199 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maybe the UI would be better? I'm not entirely convince though that the poor UI is because of the consoles, some design decisions are just daft.

That's the one thing I think suffers the most with console support, and that happens for two reasons.

Console UIs need to support navigation with a controller (that's why we have only seen list inventories since they started making cross-platform games), and they need to support standard definition displays (which is why the paraphrased dialogue options are so short, and the UI elements so huge). Recall that BioWare's last PC-only game (released in 2002) didn't support standard definition displays.

[sjsharp2011]

Although I primarily game on PC I think both have their place in society I have an XB1 and PS3 in addition to my PC.

[ThreeF]

That's the one thing I think suffers the most with console support, and that happens for two reasons.

Console UIs need to support navigation with a controller (that's why we have only seen list inventories since they started making cross-platform games), and they need to support standard definition displays (which is why the paraphrased dialogue options are so short, and the UI elements so huge). Recall that BioWare's last PC-only game (released in 2002) didn't support standard definition displays.

I'm not entirely speaking about paraphrasing and the UI size.

 

The UI has some major flaws, just to name some:

 

Can't access any character at any time in Skyhold, must scroll through all of them to get to the specific one.

Can't see what sort of schematic I'm buying, how it  looks.

Can't compare what I'm crafting to what I'm wearing without exiting the crafting menu.

 

There is just so much pointless clicking it seems.

[KaiserShep]

Not being able to see what the schematic will look like before buying it is a pretty bad oversight, especially when doing some twilight splurging in the Hissing Wastes.

[AlanC9]

Not everybody is a dedicated gamer as some of us are. Consoles can deliver decent gaming experience with a reasonable price. Not to mention the longetivity. In PC, you have to upgrade each of the components. Consoles? Buy one and it can last longer than at least 5 years without huge necessary upgrades. In business perspective, they may do better. Well just my opinion.

5 years is a decent upgrade cycle, but a PC gamer who doesn't mind not staying at the bleeding edge can match or beat that. Until last year's releases I was doing just fine on a Dell c521 with more RAM and a video card upgrade, and that machine wasn't top-of-the-line when released in 2006.

[AlanC9]

Not being able to see what the schematic will look like before buying it is a pretty bad oversight, especially when doing some twilight splurging in the Hissing Wastes.

Sometimes I get the feeling that the devs were wholly indifferent to players who care about appearances.

[KaiserShep]

Sometimes I get the feeling that the devs were wholly indifferent to players who care about appearances.

I only need the hair options as proof of this XD

 

I hope your like your Inquisitor aero/hydrodynamic.

[actionhero112]

Yes the game would have been better if they could focus on one experience and one platform. However there are too many console gamers now for them to ignore and thus fiscally they're forced to create a port. Doesn't mean I have to like it. In fact I hate it. 

 

If you combine the money you're already going to spend on a pc and a console, chances are you will be able to buy a decent gaming pc. I know I built mine for like 1500 bucks back in 2012. It wasn't that expensive and I was going to spend that amount on a new console and a new pc anyways. 

[Cyonan]

It would have allowed for more focus, but at the same with with less projected profits from the loss of the console market the game would probably not have had the funding that it did. Big AAA titles need to be about money because they cost so much to make.

 

If you want focused PC games then you gotta go to indie games like Divinity: Original Sin, Wasteland 2, Pillars of Eternity, or Shadowrun. With kickstarter, there is certainly no shortage of these kind of games but they obviously don't have the production value of a AAA game like Inquisition.

 

 

5 years is a decent upgrade cycle, but a PC gamer who doesn't mind not staying at the bleeding edge can match or beat that. Until last year's releases I was doing just fine on a Dell c521 with more RAM and a video card upgrade, and that machine wasn't top-of-the-line when released in 2006.

 

That the last console generation dragged on for so damn long probably helped you not needing to update that much, as well.

[nisallik]

Crappy port?  DAI is heavily optimized for full range of PCs.  Lets take a small sample from DAI...

 

Minimum Requirements:

Intel quad core CPU @ 2.0 GHz

NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT

 

Recommended Requirements:

Intel quad core CPU @ 3.0 GHz

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660

 

Pretty decent optimization for a full range of PCs.  It doesn't look like a console port to me.

 

 

Now let us look at the latest Ubisoft offering, Assassin's Creed: Unity, which is known for direct console ports.

 

Minimum Requirement: 

Intel Core i5-2500K @ 3.3 GHz

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680

 

Recommended Requirements:

Intel Core i7-3770 @ 3.4 GHz

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780

 

Or let us look at the latest Witcher game, which obviously CD Projekt would never do a console port and would tirelessly optimize the PC version.  Oh wait... maybe not, it looks exactly the same as an Ubisoft port and the minimum requirements to even play either of them are high settings in DAI.

 

Minimum Requirement:

Intel CPU Core i5-2500K 3.3GHz

Nvidia GPU GeForce GTX 660

 

Recommended Requirements:

Intel CPU Core i7 3770 3.4 GHz

Nvidia GPU GeForce GTX 770

[Cyonan]

Crappy port?  DAI is heavily optimized for full range of PCs.  Lets take a small sample from DAI...

 

Minimum Requirements:

Intel quad core CPU @ 2.0 GHz

NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT

 

Recommended Requirements:

Intel quad core CPU @ 3.0 GHz

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660

 

Pretty decent optimization for a full range of PCs.  It doesn't look like a console port to me.

 

 

Now let us look at the latest Ubisoft offering, Assassin's Creed: Unity, which is known for direct console ports.

 

Minimum Requirement: 

Intel Core i5-2500K @ 3.3 GHz

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680

 

Recommended Requirements:

Intel Core i7-3770 @ 3.4 GHz

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780

 

Or let us look at the latest Witcher game, which obviously CD Projekt would never do a console port and would tirelessly optimize the PC version.  Oh wait... maybe not, it looks exactly the same as an Ubisoft port and the minimum requirements to even play either of them are high settings in DAI.

 

Minimum Requirement:

Intel CPU Core i5-2500K 3.3GHz

Nvidia GPU GeForce GTX 660

 

Recommended Requirements:

Intel CPU Core i7 3770 3.4 GHz

Nvidia GPU GeForce GTX 770

 

The minimum/recommended PC specs don't really mean a whole lot when talking about a game being a bad PC port.

 

Even if talking just performance, a part of what you generally look at is how well the game runs at max settings on high end PCs. Inquisition has some framerate issues in this area, especially with the MSAA option turned on.

 

We also usually look at things like the UI, control scheme, and how robust the options menu is in addition to the performance when talking about a PC port being good or not. The Tactical Camera being awkward and clunky on PC really does not help this area.

 

Admittedly I wouldn't call Inquisition a crappy PC port, but I also wouldn't call it a great one either.

[Suledin]

Consoles ruined PC gaming.   Before consoles became the number one Christmas toy, PC games were awesome, most still played and remembered to this day.

Oh poor you. Cry more in the corner. 

They could have done more with DA: I if the game was released only on the next-gen. They have even said in one video that they couldn't push the limits because of the last gen. 

[pdusen]

I think if they focused just on pc and not on all platforms much more could have been done. 

 

Actually, since their budget for just PC would have been drastically smaller, much less could have been done.

[snackrat]

Nope. The by far largest amount of gamers are on console of varying types. Smaller release market (in this case, PC) means smaller budget of both money and time.

I agree it is frustrating but without promise of a large return from the bulk of the gamers (or a financially-backed exclusivity deal with a company trying to push their platform, which for PC is nobody) the budget and development time would be slashed considerably.

 

Developing them concurrently would probably lead to the best PC game when you're dealing with games of this size in today's market.

[wolfhowwl]

Consoles ruined PC gaming.   Before consoles became the number one Christmas toy, PC games were awesome, most still played and remembered to this day.

 

PC gamers ruined PC gaming. You were told to stop pirating, why didn't you listen?

 

Enjoy your shoddy console ports and Early Access garbage "exclusives." This is the future you chose.

[coldflame]

Nope. The by far largest amount of gamers are on console of varying types.

 

Actually the largest gaming population is on ipads, tablets and smartphones.

[Auztin]

I would be bummed but move on from Dragon Age after that.I wouldn't't give a second look.Sales would also go down by a lot which in turn would not have any sequels with the same budget as DA:I.So to answer your question.No it would be a game you would catch on a steam sale & play as if it was made by 2 guys in thier basement likely to not get DLC or anything more.EA would close them down & no more dragon age or mass effect or swtor.

[Nefla]

If making games exclusively for PC could have somehow given DA:I a better, longer story, better villain, morally grey choices, side quests with depth, etc...then sure. Somehow I don't think that's the case.    Which elements benefit from PC exclusivity? Controls? UI? I don't care about those things.

[Realmzmaster]

I have a different perspective on the gaming consoles. I do not blame the consoles at all. If anything consoles have expanded the market for gamers since their inception. In fact without the Magnavox Odyssey (1972) and other consoles we would all probably still be down at the arcades. The consoles brought gaming to the general public when most computers were expensive endeavors and beyond the reach of many people. 

 

For example the price of an Atari 800 was $1000 and Atari 400 at $600 not including the tape drive ($100) or disk drive ($550). Apple IIe was $1298 for the 4k version and $2398 for the 48K version not including tape drive or disk drive. These computers had role playing games, but were out of the reach of many people.

 

The Atari 2600 on the other hand cost $200 when it launched and hooked up to the family TV. That put it in the reach of many people.

 In fact one of the first video role playing games came out on the Atari 2600 using a Starpath Supercharager called DragonStomper (1982). That introduce some gamers to the genre.

Many of those people pass on that gaming passion to their children. That brings us to today.

 

The problem is not that the games are on consoles or on PC. It comes down to how well the developer ports in either direction.

 

For example DAO was developed on the PC and then ported to the consoles. The console port was inferior. The irony is that DAO sold more copies on the consoles than the PC based on the numbers that can be gleamed.

 

So the console market has become a force that cannot be ignored by large developers. 

 

Independents or kickstarter backed projects can get away with focusing on a niche part of a niche market. Big companies do not have that luxury.

But even the independents and kickstarters have to watch the budget as not to overrun it or promise more than can be delivered.

 

This console versus PC argument gets nowhere and old very quickly. The other assumption that gets made is that console gamers would go out and buy a PC if the game was PC only. More likely is that console gamers would just purchase games from companies that take their gaming platform into consideration.

[Paul E Dangerously]

Oh poor you. Cry more in the corner. 

They could have done more with DA: I if the game was released only on the next-gen. They have even said in one video that they couldn't push the limits because of the last gen. 

 

When has Bioware ever "pushed the limits"? Are people getting them confused with Crytek and their "Look how much I spent on my PC" wankfests again? This always amuses me, because I can't ever remember a time when Bioware games were a graphical tour de force.

 

Where people get so mixed up - and so wrongheaded - is that they start blaming platforms. It isn't the hardware. It's the effort.

 

I'm going to point out Witcher 2, and don't get your panties in a twist, because I'm speaking in a technical sense. CDPR was not only able to make it work on the 360, but it looks pretty damned good for a 360 game. Better than DAI, at any rate. And if you've seen it on PC, you know just how big of a gap this is.

 

Yes, there's a year between releases - but they're a tiny Polish developer. Are you really telling me EA somehow can't pull the manpower to make a decent port? The PC version's bad, but so is the last-gen - and it's all because Bioware shoved it out the door as quick as humanly possible.

 

So stop thinking with your PC specs and start blaming the real cause of it. Effort was just in short supply. The UI is awful on both platforms, and on the 360 half the damn textures never even load.

[Teligth]

I think if they focused just on pc and not on all platforms much more could have been done.  What do I know Im just a PC gamer that gets stuck with crappy ports on average 5 times a year.

False. DAO was multiplat+PC and was amazing. It's just not knowing how to fix ones damn game that's the problem. It was better than DA2 though.

[AlanC9]

 That the last console generation dragged on for so damn long probably helped you not needing to update that much, as well.

That's probably right. Which works for me since I don't think the constant upgrading treadmill is all that great.

[Draining Dragon]

Yes, it could have.

But those dirty console peasants had to ruin everything.

[AlanC9]

I'm going to point out Witcher 2, and don't get your panties in a twist, because I'm speaking in a technical sense. CDPR was not only able to make it work on the 360, but it looks pretty damned good for a 360 game. Better than DAI, at any rate. And if you've seen it on PC, you know just how big of a gap this is.

Doesn't TW2 have somewhat lower hardware requirements than DAI, though.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

Yes. PC Master Race > Consolius Peasantius. 

 

Oh and those who claims that console gaming did something good for PC, stop being naively ridiculous. All consoles do is hold the technology expansion back and in turn, ruin PC gaming.

 

Put it simply, consoles are bottlenecks.   

 

Objectively, PC is better. /thread