112 réponses à ce sujet

[zyntifox]

ShadowDragoonFTW wrote...

Fiddles dee dee wrote...

DA:I will be for consoles as well as PC, consoles have immense difficulty handling the camera option you're talking about. It would absolutely work for PC but if you were a developer would you want time taken away from other areas for a camera angle that only 20% of your audience will ever even have the option of seeing?

How so? I've seen plenty of console games that use camera angles like that. Some are RPG, and some are Hack-and-Slash, but I've seen a few work like DA would with it.

I haven't played DA on a console though, so I could be missing something, but how did DA:O handle character movement and selecting separate companions for things? Did they use a Move-To-Clicked-Position option, or was it direct movement controlled? If it's the former, I see no issue whatsoever. With the latter, however, that would of course need a bit of work.

As a console player i can answer your question. The main problem i had with DA:O was there the lack of move-to-point command, which they implemented in DA2. You use the left stick to move the character and the right stick to control the camera. If you, for example, want to target and issue an attack on a enemy far away you could just bring up the radial menu and "aim" it thowards the enemy and press X (for a PS3 player). And i really love that system but if you in addition to that system can get a overhead view and issue orders it would be near perfection.

[daft inquisitor]

So, DA2 had the Point-And-Click option? Then there wouldn't be a whole lot of work to just add an isometric camera view, and make it work well. DA:O it sounds like it would be harder. However, if they put in the work with the PAC from the start in DA3, then I think it should work fine for consoles with an isometric view.

[zyntifox]

Well if you bring up the radial menu in DA2 you can issue the marked companions to move to a specific point. So it shouldn't be hard to implement in DA:O.

[99DP1982]

Firky wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Gazardiel wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Balduer's Gate did not have a "tactical camera" it just had a 3 quarter isometric view locked in and all you got.

It's the locked view that keeps me from wanting to replay BG; I loaded it up recently and felt really cramped. 

Try the enhanced edition that just got released then. You can zoom in and out on that version.

It's not like Origins, though, and you can't rotate. And, much as I love BG, the zooming in the EE seems very pointless. (It's just a straight little zoom.) But, correct me if I missed something. I didn't really try beyond once.

What else do you expect from 2D background with fixed walkmesh? 360degrees rotation? you mad? the view has to be fixed...

Modifié par 99DP1982, 17 janvier 2013 - 02:29 .

[Cimeas]

ALL "Spiritual Successor to Baldur's Gate" means is a story-driven, party-based RPG with choices.

That's literally all they mean. Deal with it.

[LinksOcarina]

freche wrote...

Firky wrote...

 while actually being "better" than Baldur's Gate.

Blasphemy!

A lot of things are better than Baldur's Gate.

That game either did not age well, or was never that good to begin with. Any attempts at me playing it are excercises in futility because I simply have no investment in the story anymore and the combat is ridiculously inadequate, except to see Sarevok who is the best character in the damn game.

So yeah....Baldur's Gate is not that good. 

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

Viidicus wrote...

 can we keep it that way?

for instance, having the tactical view back?

I play DA games on a console, so I'd like to have a tactical view. Period. Even DA:O, which has a tactical view on the PC, didn't have one in the 360 or PS3 version.

[LinksOcarina]

The Teryn of Whatever wrote...

Viidicus wrote...

 can we keep it that way?

for instance, having the tactical view back?

I play DA games on a console, so I'd like to have a tactical view. Period. Even DA:O, which has a tactical view on the PC, didn't have one in the 360 or PS3 version.

Tactical views on a console rarely work, because the control schemes that need to be mapped for it tend to be too complex to match the nuances found on the PC and hotkeying. 

This is why so few strategy and RTS games are on consoles, but they thrive on handhelds and the PC. Nothing wrong with that either, they have their place. In the end though, the majority of development is usually done for consoles, with the game either ported to the PC and remapped, or ported without a remap. 

It sucks for PC users, I hear friends of mine complaining all the time about it.

[InfinitePaths]

Yeah,Let's use the old technology becouse it makes you feel that you are playing an old game.New times,new technologies,new games,I don't know what is the matter with thease old gamers who live in the past.Choices that matter,sure.Customization sure.Charather development and rich lore,sure.Having a locked camera that makes the game look like it's from 2000 nope.I hated the tactical camera in Origins,It broke my immersion to the area with everything seeming like a chess board with black parts and with my companions looking like figurines Oh yeah the sacred temple of the sacred ashes,It is mysterius and acient,but if i use tactical camera,it brakes the immersion becouse you have no roof and you have black areas and you can see out of your line of sight,really breaks immersion+charathers look like figurines.I can scope my battlefield fine enough on DA2 camera,and honestly,that camera view is RL,you don't get to magicly see the entire battleground in RL.Really old school gamers,this is really unessecary,are you nostalgic of the old times or what?

Modifié par HeriocGreyWarden, 17 janvier 2013 - 07:17 .

[zyntifox]

First of all i don't think anyone is asking for the usage of old technology. And isn't the tactical camera optional in the PC version?

Edit: Ah sorry, i re-read it now and it is clearly a troll post. Nevermind.

Modifié par Cstaf, 17 janvier 2013 - 07:33 .

[BouncyFrag]

krul2k wrote...

why not make the DA series so good that others want to be its "spiritul successor"

I'l be happy if DA:I is the 'spirtual successor' to Dragon Age: Origins.

Modifié par BouncyFrag, 17 janvier 2013 - 08:07 .

[InfinitePaths]

Cstaf wrote...

First of all i don't think anyone is asking for the usage of old technology. And isn't the tactical camera optional in the PC version?

Edit: Ah sorry, i re-read it now and it is clearly a troll post. Nevermind.

Nope,it's not a troll point you're just ignorant,by old thec i mean that the BG camera was used only becouse of thecnical limitations not becouse of tactical pourposes,and It broke immersion in DAO,and it doesn't matter if its optional,they wasted reasorces to make something that is pointless.IDK what is so special about that camera view...

[zyntifox]

So using an overhead camera is old technology? And do you really believe they used that camera due to technical limitations? So by that logic overhead camera was the only option back in 1998 and 2000. And it breaks your immersion in DA:O even though it is optional? To be honest, you got me. I have no idea how to counter that.

[Noviere]

I'd rather see DA3 be the spiritual successor to DAO

[Firky]

freche wrote...

Firky wrote...

 while actually being "better" than Baldur's Gate.

Blasphemy!

The camera/view. Not the game.

(I don't have a problem with isometric view, in the slightest, but the fact that you could rotate, etc, in Origins ...)

[Firky]

99DP1982 wrote...

Firky wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Gazardiel wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Balduer's Gate did not have a "tactical camera" it just had a 3 quarter isometric view locked in and all you got.

It's the locked view that keeps me from wanting to replay BG; I loaded it up recently and felt really cramped. 

Try the enhanced edition that just got released then. You can zoom in and out on that version.

It's not like Origins, though, and you can't rotate. And, much as I love BG, the zooming in the EE seems very pointless. (It's just a straight little zoom.) But, correct me if I missed something. I didn't really try beyond once.

What else do you expect from 2D background with fixed walkmesh? 360degrees rotation? you mad? the view has to be fixed...

Not in the slightest.

Just that if the "locked view" in BG makes someone not want to play the game, the slight zoom in BG EE isn't going to make any difference.

[BrookerT]

Can Dragon Age 3 not be something we've seen before?. It seems that some people are so resistant to any change, that it seems every game must copy others.

[Talonfire]

Firky wrote...

freche wrote...

Firky wrote...

 while actually being "better" than Baldur's Gate.

Blasphemy!

The camera/view. Not the game.

(I don't have a problem with isometric view, in the slightest, but the fact that you could rotate, etc, in Origins ...)

That's debatable, I found Dragon Age's camera to be extremely clunky despite being more flexible than Baldur's Gate's, so I prefer BG's locked camera to that one. Neverwinter Nights had a much better customizable 3D camera than Dragon Age, in my opinion.

Modifié par Talonfire, 17 janvier 2013 - 09:58 .

[Firky]

I think my main problem with Origins' camera was that it was fixed to a character. (If I'm recalling that correctly.) And it clashed with some of the level design. Like, there was a level somewhere with hills and I couldn't get a good view. If that's what you mean by clunky, I totally agree.

Origins' camera did give me more of an isometric game feel, though. And, I spent quite a lot of time fighting DA2's camera. Actually, I'm really interested to see what they do with camera for DA3. For me, it was a much bigger deal than even recycled level design, for example.

[Talonfire]

Firky wrote...

I think my main problem with Origins' camera was that it was fixed to a character. (If I'm recalling that correctly.) And it clashed with some of the level design. Like, there was a level somewhere with hills and I couldn't get a good view. If that's what you mean by clunky, I totally agree.

Pretty much, the way it tended to reset to ground level third person was also an occasional annoyance.

[DelNorte]

Cimeas wrote...

ALL "Spiritual Successor to Baldur's Gate" means is a story-driven, party-based RPG with choices.

That's literally all they mean. Deal with it.

And romances don't forget those. 

[Kidd]

ShadowDragoonFTW wrote...

So, DA2 had the Point-And-Click option? Then there wouldn't be a whole lot of work to just add an isometric camera view, and make it work well. DA:O it sounds like it would be harder. However, if they put in the work with the PAC from the start in DA3, then I think it should work fine for consoles with an isometric view.

Note that click-to-move is an option on the radial menu. It still plays like DAO normally, there's just an option to bring up something much akin to an AoE reticule that has the effect of "move." Using it multiple times in a short period of time is a lot more tedious than the simple clicking found using a mouse. I mean, compare a single mouse-click to LT, upleft+A, move the reticule with the left stick, A. Make of that what you will =)

Random thought now that I'm thinking about the radial menu; whoever wrote the toggle for keeping the menu up after issuing a command in DA2 should be given a raise.