402 réponses à ce sujet

[Chromie]

Takamori The Templar wrote...

Skelter192 wrote...

Mike_Neel wrote...
They have to do that because of console limitations.

What about on PC?

Thats why I mentioned bad porting as the worst thing that Bioware could do.

I know you did but the person I quoted did not. We are supposed to just accept this crap. Dragon Age Origins on PC did everything right even the Chantry boards looked like well a board! There was so much attention to detail that was lost in from ME1 to ME2/3 and DA:Origins to DA2


EDIT: Here is the board

Console




PC

http://images.wikia.com/dragonage/images/6/60/Chanter's_board.png



I won't buy DA3 either if what I see looks like a console port instead of an adaptation and well if it comes out in 2013 I sure as hell won't buy something another rpg release in such a short time.

Modifié par Skelter192, 14 avril 2012 - 09:52 .

[GodWood]

I never understood that.

Why is the board different on consoles? Also why could I have my avatar pull an expression on PC but not console?

[The Elder King]

GodWood wrote...

I never understood that.

Why is the board different on consoles? Also why could I have my avatar pull an expression on PC but not console?

I hope the boards (as well as  many other things, like the expression for the avatar, or the leveling-up menu) were different because of the restricted time they worked on the console port; I mean, it doesn't seem to me like difficult things to implement.

[Takamori The Templar]

Max graphics and HD texture pack -.-

Damn consoles crippling the game.

[The Elder King]

Takamori The Templar wrote...




Max graphics and HD texture pack -.-

Damn consoles crippling the game.

You should consider that DAO-DA2's engine isn't that powerful though. Regardless of the consoles, I think Bioware  needs a new engine. It's not like the Xbox or Ps3 version of DA2 are the top in terms of graphics. There are lot ot game with better graphics than DA2 on consoles.
And a serious company should not castrate the PC version for the console versions. They should work to optimize both. Or at least not doing a bad porting.

[Dakota Strider]

It is my hope, those that matter at Bioware still think like this:www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101633-BioWare-Says-the-PC-is-Made-For-Games
where
BioWare designer Daniel Erickson says the PC is "made for games" and that despite the never-ending predictions of its imminent demise, it's the "natural" platform for BioWare's RPGs.

I am not a programmer, or game designer, but I cannot believe the differences of potential between what can be done with a computer game and a console game are even close.  While a console is actually a mini-computer, I think there are limitations to what they can do.  The different graphics differences people have pasted here, is one obvious example.   And as for the best game device, the most obvious reason is at your fingertips, the keyboard and mouse, giving you at least 75 unique command buttons (without counting using Shift, Ctrl, or Alt keys).  What is the most  control buttons a console has available on it-- 6, 10, maybe 20?

If game developers want to make the best games, they would design them for computers first.  If players want the best experience, they will buy these games.  I know I would pay more for a great PC game, that did not cut corners so that it was playable on a console as well.  I wish Bioware, and other companies would try that, to see just how willing fans are to play on the best gaming platform, as opposed to compromising quality to play on a less expensive one.

[Wozearly]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Is it an issue against ALL Day 1 DLC, or is something like Shale/Stone Prisoner acceptable, and it's only the idea of something like From Ashes that really bothered people?

Stone Prisoner was fine by me - offering 'free' Day 1 DLC for people who register as a method of getting a bit of cash from the resales market, not a problem (note of bias; being a PC player I was never going to be affected).

From Ashes created a much more negative message to fans who value the story content, because the retail version of the full game was...well...not actually the full game. You had to pay more to get it, and the content was ready for Day 1 and integrated into the game, so it smacked of profiteering. I appreciate that DLC does serve as a way to get more money from people who are bigger fans of the game/franchise, but that was the wrong way to do it.

Soldier's Peak was the comparable moment in DA:O. I actually missed it, having bought Soldier's Peak from the outset, but when my friend discovered someone turning up at his party camp and, during the course of the conversation, was essentially asked to get his credit card out...well, lets just say he hit the roof. As I would have done in his shoes. You expect that from F2P games, where they finger you for cash at every available opportunity - you don't expect it from an AAA developer in a full-price game, and you certainly don't expect a roleplaying game to intentionally shatter immersion by inserting Levi's initial conversation as a marketing ploy to encourage sales.

I have no beef with DLC in general. With the exception of item DLC, which I place firmly in the category of "taking the *cough*", I've actually bought all DLC in both the DA and ME series. However, From Ashes was the only one that I felt bitter about.

[jazzy B 3]

@Allan Schumacher

I believe that people can understand the concept of trying to combat used sales in a positive way by offering incentives to buy new, even if it may not be to everyone's liking such as Shale represented. Day 1 DLC such as From Ashes instead comes across as greedy because it appears as though you are putting out an unfinished product and then making people pay more to complete it. It is perceived a mis-use of DLC because, as most people see it, DLC is a way of extending the game post release, not making more money at release. As I say, it comes across as greedy and disenchants the audience.

It also devalues DLC as a whole, painting it in a negative light. Old jokes about horse armor aside, it makes it clear how much you are paying for a certain amount of content before people have become attached to the game. People then compare that to the game as a whole and see that it's not value-for money in hours of gameplay vs money spent. This leads to an emurging culture we are seeing of people willing to wait for GOTY editions which are far more complete with DLC, etc. rather than purchasing an incomplete product at release.

If you wait until post release to revel your hand as to DLC details and pricing, you are likely to see greater sales as people don't even know if there is to be any kind of additional content and they are happy to buy the original version because it is feature complete at purchase and therefore better value. Collectors edditions should focus instead on cosmetic and actual collectable items in and out of game, not elements that affect the fundamental structure of the game. Costumes, art books, audio CDs = Good. Missions, characters, story = Bad.

Sorry for such a rambling post, It's quite late here, but I feel that this is one of the many areas Bioware has gone astray. I'm sad to say the have not experienced Mass Effect 3 yet and that is due to my boycotting of Bioware products thanks to the rushed and, as a result, poor quality Dragon Age 2 and especially the overly defensive stance Bioware took to the criticism it received. It used to be that I felt that Bioware was one of the best game developers because of their care for their community and the time they took to address our problems and interact with us. I can understand the desire to defend one's own work, especially in the face of the over-reaction that internet fanboys are capable of, but I think that I speak for many people (majority or not) who felt that Dragon Age 2 did not live up to the (admitedly very high) standards we hold you guys up to.

Please take my stance as a compliment. We know that you are capable of creating great games, we just wand to see you return to the same level of polish and story-telling goodness that we have seen from you in the past.

Sorry to go off topic towards the end there. Good luck with Dragon Age 3

[Mike_Neel]

I don't have a problem with day one dlc if it's used as a free incentive to get the game new. Like wise I don't mind extra weapons or clothing packs used in an effort to get people to preorder or cough up a little extra for a collector edition.

But when you have a story central character like the Prothean I start to get upset. At that point Bioware may as well say "We think our game is worth 70 dollars, not 60, and if you don't agree you don't get the full game."

Apologies to Australian users who pay even more than that.

[gabrien]

Recycled dungeon maps, reviving that dumby anders, making the romance options simpler (I would prefer them harder and more involved), Make the elves look more ugly than they already have, Make it abso-freaking-lutely awesome nearly all the way through then all of a sudden take the ending, make it confusing, kill all your most fav people including your player, drop their pants, squat and take a huge dump, rub it in and call it artistic integrity when all the fans shout "WTF!!!".

Not sure if I would buy DA3. Defs wont pre-order. Maybe I will just wait a few weeks after release to see what everyone is saying about it, just to be on the safe side.

[Arppis]

Worst thing would be making the game uninteresting, if the plot sucked, characters sucked, the adventures sucked and the combat sucked. Total failure. That's worst possible thing.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Is it an issue against ALL Day 1 DLC, or is something like Shale/Stone Prisoner acceptable, and it's only the idea of something like From Ashes that really bothered people?

Day 1 (extra mission) DLC will always have the problem in that it's on that slippery slope of "Was it cut from the core game to make a fast buck?"

Many are still used to the days where the core game would come out first, then expansions and extra content would be worked on post-launch. Anything that's ready before launch...well, why wasn't it in the core game? Why were the devs working on extra stuff before launch instead of putting all their effort into making the core game as solid and bug-free as possible?

(I do not necessarily agree, but I can sympathise with this POV.)

[yuncas]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I know you want to share.

What thing would you absolutely hate for the devs to do?

Make it an MMO?
Canonize the Old God Baby?
Bring Anders back from the dead even if you killed him in DA II?
Introduce guns into the setting?

All those are pretty bad. Especially guns.

I'd say the thing that would crap up the game for me is if they let themselves be hamstrung by restrictive deadlines, and make poor development decisions because of them. Again...

[ianvillan]

Dakota Strider wrote...

It is my hope, those that matter at Bioware still think like this:www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101633-BioWare-Says-the-PC-is-Made-For-Games
where
BioWare designer Daniel Erickson says the PC is "made for games" and that despite the never-ending predictions of its imminent demise, it's the "natural" platform for BioWare's RPGs.

I am not a programmer, or game designer, but I cannot believe the differences of potential between what can be done with a computer game and a console game are even close.  While a console is actually a mini-computer, I think there are limitations to what they can do.  The different graphics differences people have pasted here, is one obvious example.   And as for the best game device, the most obvious reason is at your fingertips, the keyboard and mouse, giving you at least 75 unique command buttons (without counting using Shift, Ctrl, or Alt keys).  What is the most  control buttons a console has available on it-- 6, 10, maybe 20?

If game developers want to make the best games, they would design them for computers first.  If players want the best experience, they will buy these games.  I know I would pay more for a great PC game, that did not cut corners so that it was playable on a console as well.  I wish Bioware, and other companies would try that, to see just how willing fans are to play on the best gaming platform, as opposed to compromising quality to play on a less expensive one.

That was Daniel Erickson who is now on SWTOR I dont know whether that sentiment is shared by the DA team.

[Shared]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Is it an issue against ALL Day 1 DLC, or is something like Shale/Stone Prisoner acceptable, and it's only the idea of something like From Ashes that really bothered people?

A DLC you get as a "reward" for pre ordering or something dosnt really bother me if its not in any way important to major lore or main story. And it should not under any circumstance be exclusive (you should still be able to purchase it) if it contains anything but items. A DLC you have to pay for at day 1 is and looks like the company is just a money sucking bastard (baught it anyway).

[The_11thDoctor]

Not make it
rush it
going back to DAO combat....
Not using DA2 DLC legacy combat
Not use Kingdoms of Amalur as inspiration to the exploration that should be in DA3
Not let our choices matter like in DA2
Not let us custom our party like in DA2
Not have a good story
Not tell the story properly
Not have the MC voiced
Not have Horse battles
Not have Cloaks
Not have Dynamic weather
Not have David Gaider
Learn nothing from their missteps
Let capcom make it and have them charge us 3x to finally get all our content on the disk...and make it ugly putting it in SF4's 3D style.... *shudders*

[VampOrchid]

Blanchefleur wrote...

Worst thing? Have Tallis in it.

LMAO!

[P1NG]

Make it similar to DA:2.

[Foolsfolly]

Dragon Age multiplayer and just to rub salt in the wound, tie that multiplayer to the singleplayer locking out endings if you don't play X amount of hours of multiplayer.

...still can't understand that choice for Mass Effect 3.

[Maria Caliban]

ianvillan wrote...

That was Daniel Erickson who is now on SWTOR I dont know whether that sentiment is shared by the DA team.

Just a guess:
Character artists, level designers, and cinematic types like that the PC can have more RAM, processing speed, and better graphics cards. QA types like that all XBox 360s have the same hardware.

But their probably like any other group of gamers in that everyone has their own personal preference.

Some of them might even like Macs.

[devSin]

In addition to all the things Maria listed, I would say leaving the story with a clear "to be continued" vibe that they plan to follow up on with an expansion that later gets canceled.

Please don't do that.

[koshiee]

Force us to use origins.

[Allan Schumacher]

Maria Caliban wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

That was Daniel Erickson who is now on SWTOR I dont know whether that sentiment is shared by the DA team.

Just a guess:
Character artists, level designers, and cinematic types like that the PC can have more RAM, processing speed, and better graphics cards. QA types like that all XBox 360s have the same hardware.

Oh we like that PC's have oodles of memory and processing power too!