53 réponses à ce sujet

[Matthew Young CT]

Haexpane wrote...
No, that's actually not what was said.  BW collaborated w/ a 3rd party on the PS3 port, Zoom out was there, they removed it.  It wasnt that they "can't" it was that "someone else tried it and the framerate was bad so we cut it"

Well yes, the hardware isn't able to cope. I'm sure it can zoom out, it just can't do so at a playable framerate.

There is no "can't" in software development there is only "I can, but I need 3 more months and $330,000"

Right. I'm sure Crytek could get Crysis to run at 2560x with 16x SSAA on a console if you just gave them enough time and money. Utterly absurd comment.

I'm not sure what your comment about "can't buy a PC as bad as a console anymore" comment is supposed to even contribute to this topic?  First of all, it's false information, and 2nd of all it has nothing to do w/ this thread.

Where's a PC being sold that's as bad as a console?

I was making the point that it isn't surprising that a game designed for the PC (which has much better hardware than consoles these days), cannot run in the same way on a console.

[Haexpane]

Matthew Young CT wrote...

Master of Magic could have like 20 enemies on the screen!

See how context is everything?

I'm comparing apples to apples, Party based WRPG RTWP PC/Console port

I gave you context guy, spoon fed

[Taleroth]

Haexpane wrote...

Summoner 1 PC/PS2  - zoomed out camera, 4 party members, RTWP combat zoom out, zoom in no bubbles no troubles.  PC had MP PS2 did not... PS2 was lower res, PS2 had worse framerate, but it STILL allowed simple zoom out

# of enemies on screen?  Borderlands, same for PC/PS3

It's irrelevant how Summoner compared to it's own ports.  How does Summoner compare to this game if you're going to try making that argument?

[Unseen_77]

Have you guys not played Uncharted 2 or Killzone 2, and even modern warfare 2? Well Modern warfare was the weakest of these 3 graphic wise. I threw just put MW2 in there because of all the things graphicaly quickly proccesing around you.

I love this game but I have to agree that compared to these other titles Dragon Age does not even come close in graphics and the amount of graphics being constantly generated and processed. This is why I just can't buy it when people say that its pushing the PS3's hardware and processor past it's limit. This is why I can not agree with it being hardware.

Modifié par Unseen_77, 03 décembre 2009 - 10:22 .

[Haexpane]

Matthew Young CT wrote...

Haexpane wrote...
No, that's actually not what was said.  BW collaborated w/ a 3rd party on the PS3 port, Zoom out was there, they removed it.  It wasnt that they "can't" it was that "someone else tried it and the framerate was bad so we cut it"

Well yes, the hardware isn't able to cope. I'm sure it can zoom out, it just can't do so at a playable framerate.

There is no "can't" in software development there is only "I can, but I need 3 more months and $330,000"

Right. I'm sure Crytek could get Crysis to run at 2560x with 16x SSAA on a console if you just gave them enough time and money. Utterly absurd comment.

I'm not sure what your comment about "can't buy a PC as bad as a console anymore" comment is supposed to even contribute to this topic?  First of all, it's false information, and 2nd of all it has nothing to do w/ this thread.

Where's a PC being sold that's as bad as a console?

I was making the point that it isn't surprising that a game designed for the PC (which has much better hardware than consoles these days), cannot run in the same way on a console.

Umm 80% of PCs do not come w/ high end graphic cards, how about Wal mart, Best buy, Target, Gateway, Acer the list goes on and on.  

Saying a PC game can not run the "same way on a console" is not making a point, it's restating the obvious and accepted.  

And I gave examples of PC to console ports that do not make the same style of cuts DAO did.  

DAO runs at a lower framerate and lower resolution on a console, we already know and accept this.   

However not just graphic horsepower but FEATUREs like Pet control are cut... AND bioware did NOT do the port themselves, they collaborated w/ a 3rd party, and we know how 3rd party ports go on consoles.

Again your're talking console resolution w/ the "crytek" comment.  I'm not talking about jacking up DAO to 1080p on the PS3 (even tho sony promised this was going to be standard)

I'm talking about adding back in a feature that was cut, and spending a lil time optimizing the framerate.

I also already suggested that zoom out does not have to be fully playable, but a possible option in pause mode.

Repeating over and over again that high end PC hardware > consoles is like stating Global Warming exists.  We already know this, and only blind fanbois and radical right wingers who reject science will disagree.

I am in no way claiming my PS3 should run 16xFSAA,

[Haexpane]

Taleroth wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

Summoner 1 PC/PS2  - zoomed out camera, 4 party members, RTWP combat zoom out, zoom in no bubbles no troubles.  PC had MP PS2 did not... PS2 was lower res, PS2 had worse framerate, but it STILL allowed simple zoom out

# of enemies on screen?  Borderlands, same for PC/PS3

It's irrelevant how Summoner compared to it's own ports.  How does Summoner compare to this game if you're going to try making that argument?

I already explained how... It's the exact same genre and an example of how to make sacrifices in graphics on a console port WHILE RETAINING core features

Note that Summoner unlike DAO was 1st party port, not 3rd party...

[Taleroth]

Haexpane wrote...

I already explained how... It's the exact same genre and an example of how to make sacrifices in graphics on a console port WHILE RETAINING core features

It's also a game made on the console first, then ported to the PC.

Note that Summoner unlike DAO was 1st party port, not 3rd party...

  Citation needed.  As I've never ever heard of a 3rd party being involved in Dragon Age: Origins.

[Haexpane]

Taleroth wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

I already explained how... It's the exact same genre and an example of how to make sacrifices in graphics on a console port WHILE RETAINING core features

It's also a game made on the console first, then ported to the PC.

Note that Summoner unlike DAO was 1st party port, not 3rd party...

  Citation needed.  As I've never ever heard of a 3rd party being involved in Dragon Age: Origins.

Dang it now I need to look for it, it may have been PS3 specific too... read it in an interview but I don't remember WHERE i read this.. kotaku, joystiq IGN?  IDK but I distinctly recall reading "collaberation" and how much they learned and will be MORE involved in the next PS3 game....

[Matthew Young CT]

Haexpane wrote...
Umm 80% of PCs do not come w/ high end graphic cards, how about Wal mart, Best buy, Target, Gateway, Acer the list goes on and on.  

Well yes, that's more "missing" hardware than bad hardware though. The CPU/RAM/HD make a mockery of consoles. You can toss in a <$100 card for the graphics.

And I gave examples of PC to console ports that do not make the same style of cuts DAO did.  

They are meaningless comparisons.

However not just graphic horsepower but FEATUREs like Pet control are cut... AND bioware did NOT do the port themselves, they collaborated w/ a 3rd party, and we know how 3rd party ports go on consoles.

I'm not referring to pet control, that should indeed be possible on the console version.

Again your're talking console resolution w/ the "crytek" comment.  I'm not talking about jacking up DAO to 1080p on the PS3 (even tho sony promised this was going to be standard)

Teaches you to believe Sony

I'm talking about adding back in a feature that was cut, and spending a lil time optimizing the framerate.

It's probably not a little time though. If it's at all possible.

I also already suggested that zoom out does not have to be fully playable, but a possible option in pause mode.

Fair enough, I missed that.

Repeating over and over again that high end PC hardware > consoles is like stating Global Warming exists.  We already know this, and only blind fanbois and radical right wingers who reject science will disagree.

It's not just high end hardware, it's everything. Such is the ludicrous pace the industry advances. The result being, a game like DA that was designed with a PC in mind then ported at the last moment is not going to run well on a console. The current situation is pretty much to be expected.

[Reiella]

As a fun sidenote, you can run New Super Mario Bros Wii at 1080p and 4 AA/16AF at 60 fps on the PC. I wonder when nintendo's going to software patch the console version to use those versions...

[Flamesz]

Haexpane wrote...

It was a nice experiment, but it phailed.   Please now ungimp the PS3/XBOX versions.

- Pet control
- Zoom out camera Memory Problems
- Screenshots
- more enemies Memory Problems

Despite popular urban myth, console owners are not slow witted button mashers.  Many of us have played PC games console games, board games.. we can handle a lil complexity and depth.

I believe the zoom out option was because of framerate, just make zoom out in pause mode only

Screenshots, another framerate issue? IDK...

More enemies... another excuse for framerates?


What other missing features are there for the console versions?  (toolkit is not an option, thank you MicroSony?) :crying::crying::crying::crying::crying::crying:

[Infiniteone2]

Consoles are for kids, its time to grow up.

[Bibdy]

The large string of 's is pretty appropriate.

[Matthew Young CT]

Unseen_77 wrote...

Have you guys not played Uncharted 2 or Killzone 2, and even modern warfare 2? Well Modern warfare was the weakest of these 3 graphic wise. I threw just put MW2 in there because of all the things graphicaly quickly proccesing around you.

They look kinda crap to be honest. But then anything looks crap at 1440x720 to me.

I love this game but I have to agree that compared to these other titles Dragon Age does not even come close in graphics and the amount of graphics being constantly generated and processed.

Trying to compare games in this way is just futile. Dwarf Fortress requires a decent processor. It also has ASCII graphics. OTOH many games have great graphics but don't do terribly much on the CPU.

This is why I just can't buy it when people say that its pushing the PS3's hardware and processor past it's limit. This is why I can not agree with it being hardware.

RAM is likely the main problem. 512mb shared RAM is simply comical. The godawful textures poor console people have to put up with is the main result. And then they give us the same rubbish textures on the port, *sighs*.

[Reiella]

Matthew Young CT wrote...

Unseen_77 wrote...

Have you guys not played Uncharted 2 or Killzone 2, and even modern warfare 2? Well Modern warfare was the weakest of these 3 graphic wise. I threw just put MW2 in there because of all the things graphicaly quickly proccesing around you.

They look kinda crap to be honest. But then anything looks crap at 1440x720 to me.

I love this game but I have to agree that compared to these other titles Dragon Age does not even come close in graphics and the amount of graphics being constantly generated and processed.

Trying to compare games in this way is just futile. Dwarf Fortress requires a decent processor. It also has ASCII graphics. OTOH many games have great graphics but don't do terribly much on the CPU.

This is why I just can't buy it when people say that its pushing the PS3's hardware and processor past it's limit. This is why I can not agree with it being hardware.

RAM is likely the main problem. 512mb shared RAM is simply comical. The godawful textures poor console people have to put up with is the main result. And then they give us the same rubbish textures on the port, *sighs*.

Well on the pc side of things, they are more limited by legacy bus speeds in that light, but ya.  And frankly to be honest, there is a great bit of diminishing returns on high-res textures.  Sure I like using them [have typically with Morrowind, Oblivion and Fallout 3 ], but there is a diminishing return on the extreme sizes so I can understand not really being worth the effort for the publisher/developer to do the graphic creation on [and summarily leave to the fan-mod community.  4096x4096 maps are just a bit excessive most of the time :).

[Matthew Young CT]

Thing is they often work in those kind of sizes then downsize for the release version. It makes little sense not to just give us the originals.

[Cuthlan]

The biggest thing I'd like for the PS3 version is more mapable buttons. Take out the R1/L1 toggling through the party... make L1 toggle through the party, and R1 bring up another set of mapable buttons like R2 does.

[Reiella]

Matthew Young CT wrote...

Thing is they often work in those kind of sizes then downsize for the release version. It makes little sense not to just give us the originals.

Well, shipping a multi-disc game is a big downer, along with stuffing another 2 to 4gbs of file on the user's computer [or developing a multi-branch installation and having support deal with that].

[Hrodberht]

Sloth Of Doom wrote...

 The game was made for PC first so taking those out actually required MORE work. .

Thank F'ng God for that.  I am sick to death of utterly crap PC ports of games that were designed for gimp consoles.

[Haexpane]

Reiella wrote...

As a fun sidenote, you can run New Super Mario Bros Wii at 1080p and 4 AA/16AF at 60 fps on the PC. I wonder when nintendo's going to software patch the console version to use those versions...

Good idea, keep repeating pointlesss FSAA and resolution comparisions when we've already stated we don't expect the same resolution on a console... thanks

 

[Haexpane]

Infiniteone2 wrote...

Consoles are for kids, its time to grow up.

Unsurprisingly you are the most immature poster on the board.  YOu do nothing but troll and throw out insults like a 9 year old, and your cliche "PC elitist" attitude is silly, most of us HAVE gaming PCs AND Consoles troll boy

[Haexpane]

Taleroth wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

I already explained how... It's the exact same genre and an example of how to make sacrifices in graphics on a console port WHILE RETAINING core features

It's also a game made on the console first, then ported to the PC.

Note that Summoner unlike DAO was 1st party port, not 3rd party...

  Citation needed.  As I've never ever heard of a 3rd party being involved in Dragon Age: Origins.

Took me a lot longer than I thought..but I found it.  Oddly in the PS3 blog they did NOT mention it at all, I found it on Joystiq

• Joystiq: Dragon Age is the first PS3 game that BioWare's developed. Can you talk about that process?
• Greg Zeschuk: We did partner with Edge of Reality, so we partnered with
  folks who have had the experience, and that was a good process where we
  actually had some folks that knew how to do it but also, in general,
  just worked together with them. A lot of it ended up being like we
  needed a lot of work to get done and a lot of stuff very fast and
  everyone was very busy on Dragon Age itself. Collectively, on
  the console, I would say it was very interesting and challenging to
  take the richness of the PC game of Dragon Age, with all
  these different powers and everything else, and actually try to
  transpose it to the consoles. And the interesting thing about that, or
  where it worked out really well, is that we literally set ourselves a
  goal: We didn't want console players to fell like we ripped them off by
  taking anything away, by minimizing or simplifying. We want them to
  feel they have all the power at their fingertips, but it's very
  accessible. It's got the multiple rings that sort of have subsets to
  them, and you can actually pretty much access any power just a couple
  little joystick twiddles and button presses. And so with that
  experience, I think we succeeded there.
• Another place where we
  succeeded on both the PS3 and 360 versions: it feels very different
  from the PC. Where the PC has got the traditional Baldur's Gate top-down [perspective], the PS3 and 360 are over-the-shoulder and they do have that kind of, very KOTOR feel and that's probably what I play, and that's what I feel most familiar with is KOTOR
  -- and it actually feels more action-y than the PC does, so I think
  people will find a very different experience. I recommend both
  platforms actually, PC and console versions.
• So now that you're developing for PS3 going forward – and now
  that you're part of EA which obviously has a multi-platform strategy –
  are you guys going to be doing your PS3 development in-house going
  forward?
• We have quite a few people working in-house
  as well. So yeah, absolutely. We think it's one of the key platforms,
  obviously, so we're definitely going to be doing PS3. You know, I can't
  say anything about Mass Effect in that regard but you know, I can definitely say Dragon Age and other things we do will definitely be on PS3. It was great going through the experience of making Dragon Age,
  getting familiar with and understanding the PS3. Again, every platform
  is different, but now I think we're at the the position where future
  PS3 stuff will be really solid.

[Reiella]

Haexpane wrote...

Reiella wrote...

As a fun sidenote, you can run New Super Mario Bros Wii at 1080p and 4 AA/16AF at 60 fps on the PC. I wonder when nintendo's going to software patch the console version to use those versions...

Good idea, keep repeating pointlesss FSAA and resolution comparisions when we've already stated we don't expect the same resolution on a console... thanks 

And yet, somehow, you still fail to make the connection between framerate and hardware limitations.  Just because something can be done on one platform doesn't mean it can be done on others, even if other games manage to do similar on those platforms.

Here's the protip, it's not some magical constraint on the part of the consoles that keeps them from being able to have a camera, it's the reality of the individual game in question and how the camera being manipulate can adversely affect the playable framerate.  Further, just because the non-graphical segment of the game is no longer being processed (ie, paused), all the graphical components must still be rendered.  And these, actually are different systems and constrained by different system components.

Now if you simply present the argument that the console ports could be optimized better, sure, that's possibly true.  It's a bit of a matter of cost/benefit analysis there that's not really easy to judge from the outside of the system at all.  You could take Bioware's statements in regards to the performance at face value, or you could simply feel that they are lazy sobs.  In the later case you've already established an opinion on the matter that really isn't going to be swayable.  So no real point in pursuing that avenue, neh?

[mathewgurney]

The whole "Console vs PC" debate is a very shallow argument, the simple answer is that a good PC costs a hell of a lot more money than a console. Laying the verbal smackdown on people simply because they have less money than you is pretty weak. Anyone playing on an inferior PC or a console will be the first to understand that they are sacrificing some quality of experience due to thier personal economic situation. They don't need you to ram it down thier throat especially as i can guarantee that a high percentage of those playing on top quality machines will have got them not through any work of thier own but simply by whining at daddy until he whipped out his credit card or because they have no dependants or responsibilities and can just waste thier money. I know not a lot of this kind of abuse is occuring in this particular thread, yet. But it's a debate that is getting quite boring due to it's frequency in other threads and forums. Why not take a trip down to the projects and start laughing at poor people, see how long you last. Being rich makes you weak, being poor makes you strong, fact of life.

[Ronmar the Only]

Am I one of the few that really misses the expression slider? It makes the photos much better.