19127 réponses à ce sujet

[jnd0e]

So I have checked i know nothing about my computers, but i found out that i have directx 30 does this makes my game run bad?

Are you a time traveler?

[Zinho73]

Yeah, As i've said before. The cheat engine fix isn't perfect. But at least it proves that it should be more then possible for Bioware themselves to fix the tactical camera and make it in to something that is actually usable. We just have to wait and see whether or not they want to fix it.

Fixing the tactical camera without fixing the tactical combat is actually meaningless. We need to queue orders and the characters should stop teleporting and reseting the orders given. Otherwise we will just see more clearly how bad it is. 

[Chaos17]

Look at this Bioware... that is how the tactical camera should be ! 

 

If someone could do it with the Cheat Engine, you sure as hell could have done it. But no, you surely didn't take the time to add this to the PC version cause you know that wouldn't have work on consoles ! 

 

SO instead, you delivered a crappy tac cam to fit your crappy engine, probably thinking that PC gamers would not see the trick...

 

Yeah well, guess what, we did ! And there's 130+ pages of unhappy players telling you about it... 

 

THAT and other more critical bugs and design fault... 

 

But hey, who are we to DARE critisize you choices ? you surely know better than the thousands fans of your previous works that you have deceived

They probably locked it because of the interiors.

So the cheat doesn't work in indoor, the camera go back by default when you enter a house for example.

[Elfyoth]

Seriously i am not trolling, please somone?

[Elfyoth]

No my mistake, checked again, weird i was sure..

[Fast Jimmy]

As this thread approaches 3300 posts, I was curious about BioWare's responsiveness beyond a handwaved, 'Yes, we're working on it, no we're not saying anything else until it's done.' The inclusion of a button at the top to filter BioWare-only replies was useful in this regard.

As of this post, only 41 replies of the nearly 3300 were from BioWare. Of these 41 replies, 35 were from the QA analyst, Allan Schumacher, who is doing this informally and on his own time. (See this post -- "My perspectives were asked for more because I interact with the community on my own time a fair bit and can help collate some of the feedback.")

First off, that's some serious dedication to serving the players, Allan. BioWare ought to give you a bonus, a pay bump, or oral sex -- something for going above and beyond what your duties likely entail. Particularly when you're up late doing this off-hours.

Secondly, it seems like a staggeringly inept oversight to not have someone whose sole purpose is to manage expectations and be the community interface on behalf of the company. Not a dev, not a QA person, not a project manager, but a formal BioWare voice. Yes, devs and QA will need to ask direct questions to players from time to time to gather the information needed to do their jobs correctly, but in a modern corporation whose main products necessarily involve dealing with thousands, or even millions, of individuals served by forums hosted by BioWare, how can they not have a community manager? Call this position what you will, but the fact that 85% of the BioWare's (minimal) response has so far (35 of 41 posts) has been done informally and that they've been using him as a source on the sentiments for their own meetings (recall: "My perspectives were asked for more because I interact with the community on my own time a fair bit and can help collate some of the feedback.") doesn't suggest that they take their own forums seriously. Think about it: if Allan Schumacher decided he'd prefer to catch up on his sleep at 3:00am instead of reading this thread BioWare wouldn't have collated our concerns.

Am I wrong? Is there, in fact, a community manager? If so, where is (s)he?

There were previously two Community Managers, Chris Priestly and Jessica Merizan. Chris worked the forums and Jessica handled the live events and other social media like the DragonAge Twitter account. Chris left Bioware not long after the ME3 ending disaster and some personal less-than-PC comments on his own Twitter account, totally unrelated to Bioware.

Jessica was mildly involved in the forums when they moved to their new "Bioware Forum" format, but has largely been as silent as she had been in the past.

As is typical Bioware fashion, most of their comments and responses can be found on Twitter. Every single person in this thread would be more likely to get a response by Tweeting Mark Darrah, Mike Laidlaw, Aaryn Flynn and/or the DA Twitter account directly than they ever would posting here on this forum.

[The Natoorat]

Man, I wish I had directx 30, I'm stuck on 11, but that's ok.

Now, back to subject. It's Sunday. Do not expect anything from BW today. Monday evening maybe? More like Tuesday, I guess. On the other hand on Tuesday SWTOR launches 3.0 so I guess I will not be here then

[Elfyoth]

dammn! I hope that the incoming patch will fix the problem with the computer resoulution at least I have this prob, I run the game really bad really bad.... And its a good pc. 

[Vita Brevis]

Do not expect anything from BW at all, that's more like it. More realistic.

[Elfyoth]

@Vita Brevis  I do expect things from bioware, I trust them, maybe they have failed this time but I belive that they will fix these current problems why I have the feeling I sould like Cassandra in this post??? 

[Joe-Poe]

The thing I, and apparently a lot of people simply do not understand is why you (Bioware) feel the need to continually reinvent the wheel? DAO was well received on the PC, having an excellent inventory management system, controls that where intuitive for M+KB users, a tactical camera that allowed you to view the battlefield and a tactics screen that allowed, well, tactics. Rather than taking from that game those things that worked and incorporating them in to your next releases, you throw them out the window and simplify everything to the point of insensibility. Stop doing it, we're not imbecilic, we can get to grips with complex systems. Keep and build upon what's good, throw what's bad on the scrap heap rather than the other way around. As things stand DA:I feels like it has more in common with Street Fighter than it does with DA:O.

Yep. But then DAO was designed and made for the PC and then ported to the consoles....were as bio  made DAI for console and then very poorly ported to PC

[glosoli]

Well said! Let's all take a deep breath and relax a bit.

 

It's been almost 10 days and we still do not know what's on the table and when can we expect a patch. How is that fair? I do not know about you but I would lose my job if I act like that  because it looks shady... Like they do not know what they are doing or they do not have anything to share.

 

If other companies can deliver fixes in a short period, I expect no less from a company like EA and Bioware's calibre.

[rupok93]

modders are doing their work for them it seems. The isometric hack getting updated and they trying to fix any issues.

[Elfyoth]

@glosoil   I think its being delayed becouse of Nivida issues, I think they want to try to fix as many problems as they can in one patch 

[rupok93]

@glosoil   I think its being delayed becouse of Nivida issues, I think they want to try to fix as many problems as they can in one patch 

That NEVER works out because the patch will introduce new issues and then we have to wait weeks more to get that fixed. I don't understand why companies do this. Releasing small patches in smaller times frames allows for better isolation of smaller issues.

[glosoli]

@glosoil   I think its being delayed becouse of Nivida issues, I think they want to try to fix as many problems as they can in one patch 

 

Whatever the reason is, I know it's for improving the current status of the game. I'm sure they are working hard. What worries me: there is no info on an estimated date or fixes on the table. It's very quiet.

[rupok93]

Whatever the reason is, I know it's for improving the current status of the game. I'm sure they are working hard. What worries me: there is no info on an estimated date or fixes on the table. It's very quiet.

 

Ya sure they are working hard just like they gave two shits about pc controls before the game launched by "working hard".

 

The game released, they got their money, they don't care.

[jnd0e]

I wish they can fix CTD`s. So, i don't know, i could play the game more than 5 minutes at a time

[tpho99]

I wish they can fix CTD`s. So, i don't know, i could play the game more than 5 minutes at a time

 

We might, or might not, look into that. Maybe some time in the near future. Or maybe not. We might care, and we might not. One thing is certain, you won't know what is coming, and when.

 

 - Bioware

[Fire Snake]

The point is that there is a lot more to game design for a platform that the control scheme. 

 

Agreed. There is also a lot more to game design than taking advantage of the power and hardware of a system.

 

The logic doesn't work backwards because consoles can't support a controller but PC can. If consoles somehow had KBM, just because the game would have a KBM UI wouldn't make the PC a lead platform.

TW2 is clearly designed around the PC. The engine is made to take advantage of the power and hardware of the PC.

 

So you do not consider the keyboard&mouse to be a defining characteristic of the PC?

 

It seems arbitrary to define TW2 as a PC-lead game in development based solely on engine optimisation while ignoring other aspects such as the GUI, control system and game mechanics. I would say it is at least arguable whether TW2 is a PC-lead game or not, but certainly not ridiculous to claim either.

 

The essence of our disagreement appears to be our respective definitions of what it means to be a PC-lead game in development. You appear to give more weight to engine optimisation, whereas I give more weight to control system, unless I mistake you?

 

Personally, for me to consider a game PC-lead it means (but not exclusive to) designing for the native controls of that system, not to mention that this will also tend to affect other key aspects of the game such as the GUI and gameplay. I am no game designer, however it seems to me that the control scheme tends to have a far greater impact on overall gameplay and game design than engine optimisation does. I am wiling to concede that it may be possible to focus on many aspects of optimisation for the PC without necessarily including the keyboard & mouse, because taken as a whole the game might still be considered PC lead despite this (I would not say this is the case for DA:I, nor TW2). However, I would consider this a failure of design, as I assume the ideal goal of multi-platform game development should be to optimise for each platform, without compromises between competing requirements that results in unsatisfactory implementation in one or all platforms. Sure, but compromises are the reality of game design you might say, quite rightly. But then of what worth is being PC-lead as a meaningful statement if it results in sub-optimal or poor implementation for that system? Far better to not make such a claim at all and simply state one is developing for multi-platforms, lest it appear being PC-lead is in fact a bad thing for the PC version.

 

If DA:I was truly PC-lead by intention [or insert your own definition here] then it was an abysmal failure at doing so to the point of farce (unless one doesn't consider the keyboard&mouse as a defining characteristic of the PC).

[Julia Luna]

I guess the point I was attempting to make was that most of the issues I'm having with DAI have nothing to do with the tactical camera, but rather the changed default input behaviour and control scheme of this new action mode. Transitioning between two distinctly different modes that use completely different rules and input behaviours is jarring and unwieldy for me, at least while using a keyboard and mouse.

I know most people like tactical camera and stuff but I didn't even use it, there was no need to. Exceptions are when I wanted to do something cool, just because it was cool, like casting storm of the century in DAO in a room full of enemies. No, there was no need to, but sometimes I did.

 

Aw yeah, well, Flemeth and High Dragon at low levels, but I quit masochist way of life long time ago.

 

DA2 too. there was no need to use it but sometimes I used to do five digits damage with my assassinate and stuff, or was it six? Can't remember

 

Thing is that most of the time I just played it like Inquisition but without this stupid action combat

[Fire Snake]

Oh, I quite agree with P&P on that EA/Bioware doesn't manage things well.

 

But my point would be that it's just another evidence of that there is something seriously sick in their company culture. And we kinda already know that. It's been obvious for a long time. They don't manage anything well. Nothing.

 

But I don't think things can change during these events. They can't, because the company structures makes it impossible. Bioware persons are probably doing what they can, and Allan has been most courageous, something I believe P&P also recognizes.

 

So in my mind, this thread is not helped by speculations about EA stock. That's just a sort of anger. About venting a justified anger, and engaging in revenge-fantasies, just because one feels so powerless.

 

We are powerless... 

 

I'm not so sure that speculations about EA stock are unhelpful, though I agree that they may also have the unfortunate affect of fuelling hysteric reaction. I suppose the goal (or rather one of the goals) of posting them was to hopefully remind any Bioware/EA staff who may see it that some of their marketing methods may actually backfire on them.

 

I also disagree that we are completely powerless, which I believe is what PnP is trying to say.

 

In any event. I found PnP's EA speculation to be amusing and interesting, though I didn't take it particularly seriously. I am interested to see how DA:I performs and if there is a correlation with EA's stock performance (whatever the results may be) and I'd say that such speculation is certainly relevant to the interests of this thread.

 

"... The anger is justified. But one should try to avoid it from spiraling into a self-amplifying rage. Some posters here blow on the flames and pour on more gasoline, to fuel each others anger. It's a bit unnecessary, I think.

Much is wrong here. But we can say that without looking for details to exaggerate or twist with hyperbolic semantics.

 

Let's focus on the details of the issues instead."

 

 

This.

[RolePlayer]

Agreed. There is also a lot more to game design than taking advantage of the power and hardware of a system.

 

 

So you do not consider the keyboard&mouse to be a defining characteristic of the PC?

 

It seems arbitrary to define TW2 as a PC-lead game in development based solely on engine optimisation while ignoring other aspects such as the GUI, control system and game mechanics. I would say it is at least arguable whether TW2 is a PC-lead game or not, but certainly not ridiculous to claim either.

 

The essence of our disagreement appears to be our respective definitions of what it means to be a PC-lead game in development. You appear to give more weight to engine optimisation, whereas I give more weight to control system, unless I mistake you?

 

Personally, for me to consider a game PC-lead it means (but not exclusive to) designing for the native controls of that system, not to mention that this will also tend to affect other key aspects of the game such as the GUI and gameplay. I am no game designer, however it seems to me that the control scheme tends to have a far greater impact on overall gameplay and game design than engine optimisation does. I am wiling to concede that it may be possible to focus on many aspects of optimisation for the PC without necessarily including the keyboard & mouse, because taken as a whole the game might still be considered PC lead despite this (I would not say this is the case for DA:I, nor TW2). However, I would consider this a failure of design, as I assume the ideal goal of multi-platform game development should be to optimise for each platform, without compromises between competing requirements that results in unsatisfactory implementation in one or all platforms. Sure, but compromises are the reality of game design you might say, quite rightly. But then of what worth is being PC-lead as a meaningful statement if it results in sub-optimal or poor implementation for that system? Far better to not make such a claim at all and simply state one is developing for multi-platforms, lest it appear being PC-lead is in fact a bad thing for the PC version.

 

If DA:I was truly PC-lead by intention [or insert your own definition here] then it was an abysmal failure at doing so to the point of farce (unless one doesn't consider the keyboard&mouse as a defining characteristic of the PC).

 

Of course you are correct that by ordinary meaning the product, "PC" , means a product including a keyboard and mouse (or mousepad). Just check the marketplace. A "PC" (as oppsoed to PC component) will inevitably include keyboard and mouse (or mousepad). Product with no keyboard and mouse is known as "tablet".

 

As to gamepad, again check the marketplace. A gamepad is an accessory; plain and simple. You buy a "PC", you're not going to receive a gamepad as a standard component. The gamepad (if available) will be available only as an accessory.

 

So optimized for PC implicitly means optimized for keyboard and mouse unless explicitly stated otherwise. There's just no reasonable argument otherwise.

[Shelled]

Did they mention the patch would be delayed or give any eta on when its coming?

[ergie]

Not.at.all