The quote is vague. When he says aesthetic, it could mean art style.
In my experience, when people say aesthetic, it does tend to most often refer to the overall visual design of something. People could interpret it to mean the graphics, but I've most often seen it used in reference to design.
Sigh, I have talked about this quite lot but here is one:
http://www.vg247.com...d-gen-consoles/
"From a graphical perspective the gen 4 versions look more dense, but in terms of the aesthetic of the game they should be the same across platforms.”
Before release Bioware refused to show anything of DAI on last gen consoles despite pleas although they covered all other platforms multiple times. Only thing they gave about last gen was that the game won't be new gen quality but they maximized last gen's potential and gave same experience. This would be truth if DAI was slight improvement from DA2 and ME3 to really maximize last gen consoles potential but instead it's just poor port that doesn't stand up to other BW games on last gen consoles in comparisation.
I don't follow the development of many games. Do other developers typically show lower quality gameplay?
I just don't see how this isn't a step up from DA2.
Lower quality gameplay? They should show game for all platforms instead of keeping some buyers in the dark and making them buy pig in a poke.
How it's exactly step up? Some textures are in same level, some little better. Tree-textures are cringe-worthy, they look 2D. Hair texture is buggy. Priests ears keep clipping through his hood (that's just sloppy).
Well those aren't biggest problem though. Stability issues are worst including crashing, lagging, black screens, corrupted saves, voice bugs, those aren't nice gameplay-wise.
Also when textures don't load they don't look like in that video. Some players have more than others that problem. When textures don't load they look like this:
Lower quality gameplay? They should show game for all platforms instead of keeping some buyers in the dark and making them buy pig in a poke.
How it's exactly step up? Some textures are in same level, some little better. Tree-textures are cringe-worthy, they look 2D. Hair texture is buggy. Priests ears keep clipping through his hood (that's just sloppy).
Well those aren't biggest problem though. Stability issues are worst including crashing, lagging, black screens, corrupted saves, voice bugs, those aren't nice gameplay-wise.
Also when textures don't load they don't look like in that video. Some players have more than others that problem. When textures don't load they look like this:
*snip*
Wow! Poor Dorian. A lot of the performance issues being mentioned are on other platforms besides just the older consoles and are just general performance issues for the game overall. The texture thing looks annoying, though....hilarious to see, but I'm sure it's annoying when playing. I know that the hair is a problem on lower spec PCs, too, so that's probably to do with the power needed for rendering. I've encountered glitches but nothing game breaking, mostly ranging from funny to minor annoyance (on PS4). I haven't had any corrupted saves, but I have had the game freeze up and crash or just fail to load (get stuck on loading screen or in some kind of weird semi-load state) a few times.
When you consider how much more Inquisition is doing than any other Dragon Age game, It's understandable that the development team would have to make many concessions that they normally wouldn't have to make if it were a game being designed from the ground up for last-gen consoles. Still, there is no denying that Dragon Age 2 is both a better looking and better performing game than it's sequel on last-gen machines. The amount of screen tearing and frame rate drops in the Xbox 360 footage, combined with most sliders appearing to be set to Low on just about everything, really makes me feel bad for anyone who has to experience the game like this.I just don't see how this isn't a step up from DA2
So instead they will make people pay 70 euros for game that doesn't work properly with false marketing by saying nothing is missing (*cough scars, NPC's, textures.. cough*) and the game will give same aesthetic experience. Yep, sounds legit to me.
If they didn't trick me into thinking PS3 version would play and be at least DA2 quality, then I would have saved money for PS4 instead of reserving copy of PS3 version.
Then the joke's on you, I'm afraid. If you choose to interpret what they said as 'it's entirely the same as the current gen consoles' when there's almost a decade worth of advancement between the two gens, then you can't justifiably claim you were mislead.
Common sense should have told what you needed to know there. Unless, of course, you've taken every other example of marketing hype at face value, and you're still waiting for that payoff from the King of Nigeria that you were promised via email a few years ago?
Common sense told me that when game company makes game it's usually better or same graphic and performance-wise than their last game in same platform, not worse. If you look at screenshots just above in your post (in spoiler tags) it's pretty obvious that DAI looks like **** compared to DA2's graphical quality.
Common sense told me that when game company makes game it's usually better or same graphic and performance-wise than their last game in same platform, not worse. If you look at screenshots just above in your post (in spoiler tags) it's pretty obvious that DAI looks like **** compared to DA2's graphical quality.
Look at those environments behind those characters. DAI does not spend as large part of its graphical budget on four characters (then again, even default Hawke looks different when not using the dialogue camera).
I dont buy the engine limitations. I can run skyrim on a mac notebook. Graphic card is awful and processor is weak but graphics look as good as 360
It is an awful port and should have been scrapped.
That's because Skyrim was developed and optimized to run on a system with an awful GPU and a weak processor. Inquisition was not.
Plus DAI looks better than Skyrim. What kind of argument is that anyway...Skyrim is from 2011. Of course it looked and played good on a 360. But if I use mods and beef the visuals up the 360 wouldn't be able to even start it probably. The irony would be that modded Skyrim on PC would look awesome while unmoded Skyrim on XBox360 would look awful - as is now the case with DAI, just without mods involved. 
Mods don't work on 360. And a Skyrim with 2k texture mods (4k also available, a ton of script mods and a killer ENB will bring even a high-end pc to it's limits. A 360 couldn't possibly run it. Or did I miss science inventing magic?
Oh and if you "blindly followed" them, who's at fault? Them for delivering a bad port or you who bought on day one? Tell me...did you preorder? 
Common sense told me that when game company makes game it's usually better or same graphic and performance-wise than their last game in same platform, not worse. If you look at screenshots just above in your post (in spoiler tags) it's pretty obvious that DAI looks like **** compared to DA2's graphical quality.
Mods don't work on 360. And a Skyrim with 2k texture mods (4k also available, a ton of script mods and a killer ENB will bring even a high-end pc to it's limits. A 360 couldn't possibly run it. Or did I miss science inventing magic?
Oh and if you "blindly followed" them, who's at fault? Them for delivering a bad port or you who bought on day one? Tell me...did you preorder?
I think you can mod Skyrim on the xbox to the extent that you could with ME2 and 3 (so, extract the save, fiddle with numbers or maybe plot flags, and shove it back in).
You know what though? A heavily graphically modded Skyrim would probably run much better if it wasn't butting up against the memory limits imposed by it's nature as a 32bit program. Some of the workarounds the community has devised for this might as well be magic.
An unmodded Skyrim on ultra runs worse than Inquisition on High/ultra on my decent computer.
Then I suggest you gain a nominal grasp of software development. Expecting a game to look better on ancient hardware than its predecessor simply because it came later is simply being silly. If it's running on an engine and build that needed to be toned down to work on a relic then there is no sensible reason to make this assumption.
Are people really this naive? I don't expect everyone on here to be software devs but do people honestly have so little clue about what is actually going on inside their consoles?
When game is developed to be cross-gen game I except it to work well on everything developer is selling it to. It's not customers job to be some technological gods that can predict will certain engine run on their system when developers say yes and that there won't be problems.
If Bioware wants to look game that's worse than DA2 they should have just have balls to say it to customers. Yes we picked engine that won't run properly on your system and it will look like crap but we still want sales and money. Some honesty would be appreciated over false marketing.
The idea that marketers might tell you the truth about anything is the most far-fetched notion on the forum.
Probably they'd spin it as a "feature" - it encourages you to update your tech!
When game is developed to be cross-gen game I except it to work well on everything developer is selling it to. It's not customers job to be some technological gods that can predict will certain engine run on their system when developers say yes and that there won't be problems.
Retour en haut
