many others (basically the DA2 critics crowd) look for in a cRPG. What I want is more of an "adventure simulator". A personal experience with a personal multi-dimensional responsibility for how things come out. But suddenly Bioware decides that all that is needed for gameplay is a dressed up variation of the old Mario-formula.

While there are great, different console games out there (Bethesda comes to mind), I do think that console gamers tend to be more like the fish, - so used to the water that they don't reflect on this matter, while PC gamers have more of a background from more varied and complex gameplay.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 17 septembre 2011 - 08:07 .

[Lyssar]

Skadi_Shroom wrote...

Adrian68b wrote...

"If my Warden left Redcliffe during the day, everyone dies. If my Champion does stuff, well, it doesn't change anything significant. This is what DA2 missed out on."

I think Bioware opted for a more realistic storyline. Hawke wasn't designed to be a God or a superhero, like in BG series. The consequences of his actions are less spectacular. But it's not a scale-down perspective, rather a realistic one. In their previous RPG's, the game environment was rather passive. For instance, in NWN (a similar city environment) every major NPC just waited for the Hero to save the day. DA2 is far more realistic: each character has a personal agenda, and act accordingly (even Hawke's companions). So yes, Hawke is powerless to change or stop the actions of the major players in Kirkwall. Still, the fact that the Champion supported the Circle rebellion was critical for the general outcome.

I will give you a historical example. Alexander the Great conquered his empire in about 10 years. However, his empire died with him (more or less). But his REAL enduring legacy is based on the spread of Greek culture. Just look around, and you will face his legacy (democracy, science, sport events... even RPG's are nothing more than theatrical drama with personal involvement).

This is a very good way of looking at it, I hadn't really considered that point of view.I'm not used to the protagonist being a somewhat passive person within the game, but who still ties it all together as opposed to a more heroic presence. I guess what made it feel passive for me was no matter how hard I tried, Hawke couldn't make the impacts on plot regarding his family - even though it seem like you could. I get what the devs were going for, it just felt like failure instead of something important.

I think this is one of the biggest problems I had with DA2. This kind of storytelling, while others might enjoy it, is clearly not my cup of tea. If I play a RPG I want my decisions to have an impact I can see and experience - if not immediately then at least at the end of the game. That's partially what defines a RPG for me, why I play them. If I just want a story to be told without being able to actually change something, I'll go and read a book or watch a movie.

[Danyu]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Danyu wrote...

I don't mind playing games on the PC but I made a decision to pretty much stick with games on consoles for the most part due to the sheer low volume of PC games I see on a Walmart shelf.

At this point, there's no reason for PC games to be physcially packaged.  They should all just be sold online.

A physical collector's edition, perhaps, but the base game doesn't need a box or physical media.

For me, walking into Walmart and seeing a lack of physical software being sold is more just a representation for me. But I get what you're saying, and I agree that many games should be sold online, but regardless, it just seems like there's a lack of decent software that comes to a PC anymore without it being ported from a console or somewhat. Of course, PC has the greatest selection from numerous classics, but in terms of new games being released that hold a gold standard like the Dragon Age games or anything else that matters, there aren't too many games that seem to come from what I've seen. Not compared to the publicity I see consoles get at least. But maybe I'm not looking in the right areas?

Maybe I'm completely wrong because I'm no expert or anything, but where I live the PC gaming market seems to have pretty much come to a crawl. Again, could be wrong here, but it doesn't seem like the big name developers are focusing on  the PC as much as the console. And if developers are doing this like I suspect, they're probably doing it because there's a bigger market for it.

So it just makes sense for a developer like Bioware to at first tailor the game to a console and then polish it for the PC after the fact.

[Adrian68b]

"This is a very good way of looking at it, I hadn't really considered that point of view.I'm not used to the protagonist being a somewhat passive person within the game, but who still ties it all together as opposed to a more heroic presence. I guess what made it feel passive for me was no matter how hard I tried, Hawke couldn't make the impacts on plot regarding his family - even though it seem like you could. I get what the devs were going for, it just felt like failure instead of something important."

I felt the same. But I'm sure Bioware wanted it that way. They established this trend very early, with the death of Carver/Bethany in the Prologue. But I also felt the same in DAO (ex. human noble origin). The hero was powerless to prevent the death of his entire family - and that made some future game decisions very personal (ex sparing Loghain). In DA2, Orsino helped actively Leandra's murderer in his quest (remember the letter signed "O" in the murderer's lair). On the other hand, Meredith is behind Bethany's capture, and the Rite of Anulement is a death sentence for her. It's all about the degree of emotional involvement.

[Sharn01]

Adrian68b wrote...

In short, Hawke is just a catalyst. But the essential one.

I have to disagree, I cant think of a single major plot point that would not play out exactly the same way without Hawke.  I am not referring to Hawke in specific either, I am referring to everything that Hawke did during the game had no effect on the over all plot.

Modifié par Sharn01, 17 septembre 2011 - 09:34 .