Ce sujet est fermé
oh look. The person who has been reporting post after post didn't come forward. What a surprise. It shouldn't be anonymous. Users should be told when they are reported and by whom.
Absolutely not, what possible purpose does that serve outside of promoting mob mentality?
Absolutely not, what possible purpose does that serve outside of promoting mob mentality?
I'm not saying so we can confront the person (make that against the rules), but when someone has some type of objective or is purposely targeting one person or a group of people it would be good to know. I think a lot of this is for trolling and silencing and NOT because of rule violations. From reading I know that there are more than a few people who have picked up on this.
If that's such a bad idea I would prefer my posts be forever blocked from someone who just can't stand your posts to the point they need to report you. I think we should have that option.
I'm a veteran of internet forums, of many types, from sports, to politics, to gaming. I've owned forums, ran them for others, and moderated as a volunteer.
This is one of the only forums I can recall that allows posters to openly question forum rules, and admin/mod decisions.
On the vast majority of forums I've been associated with, publicly arguing with an admin/mod concerning enforcement of forum rules will at least result in a warning or temporary suspension, if not outright banning.
Food for thought.
I'm a veteran of internet forums, of many types, from sports, to politics, to gaming. I've owned forums, ran them for others, and moderated as a volunteer.
This is one of the only forums I can recall that allows posters to openly question forum rules, and admin/mod decisions.
On the vast majority of forums I've been associated with, publicly arguing with an admin/mod concerning enforcement of forum rules will at least result in a warning or temporary suspension, if not outright banning.
Food for thought.
If this is a backhanded stab at me, I'm simply offering suggestions to fix a current issue......
I am going to make my visit here brief, as I'm not interested in adding myself to the list of targets.
oh look. The person who has been reporting post after post didn't come forward. What a surprise. It shouldn't be anonymous. Users should be told when they are reported and by whom.
Please do not seek to foster a "get the snitch" mentality in this sub-forum.
For one thing, it is a horrendously hostile thing to do, and for another, it is based on terrible reasoning.
It makes considerably more sense to ask moderators to use discretion when reviewing reports than it does to try and identify everyone who reports people so that they can be publicly shamed and attacked.
I am aware that I will now be attacked as someone who reports others, despite the fact that I've probably reported less than 10 times total. And most of those were my own double-posted threads/threads accidentally posted in the wrong forum, asking them to delete or move them.
In a forum with tens of thousands of members, you will never have a shortage of people reporting others for every imaginable reason. Trying to make a witchhunt out of it isn't going to change anything, except to foster self-righteous hostility.
No stab intended Arishok, merely an observation.
I'm not saying so we can confront the person (make that against the rules), but when someone has some type of objective or is purposely targeting one person or a group of people it would be good to know. I think a lot of this is for trolling and silencing and NOT because of rule violations. From reading I know that there are more than a few people who have picked up on this.
If that's such a bad idea I would prefer my posts be forever blocked from someone who just can't stand your posts to the point they need to report you. I think we should have that option.
You assume the people reporting is active in the thread in question, lurkers report as well.
Regardless, the simple solution is follow forum rules and do not be a jerk.
Hello everyone. Please keep the discussion civil and on topic. Thank you.
Saigeo -- I actually bought the Xbox One prior to DAI specifically for DAI and then we got another so I could play MP with my husband. Unfortunately, he didn't care for it so we had to find a couch co-op -- I'm still playin' though.
if the 360 had the largest following, it would receive continued support.
It's technically false.
Bryan Johnson explained one of the reasons PS3/360 were dropped was they reached those consoles limits. Even if they wanted to add new content there, the bucket is full, any drop of water is gonna make it spill. So no, even if the 360 or the PS3 were the largest player base, they wouldn't receive continued support, it's simply impossible to add anymore.
I think it was very poor planning, but that would be stating the obvious. The game has so many oversights it's frightening. It doesn't surprise me one bit they didn't account for a lot of future content...
Hmmmm. I have a question then. In terms of graphic quality, inventory, size, scale, content...all of it. How is it possible that there are games such as....Skyrim, Dark Souls, Gran Turismo, GTA, Red Dead, and **insert game here** on the consoles, but DAI just burn it up with its massive content and sheer greatness?
I also feel like ME3 is larger game than DAI as a whole. The MP for it absolutely dwarfs DAI's. I'm not calling BS on your post or anything, I'm just saying that seems a bit off is all. I fully believe Bryan knows what he is talking about and he came into this thread to help us out. I'm just asking a question.
Hmmmm. I have a question then. In terms of graphic quality, inventory, size, scale, content...all of it. How is it possible that there are games such as....Skyrim, Dark Souls, Gran Turismo, GTA, Red Dead, and **insert game here** on the consoles, but DAI just burn it up with its massive content and sheer greatness?
I also feel like ME3 is larger game than DAI as a whole. The MP for it absolutely dwarfs DAI's. I'm not calling BS on your post or anything, I'm just saying that seems a bit off is all. I fully believe Bryan knows what he is talking about and he came into this thread to help us out. I'm just asking a question.
This question is pretty vague in the sense that you are talking about how does data get larger. Since this focus I am going to assume is about mainly disc size (which was the main point that TheThirdRace is refering (I assume)). There is different types of size for consoles (generally), main game (if there is an install), patches, player data (such as saves) and then DLC. The limit we are primarly talking for Xbox 360 is that of the patch size, from what I have been told has a cap at 2gb (it is a singular file), which I would expect to be actually 4gb since I believe the Xbox 360 is Fat32, so not sure exactly why it is 2gb (or if I was lead astray). Note while the technical limit is 2gb, MS required patches to be substantially smaller than that for the longest time (4mb, which if you dont believe me you can read here http://shoryuken.com...ally-planned/)
Generally speaking this meant patches were limited to code changes (since content is much much bigger). Any content changes generally came along with DLC. IE the majority of Mass Effect 3 MP is DLC (content wise), and is infact 1.12gb (on PC). The frostbite engine has a bit of a tighter coupling between data and code, which means that in order to fix a lot of issues doing content is far easier, which means increasing the size much further.
How games decide to do their budget (space wise) can result in a lot of different situations. Once again ill take Mass Effect for example, the pre-rendered scenes total 3gb of space, for 30minutes worth of content. Something like Music and textures can vary so greatly in terms of recording quality that a 1mb piece of music in mp3 could be 25mb in a different format, to a lot of people they wont notice the difference but there are those that do.
Further more, you may have data duplication that contributes to on disc size. Lets say you have a piece of music in Val Royeaux and the same in Skyhold. You have a few different ways you can decide to lay out the files for loading. If you put the music in the file that gets only loaded in Val Royeaux well then you have to duplicate that file into the file that represents Skyhold as well. If you decide to put it in its own file (which would create thousands and thousands of files) then you lose performance loading because of hard drive seek times. Now if you say well why not always have it loaded, then you end up in a situation where that data is always loaded into memory, which is definitely finite.
Also for ME3 vs DAI, it depends on what you compare right? The Single player for DAI is certainly larger than that of ME3s.
I mean minecraft is technically more vast than any other game, yet could be smaller.
Games have evolved it is like saying, i spent the same time in Chrono Trigger as I did in Dark Souls but Chrono Trigger is 32mb and Dark Souls is 4gb. Same goes with DAI where it is 16gb on Xbox 360 and yet Xbox One is 41gb despite more or less being the same game.
Hmmmm. I have a question then. In terms of graphic quality, inventory, size, scale, content...all of it. How is it possible that there are games such as....Skyrim, Dark Souls, Gran Turismo, GTA, Red Dead, and **insert game here** on the consoles, but DAI just burn it up with its massive content and sheer greatness?
I also feel like ME3 is larger game than DAI as a whole. The MP for it absolutely dwarfs DAI's. I'm not calling BS on your post or anything, I'm just saying that seems a bit off is all. I fully believe Bryan knows what he is talking about and he came into this thread to help us out. I'm just asking a question.
Releasing for multiple generations of consoles at the same time does a number on your optimization, which I don't think any of the games you listed had to go through.
Hmmmm. I have a question then. In terms of graphic quality, inventory, size, scale, content...all of it. How is it possible that there are games such as....Skyrim, Dark Souls, Gran Turismo, GTA, Red Dead, and **insert game here** on the consoles, but DAI just burn it up with its massive content and sheer greatness?
I also feel like ME3 is larger game than DAI as a whole. The MP for it absolutely dwarfs DAI's. I'm not calling BS on your post or anything, I'm just saying that seems a bit off is all. I fully believe Bryan knows what he is talking about and he came into this thread to help us out. I'm just asking a question.
Absolutely not, what possible purpose does that serve outside of promoting mob mentality?
And what is your policy on getting two warnings from the same moderator for the same post making a harmless joke?
And what is your policy on getting two warnings from the same moderator for the same post making a harmless joke?
What is the policy on warning points at all?
And what is your policy on getting two warnings from the same moderator for the same post making a harmless joke?
Hello, you got a verbal warning (not the same thing as a typical warning, as points were not assigned). It appears the moderator in question for the first warning forgot to include the link of what it was you were being warned for. And as far as I know there is no way to edit a warning after the fact, so they sent another one to include the link that they had forgotten. Again there was no warning points assigned.
Hello, you got a verbal warning (not the same thing as a typical warning, as points were not assigned). It appears the moderator in question for the first warning forgot to include the link of what it was you were being warned for. And as far as I know there is no way to edit a warning after the fact, so they sent another one to include the link that they had forgotten. Again there was no warning points assigned.
Fair enough. I still think it was an overreaction though.
Fair enough. I still think it was an overreaction though.
This question is pretty vague in the sense that you are talking about how does data get larger. Since this focus I am going to assume is about mainly disc size (which was the main point that TheThirdRace is refering (I assume)). There is different types of size for consoles (generally), main game (if there is an install), patches, player data (such as saves) and then DLC. The limit we are primarly talking for Xbox 360 is that of the patch size, from what I have been told has a cap at 2gb (it is a singular file), which I would expect to be actually 4gb since I believe the Xbox 360 is Fat32, so not sure exactly why it is 2gb (or if I was lead astray). Note while the technical limit is 2gb, MS required patches to be substantially smaller than that for the longest time (4mb, which if you dont believe me you can read here http://shoryuken.com...ally-planned/)
Generally speaking this meant patches were limited to code changes (since content is much much bigger). Any content changes generally came along with DLC. IE the majority of Mass Effect 3 MP is DLC (content wise), and is infact 1.12gb (on PC). The frostbite engine has a bit of a tighter coupling between data and code, which means that in order to fix a lot of issues doing content is far easier, which means increasing the size much further.
How games decide to do their budget (space wise) can result in a lot of different situations. Once again ill take Mass Effect for example, the pre-rendered scenes total 3gb of space, for 30minutes worth of content. Something like Music and textures can vary so greatly in terms of recording quality that a 1mb piece of music in mp3 could be 25mb in a different format, to a lot of people they wont notice the difference but there are those that do.
Further more, you may have data duplication that contributes to on disc size. Lets say you have a piece of music in Val Royeaux and the same in Skyhold. You have a few different ways you can decide to lay out the files for loading. If you put the music in the file that gets only loaded in Val Royeaux well then you have to duplicate that file into the file that represents Skyhold as well. If you decide to put it in its own file (which would create thousands and thousands of files) then you lose performance loading because of hard drive seek times. Now if you say well why not always have it loaded, then you end up in a situation where that data is always loaded into memory, which is definitely finite.
Also for ME3 vs DAI, it depends on what you compare right? The Single player for DAI is certainly larger than that of ME3s.
I mean minecraft is technically more vast than any other game, yet could be smaller.
Games have evolved it is like saying, i spent the same time in Chrono Trigger as I did in Dark Souls but Chrono Trigger is 32mb and Dark Souls is 4gb. Same goes with DAI where it is 16gb on Xbox 360 and yet Xbox One is 41gb despite more or less being the same game.
I have a question, so basically one of the issues, and reasons for dropping support for last gen platforms is size, right? and as you said "The frostbite engine has a bit of a tighter coupling between data and code, which means that in order to fix a lot of issues doing content is far easier, which means increasing the size much further. ", so why use it in the first place? you guys knew the limitations on last gen hardware had in terms of size, so you must've known that this could end up being an issue further down the line right?
I have a question, so basically one of the issues, and reasons for dropping support for last gen platforms is size, right? and as you said "The frostbite engine has a bit of a tighter coupling between data and code, which means that in order to fix a lot of issues doing content is far easier, which means increasing the size much further. ", so why use it in the first place? you guys knew the limitations on last gen hardware had in terms of size, so you must've known that this could end up being an issue further down the line right?
I have a question, so basically one of the issues, and reasons for dropping support for last gen platforms is size, right? and as you said "The frostbite engine has a bit of a tighter coupling between data and code, which means that in order to fix a lot of issues doing content is far easier, which means increasing the size much further. ", so why use it in the first place? you guys knew the limitations on last gen hardware had in terms of size, so you must've known that this could end up being an issue further down the line right?
I'm gonna make a guess here, but what I think happen was simply very bad decisions on top of other very bad decisions.
In software development, the hardest thing to do is to code in a way that will not limit yourself in the future. While it would seem a very easy thing to do, from personal experience I'd say only 10% of all programmers are able to do that. For the remaining 90%, it's simply beyond their capacity. It's very sad to see, but I'm guessing it's about the same in every type of job, the very good ones are few and far between.
Given what I just said, I'm inclined to believe someone made a bad call and then the team was stuck with it. Either because it would have been too long to fix it or too costly.
And when you look at Dragon Age Inquisition, those questionable decisions are all over the place:
And this is only what I've come up in 15 minutes. The list could probably go much longer. Given all those weird/bad decisions, wouldn't you agree it could be possible that Bioware never saw coming the PS3/360 fiasco? If they can't see how basic things could affect players, how could they predict 8 months in the future?
No matter who made those calls, the fact is he/she lacked vision. I'm sure that person is very nice and that he/she is very competent in his/her field of expertise, but he/she is obviously not the right person to make those calls. I would also question the person that made him/her in charge of those decisions...
Nothing in that list is really tool or engine related, it's all just design decisions.
-snip-
Sounds more HK-47 than Elcor.
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Horsemaster Shadohz reporting to continue beating on the dead horse.
To piggyback off what ThirdRace was saying, hardware has always been a limiter for software. Saying that DAI support was pulled due to the age of legacy platforms is reaching. Software is supposed by designed around a minimal hardware standard that should allow for optimal operation. This is called minimal system requirement. With consoles there is no minimal vs recommended requirement because the hardware for the most part is static. You start running into problems when you try to use an updated compiler (this case a game engine) to push the console at peak just so you can get a slightly better performance/quality on a newer version console. That's not the legacy consoles fault. That's the responsibility of the software maker to stress test and benchmark their application prior to deployment. Legacy gamers weren't expecting DAI to run the same on their system compared to nextgen, so why push them past an acceptable limit instead of scaling the graphics and features? Don't answer that.
Let's keep things in their proper perspective. DAI is one of a handful of games that attempted to produce both a high-quality SP and MP in the same release. In each situation you can see a visibly negative difference than their previous quality of work. I've made this same statement about GTAV, RDR, and ME3. You shouldn't be getting more patches for the SP than you do the MP. If you're going to go big, then why rush it out? Don't answer that. If the gaming market is going to make it a habit of releasing 1/2-3/4 product with the initial version and the rest in Patch Tuesday updates, then we need to negotiate a new financial arrangement, like half now and the other half later... if we felt like we enjoyed the game.
I haven't read where anyone specifically mentioned that support was being dropped because it was technologically impossible to do anything further on legacy platforms. To get around the PS3 lifetime DLC restriction, then you can simply press a DVD with all the installable DLCs, press a GOTY DVD, or make the DLCs separately available for purchase (and make a nice chunk of change in the process). We know that XB360 doesn't really suffer from a cumulative size restriction. So is the reason really technical? Don't answer that. Can Xbox One, PS4, and PC gaming expect the same treatment and get a sudden notification that they're no longer getting patch and dlc support? Don't answer that.
The takeaway from this should've been for BioWare to acknowledge their mistake(s) and take a serious look at modifying their existing business practices. Issuing a press release after the fact isn't an act of transparency but damage control.
Let the gamers decide if they want run with the updated patches or not. AT the end of DAI's support, roll all the patches and free DLCs into one giant free DLC. You can call it DAI: Service Pack 1. If it doesn't work well then we uninstall it and keep our latest TU. No harm, no fail.
Also a handwritten apology letter from your B.O.D. would be nice.
Retour en haut