337 réponses à ce sujet

[Pasquale1234]

Morroian wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

I understand that some players prefer to watch and listen to Hawke act out the storyline.  From my perspective, it is a different genre altogether - not really a role-playing game, but a game with role-playing elements.

Third person role playing, its still role playing because you're identifying with the character.

I can identify with characters in a television program, movie, novel, etc., and empathize deeply with them.  I do not, however, experience that as role-playing.

YMMV.

[YohkoOhno]

Actually, if enough consensus occurs, the actual definition will change.

There's a recent article on this at Gamasutra

http://www.gamasutra...tion_of_RPG.php

Also Extra Credits is running a 3-part series on the JRPG vs Western RPG.

Modifié par YohkoOhno, 02 mars 2012 - 02:56 .

[MerinTB]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...
I understand that some players prefer to watch and listen to Hawke act out the storyline.  From my perspective, it is a different genre altogether - not really a role-playing game, but a game with role-playing elements.

Third person role playing, its still role playing because you're identifying with the character.

I can identify with characters in a television program, movie, novel, etc., and empathize deeply with them.  I do not, however, experience that as role-playing.

YMMV.

I have an absolutely different mindset, and experience, when playing a cRPG versus and action or adventure game.  I enjoy both, but I expect something different and enjoy it a different way.

Same thing with a table top RPG as compared to a table top board game.  I go in with different expectations, and have a different experience, but enjoy both.

I think a great example would be comparing 4E D&D (stop groaning, you 4E haters) and the WotC board games like Castle Ravenloft, Wrath of Ashardalon or Legend of Drizzt.
Both use pretty much the exact same rules for combat, both roll D20's, both have experience points, levels, monsters, exploring, tiles...
but MOST call the former role-playing and the later board gaming.

In the former most players come to the game with, or spend the beginning of the first game making, a character.  While some play pre-made characters, or (rarely but it happens) the DM provides characters, for the most part this is the beginning - creating your own character.  Then, in all but the briefest of one-shots or shortest of "let's just kill some monsters" quick encounters, you create backstory, the DM weaves you and the other characters into the game, you are presented with character building (not just levels, but personality) choices and situations... and you go through the game (far more often than not) making choices your character would make and reacting to situations as your character would as opposed to trying to "win."


In the latter, the game is always the same with only the scenarios changing.  The same characters are played every game (maybe not the EXACT same characters, but characters pulled from the same small pool) and you go through the same recycled dungeons over and over, killing monsters, getting loot, leveling up.  When you choose your characters you have a small range of options for adjusting the character for your playstyle (for the Wizard, do you take Magic Missile or Ray of Frost?) but it's gonna, more or less, be the same Wizard.  You can "role-play" inside the board game, i.e. act "in-character" and have "in-character" motivations for your choices, but that's not the norm and is mostly frowned upon - you play the board game to win, not to experience the character.

The motivations, methods of play, and overall experience, of the RPG vs. the board game, are traditionally (per the genre), usually (anecdotal evidence, but I rarely hear tales of the reverse happening), and the creators of saiid games have structurally built them under the assumption that they are, different.  Even with many of the rules and mechanics being identical.

BioWare's games ("RPGs") mostly fall in the latter category, like the board game, especially Mass Effect and Dragon Age 2, but also to a great extent KotOR and Jade Empire.  Baldur's Gate and especially Dragon Age: Origins, however, are much more the former.  You can, of course, play all of them either way, but BG and DA:O structurally feel about YOUR CHARACTER.  Mass Effect and Dragon Age 2, however, structurally feel about THE DESIGNER'S character.

Older cRPGs, 3 times out of 5, were create your character or whole party and move through the world without being some "chosen one" predestined by game designers to have some earth-shaking role.  A lot of the time the story was largely going to play out exactly the same everytime, but your freedom for your character design and your character motivations were always your own.

The difference is what you come to the game expecting to do, how you make decisions as you play, and what the game is structurally built to allow.

The more you are playing to "win", the less you are role-playing in this sense.  Your character can be trying to "win", but the more you are role-playing, the more you, the player, have your goal set to be "act as your character would" and not "how can I, the player, best manuever this situation to get the best end result."

This isn't defining what a "role-playing game" is - it's defining the difference between a table top RPG and a table top board game, and using THOSE CLEAR DIFFERENCES as examples of what at least I (but I'd argue many role-players) mean when we say "role-play a character."  It's not just playing as the different characters for their different abilities in Borderlands or Team Fortress... it's playing the game differently because of the personality of the character you made/chose.

You could role-play a pre-made character - I did so very well with Mike Thorton, and have played many table top RPGs with franchise established or pre-made characters.  It's not about how much control you have in creating the character (though for many this is important) but in how your character's choices are made.

But, in the end, it's about HOW and WHY you make choices for your character, and how well the game lets you do so or works against you doing so.

/end rant

Modifié par MerinTB, 02 mars 2012 - 03:30 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Morroian wrote...

Third person role playing, its still role playing because you're identifying with the character.

Unless we don't.  A character we don't create always runs the risk of being a character we don't like or with which we cannot identify.

But a character you create will always be a character with which you identify as long as you want him to be (because you can create him that way).

Pasquale1234...

I can identify with characters in a television program, movie, novel, etc., and empathize deeply with them.

I still insist empathy is a myth.  But that's neither here nor there.

MerinTB wrote...

I have an absolutely different mindset, and experience, when playing a cRPG versus and action or adventure game.  I enjoy both, but I expect something different and enjoy it a different way.

The important difference, I think, is that the events within an RPG challenge my character, while the events within other sorts of games challenge me, the player.

That is a stark divide.  If the game challenges me, either by giving me difficult physical tasks (like aiming, or performing urgent tasks in real time) or by forcing me to guess what the dialogue options mean, then it's directly and wilfully impeding roleplaying.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 02 mars 2012 - 08:14 .

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

(actually not) MerinTB wrote...
I can identify with characters in a television program, movie, novel, etc., and empathize deeply with them.

I still insist empathy is a myth.  But that's neither here nor there.

Not to be nitpicky, but I actually didn't say the above.

I disagree with you that empathy is a myth - it's simply understanding how another feels in a certain situation as you've experienced a similar situation, and therefore both have experiencial knowledge as well as sympathy due to shared circumstances.

But that's neither here nor there.  Empathy and/or indentifying with a characters is tangential, I'd argue almost a non-sequitor, when it comes to role-playing a character.  I've role-played some downright bastards whom I neither identified with nor empathized with at all... but I still had those characters take actions and make choices based on those characters personalities and such and not on my own.

This is something that bugs me - when people think role-playing means putting yourself in someone else's shoes.  That's just about the opposite of role-playing in my book.  Your own personal beliefs, feelings, personality, etc., should have nothing to do with the character's actions (other than it influencing you when you pick/create said character, as well as it influencing you in how you perceive/think said character WOULD react, but that's getting a bit meta.)

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

Not to be nitpicky, but I actually didn't say the above.

You are correct, sir.  I have fixed it.

I disagree with you that empathy is a myth - it's simply understanding how another feels in a certain situation as you've experienced a similar situation, and therefore both have experiencial knowledge as well as sympathy due to shared circumstances.

But that's neither here nor there.  Empathy and/or indentifying with a characters is tangential, I'd argue almost a non-sequitor, when it comes to role-playing a character.  I've role-played some downright bastards whom I neither identified with nor empathized with at all... but I still had those characters take actions and make choices based on those characters personalities and such and not on my own.

This is very important.  It doesn't matter at all whether the player identifies with his character.  He must simply know his character.

This is something that bugs me - when people think role-playing means putting yourself in someone else's shoes.  That's just about the opposite of role-playing in my book.  Your own personal beliefs, feelings, personality, etc., should have nothing to do with the character's actions (other than it influencing you when you pick/create said character, as well as it influencing you in how you perceive/think said character WOULD react, but that's getting a bit meta.)

There seems to be a school of thought that the player should experience the same emotions as his character, thus making the NPCs and the narrative much more important than the player's control of the PC.  Obviously, I think the school of thought has somehow found their way into the wrong genre.  The horror genre does this quite well.  I don't see why anyone would want it in a roleplaying game, though.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 02 mars 2012 - 08:18 .

[JeeWeeJ]

I agree that its important for a RPG to give the player at least the illusion (for lack of a better term) that his/her actions in a game matter. To me personally, I dont really care if a game is as linear as a plank of wood or not. As long as I get the feeling (read: illusion) that it's because of my actions/decisions that I got from A to B, I'm quite allright with that!

To compare it with something: to me, the ME series (and DA2 for that matter) felt like a action movie. Just press play, sit back and enjoy the ride (or not). And what ME is concerned, thats fine by me as I expected as much from an "action-RPG". However, games like DAO and the BG series are more like novels. You read a chapter and decide for yourself if you turn the page into the next one or go back and read the sidenotes. Just as linear, but a different experience. And for me, that is what I expected from DA2, but, for me at least, that one fell in he former category.

For me, this comparison also goes for voiced and non-voiced pc's. As I prefer to roleplay as myself in RPG's, having a voice kind of kills the immersion for me. And I agree, if you give the PC a voice, you can just as well scrap the entire character building option as far as I'm concerned. As someone mentioned earlier: they did this quite well in The Witcher 2. You have character X with Y skillset and you just have to make do with it. You're playing HIS (or her) story, not your own (or the illusion of your own story for that matter).

I really liked imagining my own voice with my DAO character, and quite disliked the reply paraphrases in DA2. But maybe thats because I grew up with the classic RPG's on crappy 16-colour screens with even worse PC-speaker sounds instead of the current generation of games. (and yes, good times were had with those games... *wipes away tear*)

Now I get the sad feeling that we're never going to get another game like DAO (or Baldur's Gate) from Bioware even though I really think there's still a market for them. Just look at the hype at some gamesites the news of that baldursgate.com teasersite created...

Just my €0.02

[zyntifox]

JeeWeeJ wrote...

I agree that its important for a RPG to give the player at least the illusion (for lack of a better term) that his/her actions in a game matter. To me personally, I dont really care if a game is as linear as a plank of wood or not. As long as I get the feeling (read: illusion) that it's because of my actions/decisions that I got from A to B, I'm quite allright with that!

To compare it with something: to me, the ME series (and DA2 for that matter) felt like a action movie. Just press play, sit back and enjoy the ride (or not). And what ME is concerned, thats fine by me as I expected as much from an "action-RPG". However, games like DAO and the BG series are more like novels. You read a chapter and decide for yourself if you turn the page into the next one or go back and read the sidenotes. Just as linear, but a different experience. And for me, that is what I expected from DA2, but, for me at least, that one fell in he former category.

For me, this comparison also goes for voiced and non-voiced pc's. As I prefer to roleplay as myself in RPG's, having a voice kind of kills the immersion for me. And I agree, if you give the PC a voice, you can just as well scrap the entire character building option as far as I'm concerned. As someone mentioned earlier: they did this quite well in The Witcher 2. You have character X with Y skillset and you just have to make do with it. You're playing HIS (or her) story, not your own (or the illusion of your own story for that matter).

I really liked imagining my own voice with my DAO character, and quite disliked the reply paraphrases in DA2. But maybe thats because I grew up with the classic RPG's on crappy 16-colour screens with even worse PC-speaker sounds instead of the current generation of games. (and yes, good times were had with those games... *wipes away tear*)

Now I get the sad feeling that we're never going to get another game like DAO (or Baldur's Gate) from Bioware even though I really think there's still a market for them. Just look at the hype at some gamesites the news of that baldursgate.com teasersite created...

Just my €0.02

Great post JeeWeej. I especially agree with that if they are going for voiced protagonist they might aswell skip the entire character building option. But i still don't understand BioWare's decision of going down this road with the series. That is, focusing more on the cinematic part of the game. We don't really know how profitable DA:O was, or if it even was profitable, all we know is that it sold ALOT of copies. Shouldn't the next logical step for BioWare be to expand on that success? Obviously they can't have a 6-7 year development cycle for all their games but that should't really be needed for an sequel to DA:O when they have all the fundamentals, such as lore and mechanics, already figured out.

Now i do not know why they decided to take such a great risk with an huge overhaul of the game but if i was an investor in EA i would be pretty pissed. Sorry for going off-topic abit, it's just a subject that really boggles me.

[JeeWeeJ]

Cstaf wrote...

Great post JeeWeej. I especially agree with that if they are going for voiced protagonist they might aswell skip the entire character building option. But i still don't understand BioWare's decision of going down this road with the series. That is, focusing more on the cinematic part of the game. We don't really know how profitable DA:O was, or if it even was profitable, all we know is that it sold ALOT of copies. Shouldn't the next logical step for BioWare be to expand on that success? Obviously they can't have a 6-7 year development cycle for all their games but that should't really be needed for an sequel to DA:O when they have all the fundamentals, such as lore and mechanics, already figured out.

Now i do not know why they decided to take such a great risk with an huge overhaul of the game but if i was an investor in EA i would be pretty pissed. Sorry for going off-topic abit, it's just a subject that really boggles me.

That's the problem I'm having aswel. I just don't understand why they changed so much.  "Never change a winning team" as the saying goes, but this felt like kicking out a entire allstar football team (doesnt matter if its soccer or american) and replaces them with a amateur baseball team. Yes it has a ball in it...thats about it.

But what's even worse is that I now have no idea where to turn to for my RPG fix. I like to have my "own" character which I can use as I please (or as I said earlier, at least gives me the illusion) as, as much as I love Bioware and their previous games, after seeing what they did with DA and how ME is turning more and more into a full fledged actiongame, I don't see anymore of this classical form of RPG coming from them.

And as Bioware was the undisputed master of these games...this makes me very, very sad.


Sorry for going offtopic btw.

[lobi]

It does depend on the game and what you are expecting from it. I play mostly Lawful good but love a great Chaotic evil. Most of my Rpgs get a CE run because I find it a huge challenge to stay in role.
I can deal with the ME writers need for Shepard to be a more or less traditional hero figure. It's sci-fi fluff and has never pretended to be anything else. Kinda expect the range to be stuck in lawful.
Alpha protocol was a pleasent surprise because when I told Mike to be a total douche, he did it.
DAO Warden could be pushed all the way to CE.
Hawk constantly rebeled and kept dragging it to lawful no matter what response I chose. It is easy to blame the voice because the lack of CE is audible. Pull a douche act and get a platitude. or an auto response that try's to force the writers 'hey I'm a nice guy really' Hawk down the players metaphorical throat. SR3 has same problem but uses humour to deflect attention from it.
Currently playing Kingdoms of Alamur as CE, it's nice. Maybe the lack of voice makes it easier to pretend that char is CE.
Would love a 1 of  9 alignment choice but apparently VA are expensive.

Modifié par lobi, 02 mars 2012 - 10:44 .

[Mr Fixit]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The important difference, I think, is that the events within an RPG challenge my character, while the events within other sorts of games challenge me, the player.

Just chiming in. I wanted to say that this simple comment illuminated your general attitude towards RPGs better than any other. I feel I understand your position much more clearly now. You and I (regarding the discussions we're having in another thread) view RPGs very differently.

In my opinion one of the fundamental rules of RPGs is: Challenge both the player and the character.

Since we're operating from fundamentally opposed viewpoints, there's a pretty slim chance to find common ground on this issue.

[fchopin]

Morroian wrote...

Third person role playing, its still role playing because you're identifying with the character.

Sorry but that is wrong, it is not role playing but role watching like role watching an NPC that is not part of the player.
 
Role playing needs control on knowing what the player character will say before the player says anything.

Modifié par fchopin, 02 mars 2012 - 12:23 .

[Merci357]

fchopin wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Third person role playing, its still role playing because you're identifying with the character.

Sorry but that is wrong, it is not role playing but role watching like role watching an NPC that is not part of the player.
 
Role playing needs control on knowing what the player character will say before the player says anything.

Given the popularity of, say, TW2 or DE:HR, I think voiced protagonists do work fine when coupled with a fleshed out character. I don't need to know what Geralt or Adam will say, but I'm able to pick my prefered intent in any given dialogue. And that is all what paraphrasing does - give me some clues about the intent of the line hidden behind it. Alpha Protocol took it one step further, and still, it's valid role playing in my view - just not your prefered kind.

Modifié par Merci357, 02 mars 2012 - 12:32 .

[Fast Jimmy]

JeeWeeJ wrote...

Cstaf wrote...

Now i do not know why they decided to take such a great risk with an huge overhaul of the game but if i was an investor in EA i would be pretty pissed. Sorry for going off-topic abit, it's just a subject that really boggles me.

That's the problem I'm having aswel. I just don't understand why they changed so much.  "Never change a winning team" as the saying goes, but this felt like kicking out a entire allstar football team (doesnt matter if its soccer or american) and replaces them with a amateur baseball team. Yes it has a ball in it...thats about it.

DAO was originally created with a different lead team when it was first created for the PC. When it was set to be ported to the XBox 360, it was given a different leadership to do the port and this leadership is who has handled the series ever since. I'll leave your analogies of switching an all-star team to an amateur team for your own interpretation.

But let me just point out that the inspiration for DAO (aside from being Baldur's Gate's successor) was novels like George Martin's A Song of FIre and Ice, or art style from Conan (http://www.1up.com/p...?pager.offset=1   Page 2). And the inspiration for DA2 was the Call of Duty fanbase and a "hotrod Samurai" art style.

Basically, it comes down to designers thinking having a voice is "cooler" than having a game with real choices.

[fchopin]

Merci357 wrote...


Given the popularity of, say, TW2 or DE:HR, I think voiced protagonists do work fine when coupled with a fleshed out character. I don't need to know what Geralt or Adam will say, but I'm able to pick my prefered intent in any given dialogue. And that is all what paraphrasing does - give me some clues about the intent of the line hidden behind it. Alpha Protocol took it one step further, and still, it's valid role playing in my view - just not your prefered kind.

There is a big difference with Geralt as we know approximately how he will react in a given situation as we know his neutrality even if we have no option to choose what he says.
 
With Hawke there is no way to know how he or she will react as there is no way to know from the text that is available or the tone icon. Anyone that says they know how Hawke will react is lying to themselves.

Modifié par fchopin, 02 mars 2012 - 01:01 .

[JeeWeeJ]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

DAO was originally created with a different lead team when it was first created for the PC. When it was set to be ported to the XBox 360, it was given a different leadership to do the port and this leadership is who has handled the series ever since. I'll leave your analogies of switching an all-star team to an amateur team for your own interpretation.

But let me just point out that the inspiration for DAO (aside from being Baldur's Gate's successor) was novels like George Martin's A Song of FIre and Ice, or art style from Conan (http://www.1up.com/p...?pager.offset=1   Page 2). And the inspiration for DA2 was the Call of Duty fanbase and a "hotrod Samurai" art style.

Basically, it comes down to designers thinking having a voice is "cooler" than having a game with real choices.

Thanks for that link, was nice reading about DAO again. And that about the allstar/amateur teams was aimed at the games themselves, not at the devs or something. Just to make that clear.

[Fast Jimmy]

JeeWeeJ wrote...
 And that about the allstar/amateur teams was aimed at the games themselves, not at the devs or something. Just to make that clear.

Of course, of course. I was just innocently mentioning the two statements together. Innocently innocent.

[HolyAvenger]

What I take from this thread is that "roleplaying" means very different things to different people, and no matter what direction BioWare take, someone will be disappointed. Can't satisfy everyone.

[zyntifox]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

JeeWeeJ wrote...

Cstaf wrote...

Now i do not know why they decided to take such a great risk with an huge overhaul of the game but if i was an investor in EA i would be pretty pissed. Sorry for going off-topic abit, it's just a subject that really boggles me.

That's the problem I'm having aswel. I just don't understand why they changed so much.  "Never change a winning team" as the saying goes, but this felt like kicking out a entire allstar football team (doesnt matter if its soccer or american) and replaces them with a amateur baseball team. Yes it has a ball in it...thats about it.

DAO was originally created with a different lead team when it was first created for the PC. When it was set to be ported to the XBox 360, it was given a different leadership to do the port and this leadership is who has handled the series ever since. I'll leave your analogies of switching an all-star team to an amateur team for your own interpretation.

But let me just point out that the inspiration for DAO (aside from being Baldur's Gate's successor) was novels like George Martin's A Song of FIre and Ice, or art style from Conan (http://www.1up.com/p...?pager.offset=1   Page 2). And the inspiration for DA2 was the Call of Duty fanbase and a "hotrod Samurai" art style.

Basically, it comes down to designers thinking having a voice is "cooler" than having a game with real choices.

Got a question, might be a stupid question but im a stupid Swede so bear with me... I've seen the term "hotrod Samurai art" on the forum being used to describe the graphics of DA2, what does that mean?

[JeeWeeJ]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Of course, of course. I was just innocently mentioning the two statements together. Innocently innocent.

I see what you did there sir! How innocent but fiendishly clever of you!

HolyAvenger wrote...

What I take from this thread is that "roleplaying" means very different things to different people, and no matter what direction BioWare take, someone will be disappointed. Can't satisfy everyone.

Very true, however, I think this is something Bioware helped create in the first place. DAO attracted a certain kind of RPG fan. Then they made a180 degree turn to attract another type of RPG fans and triend to please them both. And, apparently, these two dont mix too well.. (or at least, thats how I see it on these and other boards on zhe allmighty intorwebz, the "180 turn" is actually quoted by Mike Laidlaw somewhere in an interview on gamespot)

And well, fans of both sides are quite vocal it seems.. Just look at this topic, there is a clear difference between people who love the "old style" RPGs and who love the  "new style" RPGs. Nothing wrong with both, they're just different. And in my honest opinion, Bioware must make a choice, take one or the other. Because I think hybrid systems are doomed to fail as you can't really please both sides.

Cstaf wrote...

Got a question, might be a stupid question but im a stupid Swede so bear with me... I've seen the term "hotrod Samurai art" on the forum being used to describe the graphics of DA2, what does that mean?

Well, as a just as stupid Dutch guy, I think they mean a more comicbook/manga style. Spikey bits, flames, explosions, big swords...that sort of stuff.. Funny thing though, if you do a search on google images on "Hotrod Samurai", one of the results is conceptart of Hawke.

Modifié par JeeWeeJ, 02 mars 2012 - 01:54 .

[Cutlasskiwi]

Filament wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

I understand that some players prefer to watch and listen to Hawke act out the storyline.  From my perspective, it is a different genre altogether - not really a role-playing game, but a game with role-playing elements.

I don't think you understand that some of us simply don't see the value in the 'infinite' responses the Warden was able to give, since the game acknowledges only one per dialog choice. Some of us see DA2 as the same sort of "roleplaying game" as DAO ever was, except with a more expressive puppet. And lacking some important information about the choices, sometimes. (full text...)

^^ Could not have put it better myself. This I exactly how I see it.


Also, for me, the silent protagonist does not make it more my character. I've always seen them as BioWare's 'predefined' characters, some more than others.  

[upsettingshorts]

To answer the question posed in the OP:

Because I don't like it, and I hope BioWare never goes back to it. The silent protagonist had always struck me as a limitation due to Zots, not some ideal setup.

Unlike say Sylvius, the fact Bethesda's combat is action-oriented does not prevent me from enjoying their games, and I get to do all the silent-protagonisty stuff in their games and I'm cool with this arrangement.

I think, and BioWare apparently agrees with this, that the voiced protagonist better fits what they're trying to do in their games.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 mars 2012 - 04:13 .

[batlin]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

To answer the question posed in the OP:

Because I don't like it, and I hope BioWare never goes back to it. The silent protagonist had always struck me as a limitation due to Zots, not some ideal setup.

Ironically, it's the voice acting that made it so hawke couldn't be anything but a human. That, and their story just didn;t allow for it.

I don't know what people's problem with doing a little reading is. Hawke's voice actor (the male one anyway) was horrible. The Warden, because he wasn't voiced, had way better dialog options.

[Wulfram]

Cstaf wrote...

Got a question, might be a stupid question but im a stupid Swede so bear with me... I've seen the term "hotrod Samurai art" on the forum being used to describe the graphics of DA2, what does that mean?

It was how one of the designers described DA2's art style

http://www.gameinfor...PostPageIndex=1

Before, I think Origins was kind of like eath Dealer meets The Hobbit.
It was half really “raah, scary” and half really whimsical. We wanted
to take it into more of a desolate feel and kind of strip it down to a
hot-rod Samurai look. Not only visually, but in terms of the actual
storytelling motifs that appear in those movies. The cautionary tale was
really appropriate for DA2.

What's really shocking reading that article now is the claim that "Technology-wise, we really focused a lot of attention on the lighting engine", because the lighting really seems to be a step back for me.

Modifié par Wulfram, 02 mars 2012 - 04:27 .