812 réponses à ce sujet

[Rizilliant]

This is just semantics.

The game plays on a PC therefore it was made for PC.

It was also made for XB1/360 PS3/4.

 

Whether it was made to play well on PC with KB/M to some PC players' satisfaction is another matter, that's still not a lie.

Well, that doesnt exactly explain the constant ctd, directx errors, stuttering, banter loss, and PLETHORA of other bugs, glitches, and incomplete garbage we were sold! Magnified by each "patch", that furthr breaks the game.. Moreso than it "fixes"..

 

So no! Its not a working product..

 

@Ashen.. Trying to talk to this one, is like trying to explain potty mechanics to a toddler.. Might as well be Quantum Mechanics... Common sense, is not abound!

[Rizilliant]

I have to disagree with you as many people posted that the combat controls for TW2 were not responsive and needed fixing among other things and I also posted that combat in DA2 was better so stop saying that is what people said.

TW3 combat looks better but we will see when we play the game.

The combat mechanics in TW2 were far more realistic than that of DA2, or DA:I.. It wasnt an immediate reaction, somehow ignoring the laws of physics, and immediately gaining full momentum, and top movement speed at the press of a button.. While it took some getting used too, much like the Souls series, its far more in tune, with how a person wearing armor, multiple weapons, and wielding a heavy 2 handed sword would move..

[fchopin]

The combat mechanics in TW2 were far more realistic than that of DA2, or DA:I.. It wasnt an immediate reaction, somehow ignoring the laws of physics, and immediately gaining full momentum, and top movement speed at the press of a button.. While it took some getting used too, much like the Souls series, its far more in tune, with how a person wearing armor, multiple weapons, and wielding a heavy 2 handed sword would move..

Geralt is a mutant and has to be fast, in TW2 he was very slow and not responsive.

[Morroian]

I will that I am slightly confused by the beginning of your post, as you seem to state that you liked the end result in the massive shift from systems between ME1 and ME2, but then ask why change things greatly? Also, as a fan of DA2, I am slightly amused that it now used as an example of tactical gameplay along with DAO, which I actually agree with, but after reading so many posts about the action game that DA2 allegedly was gets a chuckle from me.

 

Then to the actual meat of the argument. While I am not exactly crazy about the current end result, I would actually argue that what we see in DAI is a continuation of the direction BW was going for in the transition from DAO to DA2 and which I conceptually agree with. To me the switch in encounter design in DA2, with the newly refreshed enemy ranks, was intended to force the player to be constantly engaged in the combat instead of just giving the orders and watching it roll out. This intention is to me apparent in the encounter design in DAI, by trying to force the player to even more actively choose locations and times for special abilites. However, as an unfortunate consequence of the total change in encounter design, all the previous tactics no longer worked in this system. Additionally, by making the abilities so dependent on the interaction they were simply almost impossible to leave to AI, resulting in most party members becoming dead weight if you don't actively direct them. Thus the system requires you to be constantly active in combat, which seems to have been their purpose throughtout, but just takes a different approach to it. The no health regeneration is similar, as in DA2 they did actively try to limit the amount of healing you had by slowing the healing cooling and limiting the amount of health potions you could find. Although they kind of shot themselves to the foot with the elf root potions in that regard.

 

I don't agree with him but it is arguable that the changes in ME2 were not just for the sake of change whereas many of the changes in DAI appear ill thought out and even arbitrary. I could imagine that many of the changes to DAI I dislike were in fact due to the move to the FB engine but given BW's refusal to discuss the changes at all we are in the dark.

 

In hindsight there is something of a direction from DAO to DA2 to DAI but given the roots of the franchise it is for the worse. There was no need to continue making changes in the direction they have after DA2 and indeed their statements on DAI during development were that they were reversing direction somewhat, statements that have been proved to be false.

 

This is just semantics.

The game plays on a PC therefore it was made for PC.

It was also made for XB1/360 PS3/4.

 

Whether it was made to play well on PC with KB/M to some PC players' satisfaction is another matter, that's still not a lie.

 

That is just semantics, the intent of the video is clear and at the very least it is misleading rhetoric intended to placate a specific demographic and the devs involved should be ashamed of themselves. Plus Laidlaw is making a habit of doing this, he also engaged in similar rhetoric for DA2.

[Sanunes]

 

That is just semantics, the intent of the video is clear and at the very least it is misleading rhetoric intended to placate a specific demographic and the devs involved should be ashamed of themselves. Plus Laidlaw is making a habit of doing this, he also engaged in similar rhetoric for DA2.

 

Then BioWare should just make the games more like the awful KB/M controls for ME3 where they never even bothered to separate the buttons and have zero video options? It might not have been an ideal situation, but looking at any real BioWare PC release over the last few years Inquisition has a lot more PC centered options. Could it have been better? Definately, but its also far better to me then past games.

[AlanC9]

Some of you claiming all these companies selling their product for $60 are doing us some sort of favor.. How many of these games are pure garbage.. Unfinished, half arsed, rushed, flat, linear, lies?! How much of the "marketing hype" is ok, before it becomes illegal, and flatout lies? While sure, some games are worth the $60, many are not, yet still charge it.. Then the nickle, and dimes that plague all of gaming now.. Rent character slots, inventory space, buy different colors for your weapons, new armor skins, mounts, double experiencing for 24hrs, etc?! 
 
Dont sit there, and try and tell me, im getting off easy.. Ive more than lost my share in the 30yrs ive been gaming.. Hell, the NES games i bought in the 80's were $50.. That wasnt reasonable back then.. You feel you should be paying more? Well, ill say to you what i tell Liberals screaming that the top 1% needs to pay even MORE than they already are.. You are always allowed, to pay more taxes.. Similarly, you, Mr Gamer, are allowed to "Domate" to the companies you endorse.. WHich is exactly what pre ordering is.. Giving money to the company, showing you are endorsing them.. Or, invest in the stock market...
 
But dont dare tell me, i should be paying more! Games are to the point where the upwards of $180-200 for all the dlc to complete the story, or collectors editions, etc.. NO GAME only costs $60 anymore!

I don't even know where to begin with this mess. Let's start simple: how should games, or anything else, be priced?

[SofaJockey]

That is just semantics, the intent of the video is clear and at the very least it is misleading rhetoric intended to placate a specific demographic and the devs involved should be ashamed of themselves. Plus Laidlaw is making a habit of doing this, he also engaged in similar rhetoric for DA2.

 

That I can agree with, the video implied that PC gamers were getting the gold standard, which clearly for some PC gamers was a disappointing let down. Mileage does appear to vary as many PC gamers report a more positive experience with successful patches, but other not.

I can understand that for those who remain unsatisfied, their vocalisation of that dissatisfaction may increase even if their numbers lessen. 

 

Interesting (coming back to topic) that concerns about PC UI appear to be a current debating point on CDPR's forums.

[In Exile]

I don't even know where to begin with this mess. Let's start simple: how should games, or anything else, be priced?

I would have gone with the simple hypothetical of a company selling the exact same number of units to the exact same number of consumers every year for the exact same price with a starting position of a very narrow profit margin.

The eventual result of that is that it will teeter on the brink of bankruptcy.

[Sanunes]

That I can agree with, the video implied that PC gamers were getting the gold standard, which clearly for some PC gamers was a disappointing let down. Mileage does appear to vary as many PC gamers report a more positive experience with successful patches, but other not.

I can understand that for those who remain unsatisfied, their vocalisation of that dissatisfaction may increase even if their numbers lessen. 

 

Interesting (coming back to topic) that concerns about PC UI appear to be a current debating point on CDPR's forums.

 

The UI is generally a concern especially if the developer has a poor track record developing them, for I find too many games don't make it scale well enough for being used on different sizes of screens and resolutions.

[SofaJockey]

Well, that doesnt exactly explain the constant ctd, directx errors, stuttering, banter loss, and PLETHORA of other bugs, glitches, and incomplete garbage we were sold! Magnified by each "patch", that furthr breaks the game.. Moreso than it "fixes"..

 

So no! Its not a working product..

 

@Ashen.. Trying to talk to this one, is like trying to explain potty mechanics to a toddler.. Might as well be Quantum Mechanics... Common sense, is not abound!

 

You may have to explain this to me slowly so I can understand.

 

So how did the PC player community just complete, in 7 hours, this weekend's multiplayer challenge, as they do most weekends, if the product doesn't work? You can't reach to the end of a 15 minute match if your game constantly crashes to desktop. Particularly as there have been 6 patches which you have explained have made the product even more broken. I'm pretty sure they are not completing the challenge by telepathy, so how do they manage it with a non-working broken product?

[Hiemoth]

I don't agree with him but it is arguable that the changes in ME2 were not just for the sake of change whereas many of the changes in DAI appear ill thought out and even arbitrary. I could imagine that many of the changes to DAI I dislike were in fact due to the move to the FB engine but given BW's refusal to discuss the changes at all we are in the dark.

 

In hindsight there is something of a direction from DAO to DA2 to DAI but given the roots of the franchise it is for the worse. There was no need to continue making changes in the direction they have after DA2 and indeed their statements on DAI during development were that they were reversing direction somewhat, statements that have been proved to be false.

 

 

That is just semantics, the intent of the video is clear and at the very least it is misleading rhetoric intended to placate a specific demographic and the devs involved should be ashamed of themselves. Plus Laidlaw is making a habit of doing this, he also engaged in similar rhetoric for DA2.

 

The changes from ME1 to ME2 were there because the develeopers were not happy with the system in ME1. That is probably the reason for the changes from DA2 to DAI. I didn't like the changes, I mostly preferred the system from DA2, but I also don't consider it fair to indicate that the devs made changes just because.

 

The thing is that, to me at least, it seems that the fallout for DA2, partially justified, partially not, was so big of a hit for the development team that they went out of their way to basically distance themselves from every design decision made in DA2, which was a shame because there a lot of good decisions there. In a way the DA development strikes me as a little bit more uncertain than the ME team, which stuck to their guns with their system than continued to develop it to ME3, which is still to me the best encounter system that Bioware has ever developed. I am not completely convinced that DAI is even what they are seeking for, but I do still argue that the central theme they are after in it is visible in the evolution, I just personally think it is far too influenced by loud voices from the outside.

 

And I dsiagree with it being just a semantic issue, it is actually a really important distinction. The PC system does rely a lot more on the tactical menu, the problem is the map which doesn't really work ideally for that system and the skill system, which is essentially built to be interactive instead of tactical. The map is because according to Laidlaw, they would have had to built two maps for each level in order to have the tactical map ignore the terrain, something they did in DAO which was apparently a huge resource drain. The skill system was a part of their approach, which I cannot stress enough I didn't like, but I understood where it originated from.

[Ashen Nedra]

I'm confused as there is nothign in that video that isn't in the actual game? The thing they don't mention is the lack of auto-attack, which isn't necessarily by intent as they focus on the tactical mode which has autoattack.

'Tactical mode is just what you would expect from Origins, you'll be super pleased with it'

 

Tactical mode is useless in its current condition. some pc players never managed to get the game going. auto-attack doesn't work for melee. Ai is too terrible to not have to micromanage...

 

Let's leave it at that.

 

I'm tired of sounding like a parrot on this game. All argumentation and proof, figures, external links... et cetera is available by checking the Pc community concerns thread (1.5M + views) or my likes ante-chronologically on my profile to gain time, then follow the links.

 

the inability to patch was predicted. compulsory silence from EA/BW was explained by legal reasons...

[Ashen Nedra]

I will that I am slightly confused by the beginning of your post, as you seem to state that you liked the end result in the massive shift from systems between ME1 and ME2, but then ask why change things greatly? Also, as a fan of DA2, I am slightly amused that it now used as an example of tactical gameplay along with DAO, which I actually agree with, but after reading so many posts about the action game that DA2 allegedly was gets a chuckle from me.

 

Then to the actual meat of the argument. While I am not exactly crazy about the current end result, I would actually argue that what we see in DAI is a continuation of the direction BW was going for in the transition from DAO to DA2 and which I conceptually agree with. To me the switch in encounter design in DA2, with the newly refreshed enemy ranks, was intended to force the player to be constantly engaged in the combat instead of just giving the orders and watching it roll out. This intention is to me apparent in the encounter design in DAI, by trying to force the player to even more actively choose locations and times for special abilites. However, as an unfortunate consequence of the total change in encounter design, all the previous tactics no longer worked in this system. Additionally, by making the abilities so dependent on the interaction they were simply almost impossible to leave to AI, resulting in most party members becoming dead weight if you don't actively direct them. Thus the system requires you to be constantly active in combat, which seems to have been their purpose throughtout, but just takes a different approach to it. The no health regeneration is similar, as in DA2 they did actively try to limit the amount of healing you had by slowing the healing cooling and limiting the amount of health potions you could find. Although they kind of shot themselves to the foot with the elf root potions in that regard.

That's actually my point. Change for the sake of change is stupid or closely related to the ideology of progress/positivism.

 

sometimes dramatic changes in game formula can succeed, sometimes not.

 

simple enough?

[Revan Reborn]

Then BioWare should just make the games more like the awful KB/M controls for ME3 where they never even bothered to separate the buttons and have zero video options? It might not have been an ideal situation, but looking at any real BioWare PC release over the last few years Inquisition has a lot more PC centered options. Could it have been better? Definately, but its also far better to me then past games.

It's worth pointing out that the reason DAI likely even has as many graphical settings as it does has less to do with BioWare and more to do with DICE. Remember, DAI is running on Frostbite 3, DICE's engine. BioWare is merely reaping the benefits, whereas they used Unreal Engine 3 with the Mass Effect trilogy. There really is no good reason they had little to no PC settings at all. The fact they now are offering more as of 2014 isn't much to be celebrating. It merely reinforces the truth that BioWare is a console developer, much like Rockstar, and PC takes a back seat to the console ports.

 

Now that I think about it, being so console-centric is likely why BioWare (besides influence from EA) has gravitated to this small, over-priced DLC route. Expansion packs were largely a PC gaming feature and rarely did they ever go to consoles. DLC, in many ways, was the console version of an expansion (albeit a lot less content) really at the end of the original Xbox cycle and the beginning of the Xbox 360. Last gen consoles and the ones before couldn't really support expansions as they didn't have enough space on their hard drives. Space really isn't a concern now, but if publishers wanted, they could consider expansions for PC, then breaking them up into DLC parts on console. It won't happen, but that is a far more appealing post-development scheme.

[Hiemoth]

That's actually my point. Change for the sake of change is stupid or closely related to the ideology of progress/positivism.

 

sometimes dramatic changes in game formula can succeed, sometimes not.

 

simple enough?

 

No, somehow your simplification makes even less sense to me. Again, DA didn't change just to change things, they did so because they felt that it improved the game. That is an important distinction, thus I do not feel they can be accused just changing for the sake of change.

[AlanC9]

Tactical mode is useless in its current condition. some pc players never managed to get the game going. auto-attack doesn't work for melee. Ai is too terrible to not have to micromanage...
 
Let's leave it at that.
 
I'm tired of sounding like a parrot on this game. All argumentation and proof, figures, external links... et cetera is available by checking the Pc community concerns thread (1.5M + views) or my likes ante-chronologically on my profile to gain time, then follow the links.

Yeah, you do seem to have given up a bit. Most of what I've seen you do lately is vague hyperbole. I mean, "useless" above is simply not true. Tac mode can be used and is used. I know that you were only trying to say "boo Tac Mode!," but this sort of thing usually doesn't get us anyplace. I'm also not certain that people really have to micromanage the AI; plenty of people say they aren't doing that.

Sometimes you have to accept that people just don't share your opinion of things.
 

[AlanC9]

Now that I think about it, being so console-centric is likely why BioWare (besides influence from EA) has gravitated to this small, over-priced DLC route. Expansion packs were largely a PC gaming feature and rarely did they ever go to consoles. DLC, in many ways, was the console version of an expansion (albeit a lot less content) really at the end of the original Xbox cycle and the beginning of the Xbox 360. Last gen consoles and the ones before couldn't really support expansions as they didn't have enough space on their hard drives. Space really isn't a concern now, but if publishers wanted, they could consider expansions for PC, then breaking them up into DLC parts on console. It won't happen, but that is a far more appealing post-development scheme.

As usual, at this point I feel compelled to point out that Bio invented paid DLC themselves, before EA or consoles came along.

I agree about the role of consoles, but I don't think the causation has much to do with Bioware as a company. I think what's happened is that consoles have changed the market. Once selling X content for A dollars has become acceptable in the marketplace, it becomes less likely that any company will sell 6X content for 3A dollars. Why would they? The value of a product is whatever people are willing to pay for that product.

[Handsome Jack]

What Bioware and EA especially need to work on is making DLC feel like an expansion, feel like additional content. Very very few EA DLCs ever feel that way; they always feel like content intentionally chopped off the original game to make more money. That's shady as hell and something your customers will notice, and the smart ones won't like it.

[AlanC9]

I wouldn't say that problem is limited to, or even primarily found with, the smart players. People make that charge against Leviathan even though it's obviously false.

It's an interesting problem. The more a DLC fits with the existing game's plot, the more likely is is that it will make some of the players feel bad.

[Hiemoth]

What Bioware and EA especially need to work on is making DLC feel like an expansion, feel like additional content. Very very few EA DLCs ever feel that way; they always feel like content intentionally chopped off the original game to make more money. That's shady as hell and something your customers will notice, and the smart ones won't like it.

 

You know what I love about this accusation. The indication that I am not smart one as I do not feel that the Bioware DLCs has felt like content intentionally chopped off or the fact that despite asking for actual evidence on such accusations, not just narrative feelings on the matter, I have yet seen anyone provide it.

[In Exile]

You know what I love about this accusation. The indication that I am not smart one as I do not feel that the Bioware DLCs has felt like content intentionally chopped off or the fact that despite asking for actual evidence on such accusations, not just narrative feelings on the matter, I have yet seen anyone provide it.

On some level it's always going to be cut content. That's what's insane about the position. Even into the days of expansion packs you'd have plots and gameplay elements that were abandoned or not implemented at different stages of the proceeding.

Creating a product wholly from scratch and entirely divorced from anything else is called "making a new game".

[Revan Reborn]

As usual, at this point I feel compelled to point out that Bio invented paid DLC themselves, before EA or consoles came along.

I agree about the role of consoles, but I don't think the causation has much to do with Bioware as a company. I think what's happened is that consoles have changed the market. Once selling X content for A dollars has become acceptable in the marketplace, it becomes less likely that any company will sell 6X content for 3A dollars. Why would they? The value of a product is whatever people are willing to pay for that product.

I don't know if BioWare "invited paid DLC," but they have been doing it a while. I remember buying the DLC for KotOR on the original Xbox to add the space station around Yavin. DLC on consoles, however, didn't really push off until Oblivion. The infamous "horse armor" was one of their first attempts, but when they started adding other content such as Knights of the Nine and Shivering Isles (it's worth noting BGS released two expansions: Tribunal and Bloodmoon on PC and the original Xbox), it caught on like wildfire.

 

I agree the issue is a systemic one with consoles. They hold the weight in the industry and people are clearly okay with buying CoD packs, microtransactions, and plenty of other things. I know quite a few console gamers who just throw away money so they can have an advantage. They don't care whether it's truly worth the value or not. They just want to win and have fun. That's largely an issue which makes it easier for large publishers, like EA, to take advantage of that situation and use it against everyone.

 

For now, anyways, the reason I think CDPR is still different is because they are still a PC developer. TW1 is only available on PC and TW2 launched initially only on the PC until it was released a year later on the Xbox 360. Even with TW3 being multiplatform, TW3 still seems to very much be a PC game (the fact PC will have a save import unlike the new consoles and the benefits of GoG/Steam with lots of content at a cheaper price is evidence of that). I think as long as CDPR is a PC-centric studio, they will strive to bring back PC features such as "expansions" and other services. If they ever become console-centric, however, I don't believe they'll be any different from BioWare or anyone else.

[In Exile]

When AlanC9 is talking about DLC being invented by Bioware he is referencing (I'd guess) the NWN1 premium modules. And that's a PC innovation.

[KaiserShep]

What Bioware and EA especially need to work on is making DLC feel like an expansion, feel like additional content. Very very few EA DLCs ever feel that way; they always feel like content intentionally chopped off the original game to make more money. That's shady as hell and something your customers will notice, and the smart ones won't like it.

 

It seems like BioWare couldn't really win on this front. If the story of the DLC ties into the main plot, people accuse the game of being incomplete. If it's a standalone tale, people will say that it adds nothing to the narrative and is a meaningless diversion. The only way to truly have a DLC expand the game in the manner you speak of is to have it be strictly a post-campaign story, like Awakening, but this isn't always possible, depending on how the story goes.

[Exaltation]

Let's just enjoy the memories of pre-EA BioWare.

EA can't take those from us!