20 réponses à ce sujet

[Fardreamer]

For those of you that followed DA:I's development for several years, you will probably remember that a year before release, the devs released a gameplay video of Red Templars attacking a village and one of your captured Keeps. I think it was Crestwood. In the video you had a timer, and had to decide to send troops too secure the keep or village, and then you could decide if you would go save the village or keep first. The devs decided to save the keep and the village was destroyed. Varric was pretty beat up over it. But they stated it was possible to save both if you made the right decisions and moved quickly enough. Either way, from that point on, the village was destroyed. The world was changed.

You could also customize keeps to build the kind of Inquistion you wanted, espionage, forces, or diplomacy. We were told this would affect how you could solve problems and the different courses you could take in the game.

All of that was thrown out, and as a result we were given a game where our choices don't matter. Nothing we do in the game changes the world. There was no good/bad/ideal path to follow to make the game interesting. There's currently no need to replay the game.

I'm not sure what happened. But this dumbed down version of the game we were given is not what the devs originally intended.

[Bioware-Critic]

For those of you that followed DA:I's development for several years, you will probably remember that a year before release, the devs released a gameplay video of Red Templars attacking a village and one of your captured Keeps. I think it was Crestwood. In the video you had a timer, and had to decide to send troops too secure the keep or village, and then you could decide if you would go save the village or keep first. The devs decided to save the keep and the village was destroyed. Varric was pretty beat up over it. But they stated it was possible to save both if you made the right decisions and moved quickly enough. Either way, from that point on, the village was destroyed. The world was changed.

You could also customize keeps to build the kind of Inquistion you wanted, espionage, forces, or diplomacy. We were told this would affect how you could solve problems and the different courses you could take in the game.

All of that was thrown out, and as a result we were given a game where our choices don't matter. Nothing we do in the game changes the world. There was no good/bad/ideal path to follow to make the game interesting. There's currently no need to replay the game.

I'm not sure what happened. But this dumbed down version of the game we were given is not what the devs originally intended.

 

Yes! And they also removed the annotations from the conversation options.

Which, to me, is enormously frustrating because I was very much looking forward to using these annotations EVERY TIME!

(The annotations were shown in the panel where they showed the Crestwood content to us.)

 

"$%(%&/(=/()==§$%/$&/()

[Invisible Man]

I also heard at some point it was originally designed to be an mmo, I'm glad they didn't go that direction, though I also wish they did take the game to a place beyond where it actually went in the end.

[DanteYoda]

Probably didn't work well on Consoles..

[Dubya75]

Probably didn't work well on Consoles..

 

This. 

 

Try ramming all that content into a last-gen console - not going to happen. 

 

Bioware made 2 very poor decisions with DAI that severely damaged the quality of the game:

 

1 - Multiplayer

 

2 - Including last-gen consoles

 

3 - Frostbite 3 (OK, this was imposed by EA so not really a Bioware choice, but it plays a big role)

[Voodoo Dancer]

my thought too , the game in that video looked amazing , I doubt they could get it all on ps3 an 360

[Rawgrim]

That was the game I paid for. The devs, even just a few days before release, were still talking about the Crestwood bit. As if it was in the game. I know, I asked one of them about it right on these boards. Got a good explanation about how I could customize captured keeps and the whole lot.

[metatheurgist]

There was also supposed to be mud slowing movement. Setting fire to ships with grenades to deny the Templars assets. Dynamically destroying the environment for combat advantage. Meaningful dialogue based on class. Forts based on Forces, Economics and Spying. Customizable Inquisition troops. Oh, yeah - a pc game designed for PC.

[fchopin]

Is there a link for the video as I avoided some of them for spoiler reasons.

[Bioware-Critic]

Probably didn't work well on Consoles..

WRONG!

 

This. 

 

Try ramming all that content into a last-gen console - not going to happen. 

 

Bioware made 2 very poor decisions with DAI that severely damaged the quality of the game:

 

1 - Multiplayer

 

2 - Including last-gen consoles

 

3 - Frostbite 3 (OK, this was imposed by EA so not really a Bioware choice, but it plays a big role)

 

You two are both wrong! It has nothing to do with old consoles.

 

What they throw out of the window for old consoles are graphics quality and animations and so on ...

 

Everything else that gets dumbed down and cut out is a conscious design-choice from the developers and the publishers in genereal pure and simple! And the download size for next-gen consoles of DA:I is 41GB on PS4. Do you honestly want to tell me that this is small or what? GTFOH ... Or do you want to tell me that every PC gamer has the same specs in his PC than the PS4 has? It has 8GB of GDDR5 Ram and probably gives the developers about 5GB for free usage in combination with an octa-core processor! Many PC enthusiasts have that much and even 3 times as much or whatever. But it is by far not something that can be taken into consideration when developers cater to a PC-only-market! They would have to make a million exceptions for much lower hardware specs (let alone all the drivers / f*uck!) on the PC-gamer-crowd side of things! At least the tech of consoles is unified ...

Well, I guess all I am trying to say is: You are wrong and you are wrong   Well, jokes aside ...

The truth is: This topic is not as black and white as you might like and first and foremost, it is not as simple as you think. Games are always produced/developed on a PC, without any exceptions to that fact, and then ported to other platforms. There is absolutely NO reason - I repeat: NO reason - for the developers to trash the quality of the PC-release other than their lack of caring for the PC-market! But these decisions have nothing to do with hardware differences on different platforms! None whatsoever at all ...

 

It is for one reason alone: To go after the mass market! Which always fails and never pays of by raising the sales numbers. One would think at some point publishers would learn to respect the fact that: RPG gamers buy RPG's and not the Candy-Crush-crowd!

But they seem to not care about facts at all!

 

(And by the way, when devs cut something out for old consoles - they cut it out. It does not impact next-gen consoles or PC's at all ...)

[Madrict]

This game should never have been made for ps3 or 360. Last gen consoles held it back

[hostaman]

The benefit of hindsight.

 

When they went for it with a game across five platforms, they couldn't have known just how popular xbone and PS4 would be. The 360 and especially the PS3 were nowhere near as popular so soon after launch.

[Hathur]

Is there a link for the video as I avoided some of them for spoiler reasons.

 

Right here (recorded with a camera so not super pretty, but the game they're showing here has amazing features that never made it into the actual game it seems)

 

[ShadowWolf471]

 

What they throw out of the window for old consoles are graphics quality and animations and so on ...

 

Everything else that gets dumbed down and cut out is a conscious design-choice from the developers and the publishers in genereal pure and simple! And the download size for next-gen consoles of DA:I is 41GB on PS4. Do you honestly want to tell me that this is small or what? GTFOH ... Or do you want to tell me that every PC gamer has the same specs in his PC than the PS4 has? It has 8GB of GDDR5 Ram and probably gives the developers about 5GB for free usage in combination with an octa-core processor! Many PC enthusiasts have that much and even 3 times as much or whatever. But it is by far not something that can be taken into consideration when developers cater to a PC-only-market! They would have to make a million exceptions for much lower hardware specs (let alone all the drivers / f*uck!) on the PC-gamer-crowd side of things! At least the tech of consoles is unified ...

[...]

(And by the way, when devs cut something out for old consoles - they cut it out. It does not impact next-gen consoles or PC's at all ...)

 

To be clear, I'm going to refer to PS3/360 as "last gen" and PS4/XB1 as "current gen," since now they are out, it is no longer "next-gen".

 

As for your first statement, tell that to Shadow of Mordor. The entire Nemesis system didn't make it into last gen consoles because they couldn't process that degree of information. That has nothing to do with graphics *or* animations, sorry bud.

 

Also, the consensus is that it content was cut for last gen consoles and you're citing current gen consoles. Download size has nothing to do with it either, but that's a moot point. The point people are making is, these features probably did not process well, or persist the way they wanted to, when added to the last gen consoles, so IT IS LIKELY they were cut for their current-Gen and PC counterparts.

 

As for your last statement... That's simply not true. Developers cut things all the time to maintain a consistent game experience across platforms. Look at Watch_Dogs. They cut content, both graphical and otherwise, that ran on PCs from E3 2012 because it wouldn't run on current-gen (PS4/XB1) consoles. Shadow of Mordor is one of the few cases where the PC/Current Gen versions got the better end of the stick, and stuff was cut for the last gen that didn't run on them. GTAV was developed in reverse, with last gen first and current gen getting improvements later.

[Dubya75]

To be clear, I'm going to refer to PS3/360 as "last gen" and PS4/XB1 as "current gen," since now they are out, it is no longer "next-gen".

 

As for your first statement, tell that to Shadow of Mordor. The entire Nemesis system didn't make it into last gen consoles because they couldn't process that degree of information. That has nothing to do with graphics *or* animations, sorry bud.

 

Also, the consensus is that it content was cut for last gen consoles and you're citing current gen consoles. Download size has nothing to do with it either, but that's a moot point. The point people are making is, these features probably did not process well, or persist the way they wanted to, when added to the last gen consoles, so IT IS LIKELY they were cut for their current-Gen and PC counterparts.

 

As for your last statement... That's simply not true. Developers cut things all the time to maintain a consistent game experience across platforms. Look at Watch_Dogs. They cut content, both graphical and otherwise, that ran on PCs from E3 2012 because it wouldn't run on current-gen (PS4/XB1) consoles. Shadow of Mordor is one of the few cases where the PC/Current Gen versions got the better end of the stick, and stuff was cut for the last gen that didn't run on them. GTAV was developed in reverse, with last gen first and current gen getting improvements later.

 

Thank you.

 

Some people are so quick to shout "YOU ARE WRONG!" because they want to be right. I couldn't find time in my oh so busy schedule to entertain that post, so thanks for doing it in my stead

[berelinde]

It's also possible that the information was always intended to generate interest and discussion without revealing anything that would actually wind up in the game. I hesitate to use the phrase bait-and-switch, but kinda. Mind you, I don't mind. Timered missions of any kind give me panic attacks, so I'm just as happy they are few and far between.

 

Of course, it's also possible that it really was intended to be in the game, but they cut it for time considerations. It happens. Something's great, but it's bugged, and there's no more time to get it working. So it gets cut. 

 

In a way, the keeps are specialized... but not at the player's discretion. The keep in Crestwood is for espionage, Griffon Wing Keep is for forces, and the EdL keep is for trade. About the only indication of that is the fact that you usually use those advisors to complete keep-related operations and that the CIC of each keep is under a particular advisor's direction. Rylen is Cullen's man and has been since the start of the game. You hear him mentioned several times as the author of operation replies and in war table banter. The baron (forget his name) mentions that he's an old friend of Josephine's family, and the Crestwood keep is filled to bursting with spies. You just don't get to choose which is which.

[Bountron]

Okay from this point of view it makes sense. In the beginning I really throught the choice between secretive vs diplomatic thing on the war table has to have some remarkable influence, why else include these different characters?. Also the conquer of the big holds felt underwhelming if you just get a trader there. It is better than nothing but it feels like something was clearly cut out.

 

Hope they had severe reasons, Metascore would be better with original plan I guess.

[Chiaroscuro]

Bait and Switch. It's a common tactic Soulless game developers use these days to sucker people into buying their games. Granted, they're not bad games (I enjoyed DA:I myself) but what is advertised is allways much more fantastic. The finest example of this tactic is Destiny. Bungie advertised this spectacutalr game, and when release came along, we were given a polished turd.

 

So, once again...

 

 

Really, you shouldn't be surprised anymore. When Developers sell their souls off to Baby-Eating, Devil Worshipping, Puppy Kicking publishers like EA and Activision, you can expect to get shivved in the kidney.

[9TailsFox]

I also heard at some point it was originally designed to be an mmo, I'm glad they didn't go that direction, though I also wish they did take the game to a place beyond where it actually went in the end.

yes

http://www.gamespot....y/1100-6423362/

[Fardreamer]

There was also supposed to be mud slowing movement. Setting fire to ships with grenades to deny the Templars assets. Dynamically destroying the environment for combat advantage. Meaningful dialogue based on class. Forts based on Forces, Economics and Spying. Customizable Inquisition troops. Oh, yeah - a pc game designed for PC.

Yep, that game would have been awesome....