15815 réponses à ce sujet

[straykat]

Tbh, I wouldn't mind more politics and indirect methods in games.

 

I still don't why you try to rationalize cities away though. Or post about how much you're not going to play the Witcher.

[The Elder King]

Hopefully not; no need to unless some group uses it to try and demean a Bioware title.

 

Depends on what you mean by demeaning. A person can compare two games of different softwar housed and point out what one do better compared to the other. I do agree that people posting over and over threads about random game X making things better then Bioware game X often have the intent to demean Bioware's games, but if, for example, people compare them here, I don't see the problem. It's a single thread that people can ignore if they want.

 

On the CC, TW or CDPR's future games that might not have it isn't necessarily a con. It's a design choice. It's not the same as people criticizing a CC in a game (and in the case of DAI, while I do agree with you on the overall level of the CC, the hairs and beards are ridicolous in their quality, even more so for the period they were released. Frostbite is capable of doing a lot better, and even ME games had stubble options that looked better then DAI).

But it's a city, whether one likes it or not. And it is likely the reason why DAI had 10+ areas that did not contain another, as DAI corrected several issues that received fan complaints and feedback from the previous games.

It is the reason why we didn't get cities in DAI, but the latter didn't 'correct' the issue about complaints and feedbacks about the city. People didn't say having a city was bad. They said having only a single city as the world of the game, and not a overall good one like Kirkwall, wasn't a good choice. Almost nobody said they didn't want cities in DA games.

[straykat]

"Demean". lol

[straykat]

Depends on what you mean by demeaning. A person can compare two games of different softwar housed and point out what one do better compared to the other. I do agree that people posting over and over threads about random game X making things better then Bioware game X often have the intent to demean Bioware's games, but if, for example, people compare them here, I don't see the problem. It's a single thread that people can ignore if they want.

 

On the CC, TW or CDPR's future games that might not have it isn't necessarily a con. It's a design choice. It's not the same as people criticizing a CC in a game (and in the case of DAI, while I do agree with you on the overall level of the CC, the hairs and beards are ridicolous in their quality, even more so for the period they were released. Frostbite is capable of doing a lot better, and even ME games had stubble options that looked better then DAI).

It is the reason why we didn't get cities in DAI, but the latter didn't 'correct' the issue about complaints and feedbacks about the city. People didn't say having a city was bad. They said having only a single city as the world of the game, and not a overall good one like Kirkwall, wasn't a good choice. Almost nobody said they didn't want cities in DA games.

 

I liked the single city concept myself. 

 

I.... really can't think of anything to complain about it, other than technicalities and rushed-ness. Is the concept itself really that bad to people?

[The Elder King]

I liked the single city concept myself. 

 

I.... really can't think of anything to complain about it, other than technicalities and rushed-ness. Is the concept itself really that bad to people?

I don't dislike the concept. I think howewer for a lot of people being restrained in a single city isn't their preferred setting. at least for this IP.

There should have been at least some other, bigger areas then the ones we got in DA2, without the reused assets (which happened in Kirkwall as well). I do think though that if Kirkwall itself was done better, even with small outside area, people would've reacted better. It was a combination of problem.

[straykat]

I don't dislike the concept. I think howewer for a lot of people being restrained in a single city isn't their preferred setting. at least for this IP.

There should have been at least some other, bigger areas then the ones we got in DA2, without the reused assets (which happened in Kirkwall as well). I do think though that if Kirkwall itself was done better, even with small outside area, people would've reacted better. It was a combination of problem.

 

I didn't know this. 

 

All that time, what I heard was complaints about lack of "heroism" and general ineptitude of Hawke. Not the city itself.

 

I personally think they went in with the wrong expectations. DA2 was just trying to show problems. Not solve all of them...yet. But EA's marketing didn't help with their whole "Rise to Power" schtick either. That was false.

 

The other complaints were technicalities... like the copy pasting. The execution of the zones, not the concept itself.

[Donk]

Tbh, I wouldn't mind more politics and indirect methods in games.

I still don't why you try to rationalize cities away though. Or post about how much you're not going to play the Witcher.

It can be enjoyable. Had a little taste of it in "Reason of State." I quite enjoyed that quest.

[Lezio]

I liked the single city concept myself. 

 

I.... really can't think of anything to complain about it, other than technicalities and rushed-ness. Is the concept itself really that bad to people?

 

It's probably a mix of (more or less, understadable) criticism and good ol' Bioware overcompensating

 

Kirkwall is too static of a city, no cities in Inquisition

Hawke screws up too much, Inquisitor borderlines a Mary Sue/Gary Stue

All the dungeons look the same, 10 huge and different areas devoid of anything worthwhile (apart from dragons, props for those because they are just about awesome)

Just one race, make it 4 but don't actually have it matter in any sensible way (most of all the elven Inquisitor, from what i've heard, is out of his/her depth)

 

ecc, ecc

 

Dunno why they go so easily from one extreme to the other

[straykat]

It's probably a mix of (more or less, understadable) criticism and good ol' Bioware overcompensating

 

Kirkwall is too static of a city, no cities in Inquisition

Hawke screws up too much, Inquisitor borderlines a Mary Sue/Gary Stue

All the dungeons look the same, 10 huge and different areas devoid of anything worthwhile (apart from dragons, props for those because they are just about awesome)

Just one race, make it 4 but don't actually have it matter in any sensible way (most of all the elven Inquisitor, from what i've heard, is out of his/her depth)

 

ecc, ecc

 

Dunno why they go so easily from one extreme to the other

 

I know what you mean.. I just wished they'd simply strike a balance.

 

I mean... wasn't that DAO, basically?

[Elhanan]

Depends on what you mean by demeaning. A person can compare two games of different softwar housed and point out what one do better compared to the other. I do agree that people posting over and over threads about random game X making things better then Bioware game X often have the intent to demean Bioware's games, but if, for example, people compare them here, I don't see the problem. It's a single thread that people can ignore if they want.
 
On the CC, TW or CDPR's future games that might not have it isn't necessarily a con. It's a design choice. It's not the same as people criticizing a CC in a game (and in the case of DAI, while I do agree with you on the overall level of the CC, the hairs and beards are ridicolous in their quality, even more so for the period they were released. Frostbite is capable of doing a lot better, and even ME games had stubble options that looked better then DAI).
It is the reason why we didn't get cities in DAI, but the latter didn't 'correct' the issue about complaints and feedbacks about the city. People didn't say having a city was bad. They said having only a single city as the world of the game, and not a overall good one like Kirkwall, wasn't a good choice. Almost nobody said they didn't want cities in DA games.

A few did; was one of them.

[straykat]

We got cities in DAI though. It just sucks.

 

There's a difference with that and saying cities are unnecessary. 

[Donk]

We got cities in DAI though. It just sucks.

There's a difference with that and saying cities are unnecessary.

Val Royeaux, which was pretty much Kirkwall. But with colour

[straykat]

Val Royeaux, which was pretty much Kirkwall. But with colour

 

It definitely was pretty.. but it offered little except some staging/cinematic areas. 

 

As a game element though, it didn't have much life to it. And I don't need to big cities to do that. I mean, I could have Denerim or Orzammar which were very limited.. but they had a life to them. Just because of the npcs and quests.

 

And to say it doesn't matter tells me you don't really give a **** about DA to begin with. I mean, Leliana was bragging about it all the way back in DAO. And Mad Hermit wanted to go there too. lol. They built up some expectations.

[FKA_Servo]

I find it kind of funny when people bring forth that argument, like the, what, dozens (probably hundreds) of NPCs, major, minor and in-between, in TW3 don't have any kind of facial animation (or cutscenes, unlike DAI)   Hell, seriously, talking about body animation, in Inquisition there are 3? That get reused over and over again, i might add. I was seriously impressed when, in Trespasser, the Inquisitor stopped walking like a cave-man and Solas even got the cool "removing arm" animation

 

To be fair, they kinda don't.

 

The subtleties of expression on the faces if the main cast is spectacular in TW3, but it's really limited to the main players. Geralt, for example, is wonderfully expressive. I still lose my mind over Triss' dimples. Etc and so forth. But all the incidental NPCs - in other words, the ones who don't get their own unique model - are still pretty uniformly dead eyed gamey mannequins in TW3 with extremely limited emoting, just like so many other games.

 

And in DAI, at least in the cutscenes (which are, I think, pretty high quality, regardless of your opinion on the amount), Bioware really did step up their game with regard to the emoting. One of the best examples that always comes to mind is Cassandra's argument with Varric, where she begins to doubt her actions and cause. At one point, the camera centers on her face and the way her expression changes is heartbreaking and intense. Dorian's cutscenes are full of pretty natural and expressive emoting as well - his little pendant sidequest sticks out in particular, between him and the inquisitor.

 

Point conceded about the animations overall, of course, but I do hope they rectify that in MEA.

[straykat]

I think facial animations and such have been one of their best qualities since ME1.

[FKA_Servo]

I think facial animations and such have been one of their best qualities since ME1.

 

I think they've been ok. A little uneven, particularly with the custom PC (I'm guessing it's tough to make all those bones line up with every possible facial structure, hence all the creeper smiles). They did a better job with some NPCs than others (Kaidan, sadly, was pretty frozen in ME1). I do think DAI is head and shoulders above the prior games in this regard.

[straykat]

I think they've been ok. A little uneven, particularly with the custom PC (I'm guessing it's tough to make all those bones line up with every possible facial structure, hence all the creeper smiles). They did a better job with some NPCs than others (Kaidan, sadly, was pretty frozen in ME1). I do think DAI is head and shoulders above the prior games in this regard.

 

Maybe you're right. I didn't make a custom PC in Mass Effect. Just stuck with Sheploo. The customs were a bit... blockhead-ish to me

 

I just think that, generally speaking, the digital acting came into it's own then. And then their cinematics enhanced it in ME2 (and I still don't think anything is as good as that... they had a better director then).

[FKA_Servo]

Maybe you're right. I didn't make a custom PC in Mass Effect. Just stuck with Sheploo. The customs were a bit... blockhead-ish to me

 

I just think that, generally speaking, the digital acting came into it's own then. And then their cinematics enhanced it in ME2 (and I still don't think anything is as good as that... they had a better director then).

 

The CC in ME1 was a revelation to me after all the potato faced monstrosities I created in Oblivion. I thought it couldn't possibly get any better.

 

ME2 marks the point where they lost the thread for me, but it's a terrific game moment to moment. Unfortunately the cinematics were all too often harmed by the frequent recurrence of extremely finicky lighting. We all remember this:

 

 

And holy god I hope they fix it in MEA. It still reared it's ugly head from time to time in DAI, sadly.

[straykat]

lol.. it does have those weird lighting moments. But never in the cinematics? Or so I thought. She looks like that in gameplay often though.

 

And yeah, Oblivion was atrocious. I couldn't even play it because of that. I actually think Morrowind is better with it's preset low poly faces. And better story too. I kind of dislike DAI for being as bad as Oblivion, in that respect.

[Lady Artifice]

For me it was the reverse. I came into to playing RPGs only after graphics had become ME3 and Skyrim relatively lifelike, so when I went to try to play something older (Oblivion) I couldn't even play it for long. 

[slimgrin]

 

 

 

 

Change log: http://wpc.4d7d.edge..._l9fczl2s3h.pdf

[straykat]

For me it was the reverse. I came into to playing RPGs only after graphics had become ME3 and Skyrim relatively lifelike, so when I went to try to play something older (Oblivion) I couldn't even play it for long. 

 

What were you playing before... out of curiosity..?

[FKA_Servo]

For me it was the reverse. I came into to playing RPGs only after graphics had become ME3 and Skyrim relatively lifelike, so when I went to try to play something older (Oblivion) I couldn't even play it for long. 

 

I hear that. Oblivion is just kind of a bad game, all around. Distinctly unattractive and dense and difficult to play because it hadn't shed the awkward stat system that defined pre-Skyrim TES games. It's the only one apart from Arena (which I've never played) that I haven't lost an embarrassing amount of my life too. I don't think I even finished the story once.

[straykat]

I got far enough to meet Adoring Fan.

[Wolven_Soul]

 

 

lol I thank you, but engaging him really isn't something I should do. You can't have any sort of valuable conversation or debate with him because he doesn't allow for other's opinions. I have discussed my disappointments with lots of people on this board that truly love DAI, but at least could understand where I was coming from. I have discussed TW with people who absolutely hate it, and I feel it's one of the greatest series out there, but I can at least understand that they're disappointed, even if I am not. He doesn't. It's only "DAI made me 100% satisfied and if you don't feel that way, you're wrong!" While sometimes I do like calling him out on his silliness, I really like this board. I really like all of you. I don't want that to go away because I argued with someone who can't see past his own nose. I have tried giving him multiple chances, but it seems that's his only channel. So, ignore it is. Again. 

 

Your welcome, and I understand, tis why I have had him on ignore for a while.  I suppose I was living vicariously through you in your valiant attempts to reason with him, lol.