Aesthetics to me don't have much to do with graphics. Aesthetics are how things are designed and they should look like how they are designed, with texture pop-in's, screentearing and clippings they really don't. They look like the whole game is broken code.
By that definition, the only way for Bio to give you what you thought they were promising would have been to restrict the whole game's look to whatever the old gen can handle.
Which would have been a disaster and also which would have crippled and ruined the game for the overwhelming majority of players.
Which would have been a disaster and also which would have crippled and ruined the game for the overwhelming majority of players.
I think this is what a lot of people need to realize. The people having issues are in the minority, that petition thing only has 190 signatures, out of what? 100s of thousands if not close to a million people who own the game?
By that definition, the only way for Bio to give you what you thought they were promising would have been to restrict the whole game's look to whatever the old gen can handle.
If they want to do cross-gen game that's what they need to do, make one and don't do bad porting. The game isn't good game if some of it's portings are ****, good game players well in every platform it's intended.
If they want to do cross-gen game that's what they need to do, make one and don't do bad porting. The game isn't good game if some of it's portings are ****, good game players well in every platform it's intended.
I don't think I totally got this but do you mean Bioware is supposed to release only black and white version of the game if some people playing the game don't have color tv's?
I don't think I totally got this but do you mean Bioware is supposed to release only black and white version of the game if some people playing the game don't have color tv's?
LMAO. Bioware is selling the game to 5 platforms and every version of the game should be up to par of that platform. If you try to put game in your old Sega then it's not Bioware's fault if it doesn't work. If they sell their game on PS3, yes it should work on PS3 and be in same level of quality than company's previous games, preferably better though since it's newer game.
EDIT: And yes when starting to design game they should still take limitation of all platforms the game is for in concern. If they don't want to do that, then they should cut platforms the game is for. It's so simple.
EDIT: And yes when starting to design game they should still take limitation of all platforms the game is for in concern. If they don't want to do that, then they should cut platforms the game is for. It's so simple.
I would. I wouldn't have gotten my hopes up then.
But, I basically built a computer that would ensure I'd run the game, so there's that, too.
(I was overdue for an upgrade anyway).
Well, this thread has jumped the shark.
Well, this thread has jumped the shark.
Seems to still be on topic to me. At least until this diversion. 
Seems to still be on topic to me. At least until this diversion.
The thread is now about previous-generation consoles not getting scars. This is apparently what is objectionable about the game.
The thread is now about previous-generation consoles not getting scars. This is apparently what is objectionable about the game.
It's about what was represented before launch compared to watch was delivered. Seems on-topic to me...
Honestly the 19 pages of this thread could simply be summed up as:
/Thread.
The OP has already with much dramatic fanfare uninstalled their copy and left the building
as their nonsensical argument was gaining little empathy.
I struggle to see what else there is to talk about here.
Honestly the 19 pages of this thread could simply be summed up as:
- What I bought is not what I was sold.
- Yes it was.
/Thread.
The OP has already with much dramatic fanfare uninstalled their copy and left the building
as their nonsensical argument was gaining little empathy.
I struggle to see what else there is to talk about here.
There's far more nuance involved than you apparently seem willing to admit. Your rank dismissal of someone because their opinion does not align with yours is quite telling.
There's far more nuance involved than you apparently seem willing to admit. Your rank dismissal of someone because their opinion does not align with yours is quite telling.
No Dreamer. It's exactly what has been going on. Let's not kid ourselves.
There have been some interesting discussions here though, so this thread hasn't been entirely useless.
No Dreamer. It's exactly what has been going on. Let's not kid ourselves.
There have been some interesting discussions here though, so this thread hasn't been entirely useless.
An OP is not a thread; it merely serves to open discussion on a topic. Scars and their disappearance from last gen consoles is certainly a worthy discussion point with regard to the OP's theme. But what's going on here now is that someone has decided (for all of us) that a topic has run its course and as the self-appointed arbiter of discussion, has chosen to derail it.
... someone has decided (for all of us) that a topic has run its course ...
I'm certainly open to being wrong, I sometimes am.
If the thread wishes to chastise me with the consensus that this weighty topic has much still to debate, I stand aside for that debate to continue.
(waits patiently...)
An OP is not a thread; it merely serves to open discussion on a topic. Scars and their disappearance from last gen consoles is certainly a worthy discussion point with regard to the OP's theme. But what's going on here now is that someone has decided (for all of us) that a topic has run its course and as the self-appointed arbiter of discussion, has chosen to derail it.
Well we should simply move on to the relevant threads that discuss the topic, in my opinion 
I'm certainly open to being wrong, I sometimes am.
If the thread wishes to chastise me with the consensus that this weighty topic has much still to debate, I stand aside for that debate to continue.
(waits patiently...)
Or what? 
Well we should simply move on to the relevant threads that discuss the topic, in my opinion
Are we allowed to? I don't want to get in trouble with the couch racer...
In all seriousness, I think the topic is incredibly important (despite the OP's aggressiveness in stating their point). There are people out there who, for whatever reason, feel they were misled about Inquisition. I think they have a right to be heard.
For my own part, I'm incredibly disappointed with keep customization and Skyhold customization--both heavily-marketed features in the run up to launch--and which were discussed post-alpha. Both features require a lengthy portion of play before they're encountered, perhaps even beyond EA's 24 hr limit for refunds. What recourse do players have?
For my own part, I'm incredibly disappointed with keep customization and Skyhold customization--both heavily-marketed features in the run up to launch--and which were discussed post-alpha. Both features require a lengthy portion of play before they're encountered, perhaps even beyond EA's 24 hr limit for refunds. What recourse do players have?
Skyhold customization is as expected. It was already stated that upgrades were mostly cosmetic. I had hoped for more features, and it seems they are adding some back in the next patch.
I concede that the keep customization was something that many of us expected, including myself.
I too was disappointed with the feature being cut at the last second, but I don't think it's such an important feature of a DA game that warrants a "I did not buy this game" stance.
If anything, it's just that...a disappointment.
If you tell me people bought DAI based on keep customization, I'd be disinclined to believe you.
Skyhold customization is fine. It was already stated that upgrades were mostly cosmetic.
I concede that the keep customization was something that many of us expected, including myself. I was disappointed with the feature being cut at the last second, but I don't think it's such an important feature of a DAI game that warrants a "I did not buy this game" stance.
If anything, it's a disappointment. If you tell me people bought DAI based on the Keep customization, I'll be disinclined to believe you.
It's your opinion that you don't think it's an important feature. And it's your prerogative to not believe that someone would purchase Inquisition for that feature. Correct me if I'm wrong, but legally, they wouldn't even have to demonstrate that that was the sole reason that drove their purchase--only that it influenced their decision.
It's your opinion that you don't think it's an important feature. And it's your prerogative to not believe that someone would purchase Inquisition for that feature. Correct me if I'm wrong, but legally, they wouldn't even have to demonstrate that that was the sole reason that drove their purchase--only that it influenced their decision.
Dreamer ... come on now.
it's a very fair assumption that people don't buy DA games for keep customization at any remote level... at most it's a bonus feature that admittedly will disappoint them when it turns out to be cut.
Let's not get into legalities either. You're essentially claiming that movie-goers can rightfully sue a bad comedy movie if their advertisements depicted that it was funny at all times. There is no case even if the game is priced higher since the game has much more value per dollar. Nobody was hurt either...
Dreamer ... come on now.
it's a very fair assumption that people don't buy DA games for keep customization at any remote level... at most it's a bonus feature that admittedly will disappoint them when it turns out to be cut.
Let's not get into legalities either. You're essentially claiming that movie-goers can rightfully sue a bad comedy movie if their advertisements depicted that it was funny at all times. There is no case even if the game is priced higher since the game has much more value per dollar. Nobody was hurt either...
It's an assumption for which neither of us can be certain.
Why not? False advertisement, the contention of the OP, is a legal issue.
Being duped into spending $60-70? We have different definitions for what constitutes being "hurt" apparently.
I'm sure many men are disappointed that sexy angels don't drop from the sky to chase them once they spray themselves with Axe.
ok, couch racer back in the game (hmmm I quite like that, time for an ID change?), clearly I was hasty in thinking this was done...
In all seriousness, I think the topic is incredibly important (despite the OP's aggressiveness in stating their point). There are people out there who, for whatever reason, feel they were misled about Inquisition. I think they have a right to be heard.
For my own part, I'm incredibly disappointed with keep customization and Skyhold customization--both heavily-marketed features in the run up to launch--and which were discussed post-alpha. Both features require a lengthy portion of play before they're encountered, perhaps even beyond EA's 24 hr limit for refunds. What recourse do players have?
I was rather put off by the OP's aggressive stance.
This discussion is however meaningful, even if we may disagree in parts
I guess we are now in the realms of marketing.
Continuing with the burger theme, if I find I'm short a gherkin, but have a few extra fries, then I'm not going to be complaining.
For something as complex as a game, there will be things that excite and disappoint, it's a work of art.
The big question is was it misrepresentation, and if there is alternate content (and there is plenty of it)
then as far as I'm concerned, the OPs question may have an edge case technical possibility,
but in the real world, to reject a product on a small component having varied is improbable.
Retour en haut