387 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

I ask because I'm fond of the occasional bit of nostalgia. I'd have liked to see Lothering, in DA2 but instead we got a barren  wasteland. It seems like the Bioware artists prefer to totally redesign areas from previous games rather than trying to keep a consistent layout between games (The ME23 Citadel case in point).

In fairness to Mass Effect, we were stuck in a building in the Wards in ME2. The Citadel did not make drastic changes to the general design, since the presidium kept the identical aesthetic in the background. We merely changed locations. As for Redcliffe, I'm very anxious to see what this location looks like when we play the game.

[9TailsFox]

This is not accurate. I would rewrite your dialogue as follows:

 

EA: How much time do you need for Inquisition, Bioware?

Bioware: Well, we are really trying to increase the scope of our next game, so I would say 4-5 years?

EA: You got it.

 

Bioware started drafting concepts for Inquisition shortly before the release of Origins in 2009, and have been working heavily on it for the last 3.5 years. That is not a rushed game. 

So this is why DA2 so rushed. They Made DA:I instead of making DA2.

[godModeAlpha]

This is not accurate. I would rewrite your dialogue as follows:

 

EA: How much time do you need for Inquisition, Bioware?

Bioware: Well, we are really trying to increase the scope of our next game, so I would say 4-5 years?

EA: You got it.

 

Bioware started drafting concepts for Inquisition shortly before the release of Origins in 2009, and have been working heavily on it for the last 3.5 years. That is not a rushed game. 

 

Funny how you missed DA2 in your last paragraph. Where does DA2 fit in?

 

How long do you think EA gave them to make DA2? They story was great, I liked it, but I don't need to go further than the overused female faces or the caves to see the impact EA had on that game.

 

I'm hoping the new EA CEO allows the devs to make games like they would like too.

[Blooddrunk1004]

This is not accurate. I would rewrite your dialogue as follows:

 

EA: How much time do you need for Inquisition, Bioware?

Bioware: Well, we are really trying to increase the scope of our next game, so I would say 4-5 years?

EA: You got it.

 

Bioware started drafting concepts for Inquisition shortly before the release of Origins in 2009, and have been working heavily on it for the last 3.5 years. That is not a rushed game. 

That doesn't excuse the fact that you completely ignored DA2. The difference is even if they have more extra time EA is still breathing down on Bioware's neck, they did the same thing with DA2, ME3 and BF4 (Dice would never release the game in such a broken state).

 

CDPR can take all the time they want because they are the ones who decide how long will Witcher 3 be in development, Bioware can't afford that.

[dutch_gamer]

CDPR can take all the time they want because they are the ones who decide how long will Witcher 3 be in development, Bioware can't afford that.

Even CDPR can't afford to delay any game of theirs indefinitely. At the end of the day resources will decide when they have to release.

People love to blame EA for early releases but too often it is also a huge mismanagement of development time asked for by subsidiaries of EA. A good amount of times EA has given extra time for game development but this is useless if the project has been mishandled early on.

It is also not as if CDPR releases their products without game breaking bugs. They mainly get away with it thanks to their free enhanced edtions. The Witcher 2 also had an entire act scrapped because of money woes and act 3 could have probably been a lot better too if they weren't forced to release too early. Heck, the main fear for the Witcher 3 is that CDPR may be overextending themselves again. I like CDPR but they don't release the perfect games either. I am of the opinion that both DA and the Witcher has sequels which weren't as good as the originals due to too short development times.

[Maraas]

The difference is even if they have more extra time EA is still breathing down on Bioware's neck, they did the same thing with DA2, ME3

Look, that's right: CDPR is a publisher in their own right, they do their thing at their own pace, but. They don't give themselves all the time in the world either, it's just impractical. Just look at TW2—it wasn't without flaws, and the endings were... well, there was a reason they made the EE.

And as for, say, ME3, it was delayed for a half a year, so it's not like EA's unreasonable, too.

[lady_v23]

I think it's more the art style than anything really

[Schreckstoff]

That doesn't excuse the fact that you completely ignored DA2. The difference is even if they have more extra time EA is still breathing down on Bioware's neck, they did the same thing with DA2, ME3 and BF4 (Dice would never release the game in such a broken state).

 

CDPR can take all the time they want because they are the ones who decide how long will Witcher 3 be in development, Bioware can't afford that.

It's not like DICE ever released a broken game before, oh yeah they do frequently but no it must be EA, EA also forced Bioware to make only 3 endings, EA steals candy from little children.

 

CDPR can't take all the time they want as they do have a publisher outside Poland and are making an RPG to boot which don't have the biggest profit margins out there. Also Witcher 2 is noticeably very short.

[ShaggyWolf]

I think both games look fantastic so far. Witcher 3 looks slightly better overall, but to me, the biggest edge Witcher 3 has over DA:I is facial animations. Comparing the E3 footage this year I found that Witcher 3's facial animations looked a lot more realistic and natural than DA:I's did.

 

I'm not terribly concerned about graphics though. I am hugely excited for both games and I plan to spend a ridiculous ammount of my life playing both of them

[Eternal Phoenix]

Depends...

 

 

 

 

The environments (graphically) look quite similar in these pictures above. Witcher 3 has the better coloring and shading but graphically they look similar in texture and how everything is rendered (at least from the distance but close up, Witcher 3 probably has the better texturing). The Witcher 3 certainly has the better graphics when it comes to character models and their faces.

 

On another note, I found these when Googling "The Witcher 3 graphics vs Dragon Age"...

 

 

 

"Walk around behind me if you want to ****." XD

[In Exile]

How come an small, obscure company from eastern europe repeatedly makes games that are bigger and prettier than videogame giant EA?

 

Surely they don't have more money.

 

A major company still has budgets and projected sales etc. when they price the cost of a game.And CDProjeckt is the biggest video game distributor in (Eastern) Europe, so they're by no means poor. They also pay salaries in Poland, which reduces their costs a fair amount. 

[Garrett Hawke]

Both games look great but witcher 3 looks better. But its not a big deal to me.

[tmp7704]

I'm not an artist, but I wouldn't be surprised if it has a lot to do with the framing of the shot.  Do we ever see Castle Redcliffe's exterior in any meaningful way than the courtyard?

Yes, we do



There's also concept art of how it's supposed to look without any technical limitations getting in the way

Spoiler

I admit, when I was watching the gameplay presentations from the recent E3, it was only like during the second of them when "Redcliffe Village" popped up on screen, that I realized this is supposed to be area from DAO. After all iconic redesigns of DA2 this lack of continuity isn't really very surprising, but it also feels rather pointless, not in the least because just how radically it alters/ignores pretty much everything from the previous game.

Anyway, on the actual topic. From what little I saw and read, TW3 won lot of points with these who saw it thanks to its huge, bustling city which allegedly feels like actual city, with lot of NPCs actively moving around, doing their things and reacting to all sort of things that can happen. When forced to compete with that kind of showing DAI made poor impression because with its tiny village apparently filled with static figures, it came across as very "old style". And not in the good sense, but rather "primitive and limited", similar to reactions DA2 evoked with its portrayal of Kirkwall.

The state of Kirkwall was blamed on the limitations of DA old engine, so hopefully in the finished state DAI can actually present something better in this regard. Otherwise I fear the opinions about it may be similarly unkind.

[Schreckstoff]

Anyway, on the actual topic. From what little I saw and read, TW3 won lot of points with these who saw it thanks to its huge, bustling city which allegedly feels like actual city, with lot of NPCs actively moving around, doing their things and reacting to all sort of things that can happen. When forced to compete with that kind of showing DAI made poor impression because with its tiny village apparently filled with static figures, it came across as very "old style". And not in the good sense, but rather "primitive and limited", similar to reactions DA2 evoked with its portrayal of Kirkwall.

Totally made a poor impression

 

[Beliar86]

Witcher 2's scrapped act wasn't due to over extending, it was due to throwing tons of money at a console version of w1, in which the 3rd party never actually got anything done. Almost bankrupted the company.

Even CDPR can't afford to delay any game of theirs indefinitely. At the end of the day resources will decide when they have to release.

People love to blame EA for early releases but too often it is also a huge mismanagement of development time asked for by subsidiaries of EA. A good amount of times EA has given extra time for game development but this is useless if the project has been mishandled early on.

It is also not as if CDPR releases their products without game breaking bugs. They mainly get away with it thanks to their free enhanced edtions. The Witcher 2 also had an entire act scrapped because of money woes and act 3 could have probably been a lot better too if they weren't forced to release too early. Heck, the main fear for the Witcher 3 is that CDPR may be overextending themselves again. I like CDPR but they don't release the perfect games either. I am of the opinion that both DA and the Witcher has sequels which weren't as good as the originals due to too short development times.

[tmp7704]

Totally made a poor impression

Since I can't squint that hard, does anything on that wall say anything about DAI making good impression in terms of graphics, in particular?

The only thing I can find with cursory google search is claims that TW3 got more awards than DAI at E3, which I don't think sounds very optimistic, or in disagreement with what I said.

[Aaleel]

Anyway, on the actual topic. From what little I saw and read, TW3 won lot of points with these who saw it thanks to its huge, bustling city which allegedly feels like actual city, with lot of NPCs actively moving around, doing their things and reacting to all sort of things that can happen. When forced to compete with that kind of showing DAI made poor impression because with its tiny village apparently filled with static figures, it came across as very "old style". And not in the good sense, but rather "primitive and limited", similar to reactions DA2 evoked with its portrayal of Kirkwall.

The state of Kirkwall was blamed on the limitations of DA old engine, so hopefully in the finished state DAI can actually present something better in this regard. Otherwise I fear the opinions about it may be similarly unkind.

 

I really, really hope they make the cities and villages lively or bustling.  Been a gripe of mine with DA games to this point.  It was glaring in DA2 because you spent the entire game in the one city, and it was dead and lifeless.

 

It's one of the things I'll be waiting to hear about as I decide whether or not to pick this up after release.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Since I can't squint that hard, does anything on that wall say anything about DAI making good impression in terms of graphics, in particular?

The only thing I can find with cursory google search is claims that TW3 got more awards than DAI at E3, which I don't think sounds very optimistic, or in disagreement with what I said.

 

No maybe not but you're talking as if Inquisition is a second rate B game made by the B team. Of course more people are excited for The Witcher 3 (especially after Dragon Age 2 not living up to Origins) but Inquisition has done well too in feedback received from the press.

[KC_Prototype]

DA:I graphics are like Witcher 2.

Naw DA2 looks better by far than TW2.

[KC_Prototype]

The WItcher 3 has the better graphics but only by a little. But I like DA way better because of a character creation, I chose who I want to be.

[KC_Prototype]

Depends...

 

 

 

 

The environments (graphically) look quite similar in these pictures above. Witcher 3 has the better coloring and shading but graphically they look similar in texture and how everything is rendered (at least from the distance but close up, Witcher 3 probably has the better texturing). The Witcher 3 certainly has the better graphics when it comes to character models and their faces.

 

On another note, I found these when Googling "The Witcher 3 graphics vs Dragon Age"...

 

 

 

"Walk around behind me if you want to ****." XD

Why does Hawke have huge breasts?

[tmp7704]

No maybe not but you're talking as if Inquisition is a second rate B game made by the B team.

I'm just saying what I read and saw on the streams during the E3 presentations. In some cases the praises for TW3 immersive city were literally contrasted with statements how DAI failed hard in this aspect, and specifically because TW3 made such strong impression in this regard.

Yes, DAI is not outright ugly game by any means and doing _some_ things poorly shouldn't be confused with the game being bad at everything it does; but still, apparently when sitting side by side with the other title, in some areas it did gave some people the "second rate game made by the B team" feel as you put it. It's unfortunate, but don't shoot the messenger(s).

[ghostzodd]

DAI has to deal with the weak console specs of last gen hardware, While Witcher 3 does not. Of course Witcher 3 will have better graphics, however I will enjoy both games regardless.

[tmp7704]

DAI has to deal with the weak console specs of last gen hardware, While Witcher 3 does not. Of course Witcher 3 will have better graphics, however I will enjoy both games regardless.

Games which actually target current gen hardware exclusively (the next Assassin's Creed e.g.) can push around as much as over ten thousands different characters at given time in complicated environments, all with path finding, collisions etc (according to their devs) If in contrast DAI can't manage to do even 20-30 moving ambient NPCs on the screen then I'd be reluctant to blame it so quickly on "having to deal with old consoles" -- despite what the marketing departments of console makers might want to make you think now the "weak specs of old gen consoles" were good enough to handle massive, decently populated cities with pretty good graphics. As evidenced by games released in the last few years that run on these consoles and do exactly that.

[TurretSyndrome]

I really, really hope they make the cities and villages lively or bustling.  Been a gripe of mine with DA games to this point.  It was glaring in DA2 because you spent the entire game in the one city, and it was dead and lifeless.

 

It's one of the things I'll be waiting to hear about as I decide whether or not to pick this up after release.

 

I think David Gaider said some time ago that DA:I will not have those "bustling" cities we're looking for. I mean, pay attention to the Redcliffe part of the E3 demo, there seem to be a few NPCs gossiping but I think that's it.

 

If you want that kind of immersive environments, I suggest looking towards Witcher 3 and Assassin's Creed: Unity(with it's 500 NPCs or so on-screen).