46 réponses à ce sujet

[Sanunes]

There won't be official modding support for as stated before they are using tools they don't own to make the game and they can't give access to them out for free. I remember somewhere that the amount of outsourced tools have been reduced, but there are still several in the game and it would take too much time and money to make a toolkit that doesn't use them and then to test it to make sure it works.

 

Now unofficial tools might be possible, but I can see Dice making it hard for someone to change the settings in the game since the Frostbite engine is the same as what they use for Battlefield 4 and so something like an override folder might not exist within the engine itself because the game won't look for it. The other issue at hand is going to be how much work is required to make changes to the game, for with Battlefield 3 someone made a brightness mod and it took over a year to make and they quickly got banned from the Battlefield 3 severs. Now I don't expect people to get banned for using mods like that for Dragon Age, but I do see Dice actively changing their engine to break mods that work that way to protect multiplayer in other games.

[Realmzmaster]

The chances of a official mod kit are slim and close to none with slim walking out the door. The first assumption is that Bioware will have the time to make a mod kit. The mod kit only benefits a small portion of their fan base. The majority of the sales for DAo and DA2 were on consoles. I suspect DAI will continue that trend. 

 

What is the incentive for Bioware to create a toolkit that only a small fraction of the base will use? Also noting that quite a few workarounds would have to be done to get around the third party software being used.

 

Also the resources spent on a toolkit could be used for gameplay or story additions that benefit all platforms.

 

Even Bethesda had to placate the console users with getting the Skyrim dlc first (on the Xbox. The PS3 users were a different matter) because the PC users got a toolkit. Also the fact that PC users needed the toolkit because Bethesda did not optimize the PC version of the game to make good use of mouse, keyboard and the UI was a disaster. The UI specifically showed that it was design with console and controller in mind. I really believe that Bethesda released the toolkit for PC so that modders could finished the work that Bethesda should have done in the first place.

 

The difference with DAO is that Bioware own most of the tools when that game was made. DAI is using tools that neither Bioware nor EA owns. 

 

Bioware may be able to make the data files mod friendly. Right now it is a wait and see game.

[Splinter Cell 108]

 

Even Bethesda had to placate the console users with getting the Skyrim dlc first (on the Xbox. The PS3 users were a different matter) because the PC users got a toolkit. Also the fact that PC users needed the toolkit because Bethesda did not optimize the PC version of the game to make good use of mouse, keyboard and the UI was a disaster. The UI specifically showed that it was design with console and controller in mind. I really believe that Bethesda released the toolkit for PC so that modders could finished the work that Bethesda should have done in the first place.

 

Ah yes, that ridiculous conspiracy never ceases to amaze me. A common and foolish idea that Bethesda just releases unfinished games and adds modding so that the community can fix everything themselves. More ridiculous is the fact that the "360 got dlc first because of the toolkit". Where did this information come from exactly? I've never heard of it or seen it anywhere. Nobody knows why they got DLC first and the most common motive would have been that M$ paid for exclusivity, something that is not strange for them, they did it with GTA 4 and Call of Duty, why would it be so strange that they had done it with Skyrim too?

 

You people claim that others around these parts come up with the strangest of conspiracies with regards to BioWare, but the same is done by others around here. FIrst, I'm willing to bet that few people have a clue about how much work has to go into a game like Skyrim. 4 years, that's what it took to make Skyrim, or at least that is what it seems that it took. Making software is no easy task, anyone who thinks it is, should start programming with C++ or C# and then try to claim such a thing. These games are huge, they have a gigantic number of objects lying around everywhere, Skyrim alone has about 10,000 scripts. 

 

Bethesda is one of the decent companies out there, do they have problems, yes. They should definitely get rid of that fossil they call an engine, but still, they do much better than other companies, they allocate the appropriate time for games like these, instead of throwing them out into the wild to meet some deadline, even then that deadline still exists. I doubt they left things in a mess on purpose, most programs have bugs whether anyone likes it or not, and the bigger the program, the more bugs it is likely to have. In contrast to other companies Bethesda kept patching the game until it was finished with DLC. Modding is an extra, and a good one at that, because of it many of the problems Skyrim has on PC have been solved.

 

Like I said before, it is EA's loss, they're the ones that miss out on free patching. Skyrim is three years old, and modding hasn't slowed down in the slightest. Even a game as old as New Vegas still has very good mods keeping it alive. 

[superdeathdealer14]

Apparently DAI isn't going to be "mod friendly" as Frostbite 3 was touted around as being nigh impossible to mod (although that doesn't mean it can't be modded just extremely difficult to do so) and I think the Dev's have already said that they haven't planned to add a mod toolkit, so you can go ahead and try to mod it, it'll be a b**** to do so but you can try nonetheless.

[ShaggyWolf]

DA:I would be the perfect game to release a toolkit for. With the different races, plot choices, and the open world, it's going to have a lot of replay value, and some good mods would multiply that value for a sizeable number of people, I'd think.

 

It's a shame that Dice is so stingy with their tools. I think about how much money Epic Games has probably made from licensing the Unreal Engine (but otherwise releasing it for free), and I wonder why more developers wouldn't be trying to do the same.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Unless all the files on your hard drive relating to the game are locked and uneditable

That's not even possible.  Everything on your hard drive is editable, given a little effort.

[Beliar86]

There's just way too much ignorance in this thread to correct it all.  I think my head is going to explode.

[wolfhowwl]

There were some great mods for Origins.

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Hd8dXMgFIf4

 

Sure feels good to be PC master race.

[s17tabris]

It would be nice if it's gonna be mod friendly, but I doubt that, because of reasons already mentioned.

If it weren't for mods that removed annoyances, I wouldn't have finished DAO.

[CybAnt1]

That's not even possible.  Everything on your hard drive is editable, given a little effort.

 

That was, basically, my point. 

 

Yeah, the real problem is reverse engineering. All files can be edited (even if it takes some hacking), you just have to know what to change in them to create a desired effect. Like, say, what hex value to alter so that red hair changes to purple. Etc. 

 

As I've said a few times, I can't see why they'd stop using 2DA files for a lot of the things people might want to edit - such as level progression. They used 2DA files in the Infinity Engine and are using them now. I don't see why they'd stop just when because of moving to Frostbite. 

 

The other issue is, some things are "inside the engine" (the application itself) and not in external files. As but one example, I doubt you'll be able to "touch" or alter Frostbite's physics. The engine is "sealed" (more or less) and that's good because once you touch that stuff, the demons of crashiness and bugginess start haunting your game. 

[Navasha]

I would be very surprised if there are no mods.   Modding primarily is just replacing assets that the game engine is calling into use.   No one generally speaking mods the "engine" anyway.   They replace the assets in the external files that the engine is calling upon to get its information.    It will be the developer who decides how difficult or easy it is to have access to those external file archives.  

 

Having something like an "override" folder in which the game checks for newer versions of assets first makes modding much easier. 

 

I doubt we will get a toolkit which can be used to create new content, but you can still do an incredible amount of modding just by changing the existing content. 

[CybAnt1]

In the absence of an override folder, where you can put a new version of the file that "overrides" the other version of the file, you may have to (as the PC player) be extra judicious and make sure you make a backup copy of the file, before you edit it OR replace it with someone else's edited version. 

 

The advantage of an override folder is you don't have to worry about this ... especially if the mod in question causes crashes, bugs, or other problems. Because if it does, you just take it out of the override folder, and the game reverts to using the already existing, "regular," safe file. 

 

This is why I say even without a toolkit, which I doubt they're doing, they should at some point state whether the game will have an override folder. If it does, they're making it as "open" to (accessibly simple) modding as they can without "officially" supporting it otherwise. 

 

Of course, you can't affect anything in the engine/application itself without the source code, which as Bio is not doing this game open-source, we won't have. 

 

On one final point, we don't know if DA:I will have competitive/PvP multiplayer, let alone any multiplayer, so there's no reason to impose "mod-unfriendliness" for that reason. 

 

DA2 had no mod toolkit, but it had mods. As I keep pointing out, though, fewer mods than DA1. Of course, they were more or less using a lot of the same files, so people could translate knowledge from one game to the other. We will have to, as always, wait and see if the new Frostbite engine means little to no existing knowledge can translate to DA3. Some files, like 2DA's, could stay much the same. 

[Realmzmaster]

Ah yes, that ridiculous conspiracy never ceases to amaze me. A common and foolish idea that Bethesda just releases unfinished games and adds modding so that the community can fix everything themselves. More ridiculous is the fact that the "360 got dlc first because of the toolkit". Where did this information come from exactly? I've never heard of it or seen it anywhere. Nobody knows why they got DLC first and the most common motive would have been that M$ paid for exclusivity, something that is not strange for them, they did it with GTA 4 and Call of Duty, why would it be so strange that they had done it with Skyrim too?

 

You people claim that others around these parts come up with the strangest of conspiracies with regards to BioWare, but the same is done by others around here. FIrst, I'm willing to bet that few people have a clue about how much work has to go into a game like Skyrim. 4 years, that's what it took to make Skyrim, or at least that is what it seems that it took. Making software is no easy task, anyone who thinks it is, should start programming with C++ or C# and then try to claim such a thing. These games are huge, they have a gigantic number of objects lying around everywhere, Skyrim alone has about 10,000 scripts. 

 

Bethesda is one of the decent companies out there, do they have problems, yes. They should definitely get rid of that fossil they call an engine, but still, they do much better than other companies, they allocate the appropriate time for games like these, instead of throwing them out into the wild to meet some deadline, even then that deadline still exists. I doubt they left things in a mess on purpose, most programs have bugs whether anyone likes it or not, and the bigger the program, the more bugs it is likely to have. In contrast to other companies Bethesda kept patching the game until it was finished with DLC. Modding is an extra, and a good one at that, because of it many of the problems Skyrim has on PC have been solved.

 

Like I said before, it is EA's loss, they're the ones that miss out on free patching. Skyrim is three years old, and modding hasn't slowed down in the slightest. Even a game as old as New Vegas still has very good mods keeping it alive. 

I know exactly what goes into making a game like Skyrim. I programmed for over 30 years from COBOL to C++ to Java to Ruby. I know bad design when I see it. The PC UI was a design disaster of epic dimensions. Anytime the most downloaded mod from the Nexus for Skyrim on the PC is Skyrim UI that tells a great deal. The number of downloads almost matches the number of PC copies. That is a design problem! 

If they allocated the proper time the PS3 version would not have had the massive problems that it did. The PC UI would not be as bad as it is. The number of bugs in Bethesda games is laughable. I not into conspiracies. I simply know bad design and programming when I see it.

[Splinter Cell 108]

I know exactly what goes into making a game like Skyrim. I programmed for over 30 years from COBOL to C++ to Java to Ruby. I know bad design when I see it. The PC UI was a design disaster of epic dimensions. Anytime the most downloaded mod from the Nexus for Skyrim on the PC is Skyrim UI that tells a great deal. The number of downloads almost matches the number of PC copies. That is a design problem! 

If they allocated the proper time the PS3 version would not have had the massive problems that it did. The PC UI would not be as bad as it is. The number of bugs in Bethesda games is laughable. I not into conspiracies. I simply know bad design and programming when I see it.

 

No one's saying everything was perfect and I agree that the UI was less than perfect. That doesn't mean they intentionally left those things like that so mods could fix it. You know, if they wanted they could just take down every single mod out there, and get rid of them for good. I won't say that they were right in porting from consoles to PC because I hate that to be honest, it should be the other way around and it seems to me, that it would be easier that way as well. Either way those games are huge, they have so much stuff, it is almost unavoidable to have some of those problems. I hate the fact that people continue to perpetuate that myth, it's crap. Unlike Bethesda modders don't have deadlines, timetables, a budget and a lot of other stuff to worry about. They stuck around to patch the game until they stopped working on DLC, most other companies would've released 2-3 patches and called it quits. The Witcher 2 also has a terrible UI and that's a game that was made for PCs, but I bet you wouldn't say that was badly designed, now would you? It also had some of those pretty laughable bugs as well. 

 

Yeah sure the PS3 version was bad, but so was the the New Vegas version and while I agree that they should've done better with that or not have released anything on that front at all, the PS3's architecture is a constant problem for a lot of developers. 

 

This claim always comes up. If the game is so badly designed and has so many laughable bugs, then why do so many people play it? Because they don't know? I assure you there's a lot of programmers(not that it is absolutely necessary to be one to notice anything wrong with a game) that play this game, just go to the Nexus and you'll find them. Why did it sell so well on consoles and on PC? Is everyone just too stupid to see that the game is a mess or something? I think there's a reason for that success and bad design, whether its on PC or consoles would have hampered that. 

[drake heath]

BioWare can't nickle and dime you properly if there's good enough mod support.

 

So, at best we'll have bad mod support, like DA2.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I didn't mind the Skyrim UI at all.  I played on PC, and I modded the game quite a bit, but I did not mod the UI.  I didn't think it was necessary.

 

I know SkyUI was downloaded millions of times.  That's a triumph of the modding community.  But it overstates it to say that the default UI was unplayable.  I played with it just fine.

[Realmzmaster]

No one's saying everything was perfect and I agree that the UI was less than perfect. That doesn't mean they intentionally left those things like that so mods could fix it. You know, if they wanted they could just take down every single mod out there, and get rid of them for good. I won't say that they were right in porting from consoles to PC because I hate that to be honest, it should be the other way around and it seems to me, that it would be easier that way as well. Either way those games are huge, they have so much stuff, it is almost unavoidable to have some of those problems. I hate the fact that people continue to perpetuate that myth, it's crap. Unlike Bethesda modders don't have deadlines, timetables, a budget and a lot of other stuff to worry about. They stuck around to patch the game until they stopped working on DLC, most other companies would've released 2-3 patches and called it quits. The Witcher 2 also has a terrible UI and that's a game that was made for PCs, but I bet you wouldn't say that was badly designed, now would you? It also had some of those pretty laughable bugs as well. 

 

Yeah sure the PS3 version was bad, but so was the the New Vegas version and while I agree that they should've done better with that or not have released anything on that front at all, the PS3's architecture is a constant problem for a lot of developers. 

 

This claim always comes up. If the game is so badly designed and has so many laughable bugs, then why do so many people play it? Because they don't know? I assure you there's a lot of programmers(not that it is absolutely necessary to be one to notice anything wrong with a game) that play this game, just go to the Nexus and you'll find them. Why did it sell so well on consoles and on PC? Is everyone just too stupid to see that the game is a mess or something? I think there's a reason for that success and bad design, whether its on PC or consoles would have hampered that. 

I absolutely agree with you that the UI for Witcher 2 is very bad. I have seen much better UI for PC games. I call bad design where ever I see it. Bethesda had the same problem on the PS3 with Oblivion. You would think in that amount of time they would have solved the problems. If it an engine problem then it is time to update the engine or bury it.

[Realmzmaster]

BioWare can't nickle and dime you properly if there's good enough mod support.

 

So, at best we'll have bad mod support, like DA2.

Nickel and dime you how? Bioware is forcing gamers to buy their porducts now?

[Splinter Cell 108]

I absolutely agree with you that the UI for Witcher 2 is very bad. I have seen much better UI for PC games. I call bad design where ever I see it. Bethesda had the same problem on the PS3 with Oblivion. You would think in that amount of time they would have solved the problems. If it an engine problem then it is time to update the engine or bury it.

 

That's what everyone wants, to be honest, myself included. Most of the problems come from the engine itself. It's just too old, reinventing it, remaking it or whatever is just not worth it anymore, but they seem to think it is. They should just give the boot to gamebryo.