31 réponses à ce sujet

[Silverfox4]

Saw this on PC Gamer.  The executive producer was a bit arrogant and belittling to the pc user base.  I understand some of his statements, but saying "We let you have a mouse and keyboard"... wow. 

Question is, since it is represented by EA, is this the new norm or is DA3 going to be awesome on the pc?

http://www.pcgamer.c...-straight-port/

[Sakanade]

Yes.
They want : - quote - "The CoD Audience".

Expect console port.
DAII was.

[ianvillan]

It does seem that dragon age 2 was designed with the consoles as the main focus and the PC secondary with the removal of the isometric camera and the addition of the dialogue wheel the game was made with the consoles in mind.

Concerning DA3 I have no idea but from what little we have heard it does seem that the consoles would be the main focus again.

[Silverfox4]

Well they still released an HD patch on release for DA2. Consoles do sell more games, but PC gaming stays ahead of any console system. I am sure there was a quote from a dev a long time ago saying that they sold close to equal amounts of DA between Xbox, PS3 and the PC.

[Kidd]

Colour me a dirty console gaming peasant, but I really don't get what all the nasty comments in the comment section of that article are all about. They're porting the game to PC and making sure it plays just as well for PC as it does for console. On top of that they add control configuration to ensure PC gamers can optimise their inputs to their own liking, cause PC rigs are all different so it makes sense that people may want to customise their experience.

It's already being made better for PC than on console. What do these people want? A handout? When equal (or seemingly, slightly more than equal) quality is given, I really don't get how somebody can start spouting they aren't being cared about. *shakes head*

I'd expect DA3 to have a unique PC interface like the previous instalments have had. Possibly an extra high-resolution texture pack and DX11 support to give PC users an edge over console graphics as well.

[Thetford]

Silverfox4 wrote...

Saw this on PC Gamer.  The executive producer was a bit arrogant and belittling to the pc user base.  I understand some of his statements, but saying "We let you have a mouse and keyboard"... wow. 

Question is, since it is represented by EA, is this the new norm or is DA3 going to be awesome on the pc?

http://www.pcgamer.c...-straight-port/

Strangely, I do recall reading that one EA executive thought that console gaming is a fad, or something along those lines.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

This is a very good question I expect BioWare will address when we get real details in March or so.

[Silverfox4]

Some people call it a sense of entitlement, but as a pc gamers - we know that the pc gaming experience can be so much more on any title or port that is developed. Having the same game the consoles have, it feels as if we are being let down on the potential the game could be.

But I was never interested in Dead Space 3, just worried about EA and them passing this torch down to DA3.

[Wulfram]

DA2 was pretty much fine - certainly better than the ME2+3 ports - so I'm not overly concerned.

[TheBlackAdder13]

I don't think the exec's comments sounded arrogant -- they sounded practical and reasonable (and I'm a PC user).

I think they genuinely are trying to make all platforms equal in terms of quality and playability but I think the issue is that the PC is a more powerful gaming tool so PC users have to put up with inconvenient things that, in my opinion, hinder the gameplay experience. For example, with DA 2 we got the annoying dialogue wheel (yes, I'm one on of the people who didn't care for it, regardless of having a voiced protagonist -- I just hate the concept of summaries) instead of dialogue lists a la DA:O because the dialogue system for origins didn't work effectively on consoles. I understand this, as it's important for everyone to have an effective interface, but I suspect a lot of PC users are upset because it's a limitation that comes from the consoles.

ETA: They could make a version of the game with more a more advanced interface and mechanics for PC users, rather than accepting console limitations, but then a lot of console users would feel left out, and it's too significant a portion of the player base to disregard. 

Modifié par TheBlackAdder13, 30 janvier 2013 - 05:17 .

[TheBlackAdder13]

krul2k wrote...

i was happy with how da2 an me2 played on my pc, does that make me bad

Not at all. It played well -- the problem is with features that we were stuck with as a result of console platforms that could have been improved or altered for the PC. 

[Fast Jimmy]

TheBlackAdder13 wrote...

I don't think the exec's comments sounded arrogant -- they sounded practical and reasonable (and I'm a PC user).

I think they genuinely are trying to make all platforms equal in terms of quality and playability but I think the issue is that the PC is a more powerful gaming tool so PC users have to put up with inconvenient things that, in my opinion, hinder the gameplay experience. For example, with DA 2 we got the annoying dialogue wheel (yes, I'm one on of the people who didn't care for it, regardless of having a voiced protagonist -- I just hate the concept of summaries) instead of dialogue lists a la DA:O because the dialogue system for origins didn't work effectively on consoles. I understand this, as it's important for everyone to have an effective interface, but I suspect a lot of PC users are upset because it's a limitation that comes from the consoles.

ETA: They could make a version of the game with more a more advanced interface and mechanics for PC users, rather than accepting console limitations, but then a lot of console users would feel left out, and it's too significant a portion of the player base to disregard.

Well, it's not even that the console players would feel left out, but that the developer would have to make two versions of the game. Designing an entirely new UI and underlying mechanics isn't like making a brand new title, but at the same time, it is a lot more work than what you see transitioning from the 360 to the PS3.

In addition, developing for a console, where you have set hardware settings and requirements, is a lot easier than optimizing for the millions of different configurations that any given PC could have. So even a direct port from a console takes a lot of work. To make it "better" on top of that is just adding more expense. Not to mention many PC users get the game more cheaply through online distribution (not to mention piracy happens much more for PC copies than for console ones) and it becomes a losing proposition for many developers.


Though I do sympathize with your plight, I'd say that maybe the best course of action is to vote with your dollar and only buy titles that either have amazing PC versions or are PC-exclusives and encourage others to do the same. If developers know they will lose PC players if they don't match the fidelity of other PC-exclusive games, they will make sure they do so. If they know that if they can get by with doing less (which is to say, doing the same as the console versions) and still get your money, then there isn't a lot of financial incentive to do so.

[TheBlackAdder13]

Though I do sympathize with your plight, I'd say that maybe the best course of action is to vote with your dollar and only buy titles that either have amazing PC versions or are PC-exclusives and encourage others to do the same. If developers know they will lose PC players if they don't match the fidelity of other PC-exclusive games, they will make sure they do so. If they know that if they can get by with doing less (which is to say, doing the same as the console versions) and still get your money, then there isn't a lot of financial incentive to do so.

I agree completely. The problem is I'm casual gamer and I'm wed to Dragon Age
Although, I did buy Crusader Kings 2, which is an awesome, but dangerously addictive, game and a great example of the PC's potential.

Modifié par TheBlackAdder13, 30 janvier 2013 - 05:40 .

[hexaligned]

Well they are all console ports, in the sense that every mechanic or feature is held back by the consoles limitations. That's to be expected form multi platform developers though. It seems unreasonable to expect two separate versions of the game. The most I expect from companies like EA is that i will at least have a (good) m+k UI. If I want (what I consider) to be a good modern PC game, I look to companies that focus on that.

[CrazyRah]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

TheBlackAdder13 wrote...

I don't think the exec's comments sounded arrogant -- they sounded practical and reasonable (and I'm a PC user).

I think they genuinely are trying to make all platforms equal in terms of quality and playability but I think the issue is that the PC is a more powerful gaming tool so PC users have to put up with inconvenient things that, in my opinion, hinder the gameplay experience. For example, with DA 2 we got the annoying dialogue wheel (yes, I'm one on of the people who didn't care for it, regardless of having a voiced protagonist -- I just hate the concept of summaries) instead of dialogue lists a la DA:O because the dialogue system for origins didn't work effectively on consoles. I understand this, as it's important for everyone to have an effective interface, but I suspect a lot of PC users are upset because it's a limitation that comes from the consoles.

ETA: They could make a version of the game with more a more advanced interface and mechanics for PC users, rather than accepting console limitations, but then a lot of console users would feel left out, and it's too significant a portion of the player base to disregard.

Well, it's not even that the console players would feel left out, but that the developer would have to make two versions of the game. Designing an entirely new UI and underlying mechanics isn't like making a brand new title, but at the same time, it is a lot more work than what you see transitioning from the 360 to the PS3.

In addition, developing for a console, where you have set hardware settings and requirements, is a lot easier than optimizing for the millions of different configurations that any given PC could have. So even a direct port from a console takes a lot of work. To make it "better" on top of that is just adding more expense. Not to mention many PC users get the game more cheaply through online distribution (not to mention piracy happens much more for PC copies than for console ones) and it becomes a losing proposition for many developers.


Though I do sympathize with your plight, I'd say that maybe the best course of action is to vote with your dollar and only buy titles that either have amazing PC versions or are PC-exclusives and encourage others to do the same. If developers know they will lose PC players if they don't match the fidelity of other PC-exclusive games, they will make sure they do so. If they know that if they can get by with doing less (which is to say, doing the same as the console versions) and still get your money, then there isn't a lot of financial incentive to do so.

Yeah i got to agree with what you say, mostly with voting with our money. Being a PC kind of gamer sadly means that way often we get really bad ports and they will continue to happen as long as people keep buying them. I always keep my ears open for any potential bad ports and if it get confirmed as a weak port then i just don't buy it even though i perhaps really looked forward to the game. Dark Souls comes to mind here, really interested in the game but the port was so lazy that i feel that i can't support such practice.

[syllogi]

One of my prerequisites for buying this game (at least in the first few months of release, before it's on sale) is a high resolution graphics pack for PC users. It was pretty embarrassing that the ME3 team didn't think this was necessary. It doesn't have to come out on the release date, but if they don't have one at all, that tells me a lot about how they feel about the PC audience.

The UI is a whole 'nother story. The second DA game wasn't that bad, but there was still more they could do to improve the keyboard mapping in DA3.

[Sylvius the Mad]

syllogi wrote...

One of my prerequisites for buying this game (at least in the first few months of release, before it's on sale) is a high resolution graphics pack for PC users. It was pretty embarrassing that the ME3 team didn't think this was necessary. It doesn't have to come out on the release date, but if they don't have one at all, that tells me a lot about how they feel about the PC audience.

Perhaps not available at release, but it should be annouced before release.  If they want pre-orders, they should give us sufficient information to make a decision.

The UI is a whole 'nother story. The second DA game wasn't that bad, but there was still more they could do to improve the keyboard mapping in DA3.

Why aren't console users asking for this, too?  The controls of every game, on every platform, should be 100% customisable.

[Atakuma]

Viceral game's decision to do a straight port for DS3 has no bearing on DA3's PC features.

[ManOfSteel]

TotalBiscuit covered this pretty well in his latest video.

That said, what the Dead Space 3 team is doing has no bearing on Dragon Age 3, and you can't even throw it in with other EA studios. Crysis 3 is being developed as a multiplatform game and it's taking full advantage of PC hardware.

I think that's where console gamers are missing the point. Dead Space 3 will be as good on PC as it is on consoles, but that's not the point. Dead Space 3 fails to take advantage of the capabilities of modern hardware, and that's where the anger and annoyance comes from. 

It's not like developers have to create extra high-resolution textures, for example. Textures tend to be created at crazy high resolutions and then downscaled, as far as I know.

As the aforementioned TotalBiscuit put it, that's akin to not making the blu-ray version of a film any better than the DVD version because not everyone has a blu-ray player, and we wouldn't want those without one getting jealous of those with one. It's absurd.

Even Dragon Age 2 took advantage of PC hardware, with it's DirectX 11 options and high resolution textures, and with Dragon Age 3 running on Frostbite 2, I think the game is going to be superb on PC.

Modifié par DoomHK, 30 janvier 2013 - 07:36 .

[Fast Jimmy]

As the aforementioned TotalBiscuit put it, that's akin to not making the blu-ray version of a film any better than the DVD version because not everyone has a blu-ray player, and we wouldn't want those without one getting jealous of those with one. It's absurd.

Absurd? I don't know about that.

If the graphic quality of a game could be adjusted with a slider bar in development, where it was just a matter of saying "okay, this version for console and then this version for PC... presto change-o!" then, yes, it would be absurd if developers didn't do that. But if you are talking about a complete different UI, a completely different optimization process, if you are talking about creating specific art assets to be used only for the PC players, then the costs start adding up quickly.

PCs can use higher powered programming, graphics and engine capabilities. A game that uses those is nice. But it also costs more.

So if the costs involved are higher and the end product is much better, the thing that is absurd is that developers don't charge extra for the PC versions. Instead, win digital distribution, they usually change LESS than the console versions.

PC players get a better product with more customization and for a cheaper sticker price. I realize not every game makes an elite gaming PC rev with every installment, but developers are doing more than throwing everyone a fair bone. If its a huge issue, then it may be wiser to focus on developers that make PC-only games.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 30 janvier 2013 - 07:38 .

[ManOfSteel]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

As the aforementioned TotalBiscuit put it, that's akin to not making the blu-ray version of a film any better than the DVD version because not everyone has a blu-ray player, and we wouldn't want those without one getting jealous of those with one. It's absurd.

Absurd? I don't know about that.

If the graphic quality of a game could be adjusted with a slider bar in development, where it was just a matter of saying "okay, this version for console and then this version for PC... presto change-o!" then, yes, it would be absurd if developers didn't do that. But if you are talking about a complete different UI, a completely different optimization process, if you are talking about creating specific art assets to be used only for the PC players, then the costs start adding up quickly.

PCs can use higher powered programming, graphics and engine capabilities. A game that uses those is nice. But it also costs more.

So if the costs involved are higher and the end product is much better, the thing that is absurd is that developers don't charge extra for the PC versions. Instead, win digital distribution, they usually change LESS than the console versions.

PC players get a better product with more customization and for a cheaper sticker price. I realize not every game makes an elite gaming PC rev with every installment, but developers are doing more than throwing everyone a fair bone. If its a huge issue, then it may be wiser to focus on developers that make PC-only games.

We understand the cost of making a specific UI for PC versions. Whatever it is you're doing, it's going to cost money, after all. That's the reality of game development.

It's also not that "huge" of an issue for me personally, but when you're so used to games taking advantage of the strengths of your system, being arrogantly told that we're lucky to get mouse and keyboard controls is somewhat insulting.

[Conduit0]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

As the aforementioned TotalBiscuit put it, that's akin to not making the blu-ray version of a film any better than the DVD version because not everyone has a blu-ray player, and we wouldn't want those without one getting jealous of those with one. It's absurd.

Absurd? I don't know about that.

If the graphic quality of a game could be adjusted with a slider bar in development, where it was just a matter of saying "okay, this version for console and then this version for PC... presto change-o!" then, yes, it would be absurd if developers didn't do that. But if you are talking about a complete different UI, a completely different optimization process, if you are talking about creating specific art assets to be used only for the PC players, then the costs start adding up quickly.

PCs can use higher powered programming, graphics and engine capabilities. A game that uses those is nice. But it also costs more.

So if the costs involved are higher and the end product is much better, the thing that is absurd is that developers don't charge extra for the PC versions. Instead, win digital distribution, they usually change LESS than the console versions.

PC players get a better product with more customization and for a cheaper sticker price. I realize not every game makes an elite gaming PC rev with every installment, but developers are doing more than throwing everyone a fair bone. If its a huge issue, then it may be wiser to focus on developers that make PC-only games.

The real problem comes in when the developer doesn't even bother with enabling basic features that they can't even claim "cost" as a reason for not doing it. ME3 for the PC completely lacked basic post processing effects like AA and AF, which really is absurd, because the Unreal engine supports these by default, it simply requires enabling them in the graphics menu, further they failed to add the ability to modify the obnoxious all-in-one button in the key bindings menu, which makes no sense, when they had already gone to the trouble of creating a key binding menu, but then left out what could argubly be the most desirable feature to customize.

In the end ME3's short comings on the PC had nothing to do with cost or time, it was the product of sheer laziness on the part of the ME dev team. Skyrim(since its mentioned here so often) is another good example of laziness on the part of the dev team. Although Skyrim does a much better job on the graphics front, the menu system is absolutely atrocious, and it very quickly becomes clear that Bethseda didn't even try to optimize their m+k menu controls.

Like the article says, attempting to maintain parity between platforms often results in a terrible PC user experience. Its not that we're complaining because we aren't getting better experience than what the consoles get, we're complaining because we frequently get a worse experience.

[MichaelStuart]

I can care less if the Dragon Age 3 is a console port.
The only thing that matters to me, is that the game is fun to play.

Modifié par MichaelStuart, 30 janvier 2013 - 10:27 .

[DiegoRaphael]

I'm sure worried a little about the PC version of this game (the one that im gonna buy it).

More so because of the Mass Effect games.

I know, i know, they are different teams, buy the are the same developer.

Mass Effect 2 and 3 was horrible (technically speaking) on PCs. From where do i start?

The most absurd was in ME2.

We couldnt use ENTER, SCROLL WHEEL AND DOUBLE CLICK!!!!! None of it worked. Not to mention the lack of shortcuts like J for jornal, O for options and so on.
It got a little better in ME3, they let us use it in some places, but still, no shortscuts and no remaping of the overload of actions to one button.

The Holster Weapon action was cut in ME3 because the consoles didn't have 2 extra RAM to do it.
2mb of ram... of the PC... that's like... NOTHING.

Not to mention the Low Resolution everywhere. A little part of me died everysingle time i saw the Normandy in such low res...

With Origin growing a lot, and even financially saving EA some times, i was expecting that EA would do some little pressure on it's developers to do some extra work on their pc versions.

Guess i was wrong.