89 réponses à ce sujet

[bjdbwea]

Viglin wrote...

Love these kind of responses...even thou l already stated lve been Pc gaming for OVER 20 Years...which l can assume is older then most of the average forum members.

Yeah, you stated that. So what? Doesn't mean it's true, not that I would imply that it isn't. Feel free to post the hardware of that PC you mentioned, then we could determine if my conclusion was wrong.

And yeah, of course a PC built for non-gaming with an onboard graphics chip won't run current games. That goes without saying, but then it's ridiculous to make a statement like "my 2 year old PC can't run the game" in the first place. Of course it won't, and you knew it when you built or bought it. As I said, a PC built for gaming two years ago will run DA. But feel free to prove me wrong.

And why would l want to update something l already own for another few hundred...when l can run it, no update needed, right now on my console?

Good question. Besides better graphics, better controls, and mods, there's not much reasons really.

[Viglin]

HolyRomanCousinConsort wrote...

Viglin, if you PM Gorath Alpha with your computer info like processor, RAM, etc, he can most likely recommend a video card for your PC that will probably cost like 60 dollars, then you can play DA on it. A 2 year old PC is relatively young, just add some silicone to it and it's gonna be hot again 

LOL thanks mate, will do...l must admit, l was slightly dissapointed as l had first played Journeys, then saw the Creator and the free ring you get for uploading a character...then l couldnt get it to work.

Maybe thats one big reason why l switched to console gaming...l stick the disc in with no worries about will it work on my system.

[TheDrunkenPanda]

...I built my PC back in '06. Three years ago. A slightly overclocked E6300, 4 gigs of ram, and an 8800 GTS. It runs Dragon Age fine.

[UBER GEEKZILLA]

i would not say ahead of its time like mass effect was but dragon age EXCELLS at doing what other rpgs do only BETTER

[justair]

A PC built for gaming two years ago.. will indeed run DA and probably quite well if you didn't cut to many corners. (4G of ram .. 3850,3870,8800GTS etc) Hell even a half ways decent budget build will run it alltho it might need a graphics update.. Good cards can be had for $75 and up.. starting with the 4670 or a 9600GT.

[gotthammer]

Heh. My CPU's a P4 (3.0 GHz), that and the mobo is nearing (or exceeded?) 5 years old, I think, and I have most, if not all, of the settings for DA:O on High. (granted I spent on an 8800GT 512 MB more than a year ago, plus another gig of RAM)



IMHO, gaming on either the PC or console all boils down to preference and/or convenience (both, after all, have their pros and cons). Playing on a console is definitely 'easier' (in regard to setting up and whatnot) and more convenient. heck, I'm wanting to get a PS3 (it's BluRay player + I really want to try the Uncharted stuff), but even if I did, I'd still say that I prefer PC gaming over consoles (we had our own PC, an XT, back in '87, I think...old habits/preferences die hard).

[DAFntc]

Ah, DA is a great game, made for the times, PC OR CONSOLE. I also love the PC but ever since XBOX I separate the whole gaming experience from it even though I have a quad core with a 9700GT and 6GB ram. Why... don't know..... just prefer it and holding a controller that works the way a controller should.



Secondly I will stretch out on a limb here but the XBOX version I felt more, in touch, with my character during fighting. Button bashing WORKS! Of course to an extent which I loved! My character did, swung his sword, bashed enemies or casted spells and walked/moved near an enemy as my joystick and controller provided in REAL TIME! (NOT CLICK AND WAIT) I loved that but hated the fact that each character couldn't be micro managed to move to certain areas without moving them yourself.



All in all the story puts it over the top. It's better then any other RPG story, IMO, to date so it most certainly isn't lacking regardless of small cliche moments you want to know more about. Nudity, I'm game... bravo for Dantes Inferno for pushing that envelope, it's a long time comming. Done in Japan decades ago. If your mature enough for blood and the gay sex scenarios they decided to put in (not my bag of fun) then your mature enough for nudity.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Viglin wrote...

And why would l want to update something l already own for another few hundred...when l can run it, no update needed, right now on my console?

So there you made a choice.  Rather than spend a few hundred on computer upgrades, you spent a few hundred on a console, plus maybe twice that on a HDTV.

How exactly is PC gaming more expensive?

[vonBlitzkrieg]

To answer your questions... "no" and "no". Dragon Age is a PC RPG (yes I know it is on consoles too, but if you have played the PC and console versions it is clear which one Bioware focused on the most) there for should not have been made for consoles and ported over to PC. Also this game should not have been made in the Mass Effect vein (though I love ME) because it is a sucessor to Baldur's Gate, not Mass Effect. As for the whole console vs PC thing: PC gaming is MORE expensive then console gaming (there is no denying that), but people play games on PC not because it is cheap but because of better controls (mouse and keyboard FTW) and better communities (mods, anyone?). So if you don't like the PC-centric feel of Dragon Age maybe it just isn't the game for you.

[Merci357]

... not to mention how unbearably terrible everything would look (I've got it all maxed settings on PC and it's gorgeous)...

that's it - that's the reason why console game are -in my opinion- just something akin to gaming "light" - due to the cheap and limited hardware everything looks quite crap.

[kjdhgfiliuhwe]

 While I enjoyed the story to some extent, and am eager to find out what happens to my love child in a possible sequel, I'm not sure I'm willing to drink the Kool-Aid so many professional game review sites seemed to have when declaring this a revolutionary rpg. 

A more polished, but simpler, Baldur's Gate is my one sentence summary, and despite the polish, it was that simplicity in many ways I viewed as a step back. But, Baldur's Gate was such a great game and franchise that even a step back leaves you with a good game.

There seems to be a disconcerting trend where modern games are given increasingly higher production values while seeming to skimp more and more on the core, ie: game mechanics and story. And while I enjoyed the story, it left more to desire than any of those in the Baldur's Gate series. It was, in fact, a relatively short game all told, especially in subsequent playthroughs where you esc through all the spoken dialogue. And, for all the criticism of JRPGs that Bioware recently made that caused a small stir on internet forums....this game ironically didn't seem to escape any of those criticims levied by Bioware's president (none of which I personally find to be negatives; but I did find it amusing as they were Bioware's words). 

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed DA:O. But at its heart it is very similar to all of Bioware's previous RPGs; hardly an evolution of any sorts. Which is mostly fine with me. If it's enjoyable, why fix it. 

[037686]

My PC is almost 3 years old, and I run everything at max settings in 1680x1050 flawlessly.



My wife's PC is even older, and she can still DA without a hitch - although her settings aren't maxed out. It still looks better than the console versions, though.



Anyone claiming you need a brand new PC with the latest hardware in order to run DA is rather misguided - it simply isn't the case.

[ladydesire]

DariusTrue wrote...

In my opinion the consolification of games has really made a lot of titles suffer immensely in their port to the PC. Mass Effect's controls, for instance, ended up feeling clumsy in their port to the PC. I don't know what would've happened to a port from consoles to PCs for Dragon Age, but I don't imagine it would've been much different from Mass Effect's dilution.

Well, Mass Effect was a Console to PC port, whereas DA was designed from the start to be a PC title, then ported to the consoles; the end result of this is that the PC version is somewhat better than the console versions due to the differences in the hardware. :innocent:

[HolyRomanCousinConsort]

kjdhgfiliuhwe wrote...

 While I enjoyed the story to some extent, and am eager to find out what happens to my love child in a possible sequel, I'm not sure I'm willing to drink the Kool-Aid so many professional game review sites seemed to have when declaring this a revolutionary rpg. 

A more polished, but simpler, Baldur's Gate is my one sentence summary, and despite the polish, it was that simplicity in many ways I viewed as a step back. But, Baldur's Gate was such a great game and franchise that even a step back leaves you with a good game.

There seems to be a disconcerting trend where modern games are given increasingly higher production values while seeming to skimp more and more on the core, ie: game mechanics and story. And while I enjoyed the story, it left more to desire than any of those in the Baldur's Gate series. It was, in fact, a relatively short game all told, especially in subsequent playthroughs where you esc through all the spoken dialogue. And, for all the criticism of JRPGs that Bioware recently made that caused a small stir on internet forums....this game ironically didn't seem to escape any of those criticims levied by Bioware's president (none of which I personally find to be negatives; but I did find it amusing as they were Bioware's words). 

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed DA:O. But at its heart it is very similar to all of Bioware's previous RPGs; hardly an evolution of any sorts. Which is mostly fine with me. If it's enjoyable, why fix it. 

That was a very informative post. I did not realize that Bioware's president has expressed criticism towards other RPGs, and I am going to find out more about it.

You also say that DA is shorter than BG, which is possibly true. But I disagree with your view that DA is simpler.

Take the treaty human village quest line for example. You are given choices whether to save the villagers or not, then again given a choice whether and/or how to save the villager's lord. I don't recall Baldur's Gate 2 offering so many moral choices that impact the storyline of a quest line and even what happens afterwards.

So to me, DA offers a lot of innovations in the RPG field. The origins that tie into the story is another major innovation. One can even argue that the companion Tactics system is another one. And the fact that every spoken word is voiced, which may not be an innovation, but it's at least an improvement over the system made popular by the BG series.

So all is all, I believe DA surpasses the high standards set by BG.

[RangerSG]

1) My PC is 4 years old and runs DA well. There's a few places it chugs and I had to turn the options all the way down, but once I got over my ego and dropped it (and I couldn't tell the difference looking at it, to be honest), it ran fine.



2) I have no interest whatsoever in consoles. And there's no evidence that DA 'suffered' in sales. If it did, they wouldn't be running an expansion out in 6months and have a full roll-out of premium content already. If anything, the blitzkrieg marketing shows that Bioware and EA think they have something big on their hands.



3) As NWN1 showed, it's a very GOOD marketing move to be able to show SP gamers, "Here's a game that you can play for 4-5 years. Make your own adventures, enjoy your own world." And since this is THEIR IP, they can keep the ball rolling on this right into DA2. That is the advantage of a PC game over a console. A PC game gives the player considerably more freedom and customization, and thus increases the player's value.



4) Since I can't even 'run' ME on my PC. But I can run DA, and I spent months trying to figure out why ME would not run (we will not get into the why's here), I would say that ME is 'hardly' a shining example of how gaming should work. Frankly, I don't care one whit for my PC being voiced over completely. I don't want some actor saying my lines. I know how "I" would say them, thank you.

[037686]

kjdhgfiliuhwe wrote...

. And, for all the criticism of JRPGs that Bioware recently made that caused a small stir on internet forums....this game ironically didn't seem to escape any of those criticims levied by Bioware's president (none of which I personally find to be negatives; but I did find it amusing as they were Bioware's words). 

You must have read something that was radically different to what I read. All I saw was the claim that JRPGs never evolved beyond a rigid, railroaded "keep asking someone a question until they agree to do it" type design, which is true.

DA and other modern RPGs are offering more and more player-driven world changes that are entirely optional. In FF7, your first game played like the last game. In Dragon Age, you can literally complete your first and second game with a number of polar opposite results for a number of factions. You can abandon or even kill party mates as part of the plot/story, rather than the "feature" of being able to click force attack and gib Minsc. This is the "evolution" that I believe was being referred to. The gaming industry is starting to offer more and more open ended gameworlds, but JRPGs never branched out into this area. Simply put, with JRPGs, the story is the story is the story. My game is the same as your game is the same as Billy-Bob's game. A cursory look at the number of different DA endings people on these forums alone have encountered provides ample illustration of what Bioware has achieved.

Contrast this with Baldur's Gate. For all the rose-tinted glasses people look back at BG with, it wasn't flawless. It certainly didn't offer the level of choice that DA does, and the character depth was (in my opinion) not nearly as impressive. There was very little plot variance in BG - you could barely step beyond the boundaries of the plotline, in most cases. About the only "choice" I can remember from the BG series was what to do with the Silver Dragon Eggs. Everything else was virtually identical.

Limitation is always going to be a feature of any computer game, because ultimately, they have to be coded with a finite set of outcomes. But those boundaries can be pushed, and from where I am sitting, that is what Dragon Age has done.

Can Dragon Age be improved? Absolutely, and I'm certain DA2 will be a significant improvement over DA:O, as BG2 was over BG1. That doesn't mean it didn't evolve the concepts established in the BG series.

Modifié par 037686, 07 janvier 2010 - 12:21 .

[Vaeliorin]

To add on to the "ancient systems can run this game" phenomenon, when I first got DA I ran it on a P4 3.2 with 1 gig of RAM and a GeForce 6600 for a video card. Sure, I had to turn all the settings all the way down, but it still looked good and played fine. Same computer I played ME on.



Admittedly, I'm now running it on an i7 920 @ 3.6, 6 gigs of RAM and Crossfire 5850's, but it was my choice to get a better PC to run it, it wasn't something that I needed to do.



Honestly, all I see from ME (and yes, I have played it multiple times, and have ME2 pre-ordered) is that Bioware has decided to branch out and make games that aren't RPGs. And that's fine, but I'm rather happy that DA is, in fact, an RPG.



As to comments about the gameplay...all I can say is that IMO, DA has the best gameplay of any non-turn-based RPG ever, so....I would disagree that there's anything wrong with it.

[kjdhgfiliuhwe]

First, I need to reiterate that I enjoyed DA:O.



That said, I'm not sure what constitutes "choices". This was, yet another, very linear RPG. I have no problem with that. Picking different dialogue choices made some cosmetic changes, but it's not like the story was shockingly different based on your choices. And I certainly don't expect that (even if the whole Origins thing was insinuated as such by an overzealous marketing team). If it makes players happy by giving them cosmetic choices for the illusion of choice despite the actual story not having much change, then more power to the concept.



I enjoy linear RPGs, which I consider this to be. I certainly don't consider it a sandbox (and frankly the last sandbox game I enjoyed was GTA 4, and it wasn't the sandbox portion I enjoyed, but the story). I play them for their entertaining stories.



We'll just have to agree to disagree. The difference though is, despite me not viewing DA:O as much of an evolution over any previous Bioware RPGs (which I think are similar enough to be considered a genre), I don't view that as a bad thing. I enjoy Bioware RPGs. I see no need to find ways to change them since I enjoy them.



As for why I view the game a small step back from Baldur's Gate, it is in the game mechanics. While I appreciate their attempt at making their own combat system instead of using D&D, I can't say there was anything revolutionary or all together different about it. While I enjoyed the spell casting, I can't say the stamina based part of the combat system didn't leave a lot to be desired.



Anyways, that's just my opinion. Again, I enjoyed the game, so don't think of this as me attacking one's holy grail. Just, similar to the Escapist, I don't really see much difference from any of their previous rpgs beyond much higher production values.

[ladydesire]

kjdhgfiliuhwe wrote...



I enjoy linear RPGs, which I consider this to be. I certainly don't consider it a sandbox (and frankly the last sandbox game I enjoyed was GTA 4, and it wasn't the sandbox portion I enjoyed, but the story). I play them for their entertaining stories.

It seems your idea of a linear rpg is different than mine, since to me, linear implies that there is only one path that you can take to progress through the game (attempting to take the others if you can get to them leads to no success), whereas in DA you can start with any place you need to go once you leave Lothering.

[Skydiver8888]

kjdhgfiliuhwe wrote...

The difference though is, despite me not viewing DA:O as much of an evolution over any previous Bioware RPGs (which I think are similar enough to be considered a genre), I don't view that as a bad thing. I enjoy Bioware RPGs. I see no need to find ways to change them since I enjoy them.

Exactly.  Why fix something that isn't broken?

Things that need fixing:

The economy
The errant incorrect apostrophe in the title of this thread
bugs in games

All borked or broken things.  A CRPG that relies on character stats is NOT on that list for a reason.  I consider a non-"action" RPG to be a rare and beautiful thing these days, like Alistair's rose.  Not to mention, I think Bioware has a lot of cojones to bring a tactical RPG like this to consoles.  There are legions of fans (as evidenced by sales) of games that rely on the skills of your character rather than twitchy reaction times and how fast you can move a controller.  Mainly because we're old, but hey!

As for the "make it for console then port to PC" idea.  NO.  1000 times no.  why not let PC gamers have something for ONCE?  I know the industry is all about money.  Boy do I ever know it...I worked there.  But deep down, most developers still love gaming, and Bioware has proven time and again to be committed to that aspect of development.  They started this epic IP intent on making a PC game, and they stuck to their guns.  The console ports are just that. 

As for the perceived problems you talk about, I'm not sure I'm seeing it.  Bugs?  well, welcome to software development.  delayed releases?  Again, welcome to SW development.  Unfortunately, we have become a society of instant gratification, and when something isn't immediately ours or doesn't go our way, we feel entitled to demand it be so.  Witness all the armchair developers on this forum. 

I haven't played a single player game this much since Morrowind, and BG2 before that.  I say bravo!

[ladydesire]

Skydiver8888 wrote...

As for the perceived problems you talk about, I'm not sure I'm seeing it.  Bugs?  well, welcome to software development.  delayed releases?  Again, welcome to SW development.  Unfortunately, we have become a society of instant gratification, and when something isn't immediately ours or doesn't go our way, we feel entitled to demand it be so.  Witness all the armchair developers on this forum.

And how; those of us that have some idea of what goes into these games tend to be willing to give Bioware some slack when it comes to fixing bugs, especially when said bugs affect more than one platform. XBox 360 and PS3 players complaining about the memory leak should look for similar topics in the PC specific forum to see that they aren't the only ones being bitten by that particular bug.

[037686]

kjdhgfiliuhwe wrote...

That said, I'm not sure what constitutes "choices". This was, yet another, very linear RPG. I have no problem with that. Picking different dialogue choices made some cosmetic changes, but it's not like the story was shockingly different based on your choices. And I certainly don't expect that (even if the whole Origins thing was insinuated as such by an overzealous marketing team). If it makes players happy by giving them cosmetic choices for the illusion of choice despite the actual story not having much change, then more power to the concept.

I guess I'm just not sure what you're expecting, exactly. A game is a hard coded piece of software that cannot adapt to every possible thing we might wish it to. If you make a story driven game, you're going to have a certain amount of A-B-C-D. It's inevitable.

As an exercise, lets think about removing the side quests from both Dragon Age and BG, and leave the actual plot arch portions intact.

Both BG games then give us a basic 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 story arc. It becomes a paint by numbers game. You make zero decisions of any import, the outcome is identical regardless of what you do. By and large, I would bet my ending and your ending would be borderline identical. The major variations would be which NPCs we happened to take along.

DA offers a choice of 6 starts which funnel into the Grey Warden recruitment, a linear portion of the game. From there, we graduate to a stage of the game where we can visit multiple plot locations in any order we choose. Additionally, in each location, we can make at least one major decision that will dictate not only the allies we receive in the final battle, but also the epilogue we get after overcoming the Blight. Some locations offer more than one choice.

Does DA have linear potions of the game? Yes, it does. And it has to - it's a coded roleplaying game, it's basically a necessity. But we have enough decisions we can make which do offer the ability to modify our gameworld.

Queen A versus King B. Dwarf King A versus Dwarf King B. Anvil of the Void saved/destroyed with either Dwarf King A or Dwarf King B (and yes, the anvil outcome DOES change depending on which King you choose). Circle of Magi versus Templar. Dalish Elves versus Werewolves. "The Ultimate Sacrifice" versus "A Dark Promise" versus "Warden Commander" versus "Redeemer". We have a static chessboard, yes - but by golly, can we choose where many of the pieces go, with current and future impacts that we will feel in later games.

It's not quite the ultimate illusion of free will that good pen and paper GMs strive for, but it's better than what BG had to offer in it's day.

There are flaws, yes - the stamina issue you mentioned is a fantastic example of something I feel needs some further thought. But as far as the role-playing and story telling aspects go, I feel Dragon Age definitely raised the bar. For my, ultimately, these are the most important aspects of a RPG, although many will feel differently.

As someone who actually replayed BG -> BG2 -> very recently, I can tell you I have many criticisms of the games now that I would never had had back when they were first released.

[Demonic Spoon]

A PC built for gaming two years ago..
will indeed run DA and probably quite well if you didn't cut to many
corners. (4G of ram .. 3850,3870,8800GTS etc) Hell even a half ways
decent budget build will run it alltho it might need a graphics
update.. Good cards can be had for $75 and up.. starting with the 4670
or a 9600GT.

Don't even need a pc "Built for gaming". My current laptop has a very weak graphics card, a 7600M GT. And yes, the M makes a large difference...in benchmarking tests it doesn't perform nearly as well as its desktop equivalent. I still run the game comfortably on medium settings.

[Ghandorian]

I have been feeling more and more that the success of a game is closely related to the technology behind it. Mass Effect was built with someone else's technology. BioWare leased the Unreal 3 engine and concentrated on making a game within it's abilities. What seems to be plaguing Dragon Age is a series of bugs and glitches that creep into the game every time someone looks at it. This might be due to BioWare pushing for too much out of this in-house game engine used for Dragon Age.



The point I want to try to add to this thread is that you need to keep the core technology in mind when comparing DAO to previous titles. They spent years on this game engine and is seems kind of sucky right now. Don't try and hold it up to a Hugely successful technology lie the Unreal.

[Dex1701]

This thread is full of unsupported assertions and incorrect assumptions. I own several gaming PCs and several consoles, and the gaming PCs are by far the cheaper medium. If you're spending thousands of dollars on PC gaming you're doing it very, VERY wrong. I have a 5-year-old PC with a 5-year-old video card that still runs modern games better than my 360 does. Comparing the price of staying bleeding edge on a PC with maintaining status quo with a console is a double-standard.

The only part of a gaming PC that is purchased specifically for gaming is the video card. Powerful video cards are cheap nowadays: between $70 and $200 for a card that can really make modern games run well. Consoles do not get better with time, so hardware that runs games well at 720p (what the 360 renders at and a very low resolution for a PC) is not going to magically get worse at running games just as the console isn't going to magically get better. Compound that on top of PC games being way, WAY cheaper than console games, and PC gaming really and truly comes out to be less expensive than console gaming. I got Arkham Asylum and Dragon Age for the PC when they first came out for $40 (each). I just got a brand new copy of Resident Evil 5 for the PC for $15. I typically pay $20-$40 for new PC games compared to $50-$60 for console games. The price difference more than pays for my video card very quickly.

That said, there's a reason Dragon Age was being made for the PC: mods, add-ons, and user-interface...all things that, in the case of Dragon Age, tend to lend themselves to the PC as a gaming platform. I really like Mass Effect, but the combat is a mindless twitch-fest that works really well on a console. The complex tactical combat in Dragon Age (which I found to be a nice change or pace from the steady stream of first-person action RPGs lately) works better with a mouse. If you've played both the PC and console versions of the game you'll understand what I mean.

I also don't get all of the FUD that gets thrown around about PC gaming being difficult and buggy. I know that people have issues with every game, but most people don't. I personally haven't had an issue with a PC game for a good 6-8 years. Well, whatever. This thread is bound to turn into a worthless platform war rather than an intelligent conversation anyway, so I probably should just save my fingers the effort of typing more.

Modifié par Dex1701, 07 janvier 2010 - 01:47 .