Dragon Age 2

[Nepenthe]

Am hoping that the DLC strategy is as classy as DA1's :: snicker ::

Now there's a criticism of Bioware I can fully subscribe to.

 

Along with, "I'm hoping that they again get the (more expensive) collector's editions to customers weeks after the vanilla ones, just like with DAO and ME2!"

[RPGmasterBoo]

 

Same old, same old huh?

[Hassat Hunter]

FX -does- matter in todays market and most gamers do care about such. While they don't need to be bleeding edge they need to at least look the part and help with immersion.

And DA's don't? Hell, my PC can't even run it higher than the lowest setting and it works for me...

 

The graphic point got us in the mess the industry is today. More $ needed to get that top-notch, leaving 5- hour movies (CoD), and requiring much more sold copies than used to be meaning sequel after sequel (CoD) instead of original games. Fine by me if it stays with the FPS crowd, but do we really need to add it in with the RPG crowd? Are we really waiting too for 10- hour RPG's here? Seriously?

 

And indie's seem to do fine despite the imminent need of graphics gamers seem to have... how'd you explain that?

[Labadal]

For many gamers graphics is one of the more important aspects. I think most of us here don't need top notch graphics, but then again we are not the majority.

[mkreku]

I only need my precious pixel boobs to be of top notch graphics.

[Majek]

I just want to have an unique graphic or at least distinctive for each weapon and i'm ok... of course it has to be the right size too. But all that almost never happens.

[Volourn]

Here's a nasty secret. Graphics have *always* mattered to games. The onl difference is that in the 'good 'ol days' graphical capability was extremely low or non existent so gamers took what they could get.

[Labadal]

Captain Obvious has spoken.

[TheHarlequin]

Well, if you want a short, concise version, I suggest you are making clever remarks that don't really address the issue but rather reflect the silly and unrealistic polarity we now have between 'elitists' and 'halo whores' these days. Certainly there are some of those out there, but [see my position above].

 

I think, again, you are reading to deep into what I am posted and not reading it for its surface value.

 

I think some people post trying to be 'old skool' to look cool and edgy and elitist and 'look at me im not a sheep' reasons. I'd bet some of them posting wouldn't know what a text adventure or ANSI FX is if it bit them. As if they did they wouldn't be so eager to go back to such no matter how great the game play was.

I think some people are under the misconception if you have good FX it takes zots away from the game play which is a fallacy. 2 different groups on the same dev team with 2 different skill sets working at the same time.

I think some people look back at the past with rose color glasses and think of the good old days before high end fx and wish for days of yore however they are much more grand in ones mind then the reality

 

Have some studios make good eye candy games yet horrible game play? Yes. Is it the defacto standard or common. I don't think so, not as much as some folks here post about or imply. In its era games like Kings Quest, Ultima, FO, BG, DX1, NWN2, FO3 all had suitable or even great fx for its time and excellent game play to boot. Even some of the imitators of the time were good as well. I think in the era of mindless shooters with great eye candy but repetitive game play gamers get blinded by that sea of games and forget there is a lot more then clone after clone of shooters or the like.

 

The opinion there is this huge swath of great fx, poor game play games out there with only a diamond in the rough every 10 years as some imply is a myth is all I am saying

 

In the end there is nothing wrong with wanting good fx. I am a hard core RPGer and *I* want good eye candy as well as good game play because I understand you CAN have both and why do I upgrade my box every 18 months if we are content playing rogue? Lets be realistic.

Edited December 10, 2010 by TheHarlequin

[TheHarlequin]

FX -does- matter in todays market and most gamers do care about such. While they don't need to be bleeding edge they need to at least look the part and help with immersion.

And DA's don't? Hell, my PC can't even run it higher than the lowest setting and it works for me...

 

The graphic point got us in the mess the industry is today. More $ needed to get that top-notch, leaving 5- hour movies (CoD), and requiring much more sold copies than used to be meaning sequel after sequel (CoD) instead of original games. Fine by me if it stays with the FPS crowd, but do we really need to add it in with the RPG crowd? Are we really waiting too for 10- hour RPG's here? Seriously?

 

And indie's seem to do fine despite the imminent need of graphics gamers seem to have... how'd you explain that?

 

When did I say DA's didn't? Not sure how you made the leap from my talking about games in general to DA. I did say previously however the hype bioware is claiming FX wise does not equate to what I am seeing in screen shots. Am I saying the FX is poor? No. However neither is it meeting my expectations considering the comments coming from the devs either. My issue is they need to tone it down if these screens are any indication of what we are getting. They are vastly over selling what they seem to be able to deliver IMO.

 

As for indies, one example, I bought King Arthurs RP wargame from a indie studio. The fx are top notch. My point made.

Edited December 10, 2010 by TheHarlequin

[Tigranes]

Yeah, I agree with your points - basically I'm saying sure, there will be some people out there who pretend to 'hate' graphics or think good graphics = bad gameplay, but (a) I don't really think they're the majority when it comes down to it, and (b) I think there's very few people here that fall into those pitfalls. Anyway, not a big deal.

 

Hassat's point is worth addressing, though - as ugly as FNV is at some points it's nice for me that it thus runs so well on all kinds of computers.

[TheHarlequin]

Yeah, I agree with your points - basically I'm saying sure, there will be some people out there who pretend to 'hate' graphics or think good graphics = bad gameplay, but (a) I don't really think they're the majority when it comes down to it, and (b) I think there's very few people here that fall into those pitfalls. Anyway, not a big deal.

 

Hassat's point is worth addressing, though - as ugly as FNV is at some points it's nice for me that it thus runs so well on all kinds of computers.

 

As for Hassat's point, and here I am going to sound elitist however I am simply being a realist. Being a PC gamer requires a regular investment of hardware to keep up. If you can't afford that then perhaps this isn't a hobby for said person. Devs shouldn't worry about outdated hardware, their goal is to push forward with technology not stay static because some folks want to keep using a 5 yr old video card.

 

Before the haters get all over my arse, we both know while not a popular truth it is just that. The truth. If it wasn't then we would all still be on single core 500mhz boxes with 256meg RAM playing 2D Ultima still. Also worth noting, As far as the industry is concerned, games drive hardware forward not the other way around. A lot of the common hardware we use today was due to hardware mfg pushing forward to run games better.

 

All that said, and back to my original point, the hobby of PC gaming requires a continual investment. Some people can do that others can't. That the way the world works for good or ill.

 

A more personal example of my point, I would love to have a Julia Child's kitchen to cook in. I simply can't afford a $50,000 all pro kitchen. Thus I engage my cooking hobby with what I can do with the tools I can afford. However I don't go around slamming the makers of kitchen equipment to stop developing and making better, and thus more expensive, equipment. I realize this hobby isn't one I can partake in on the level of Gordon Ramsey and I accept that. The hobby of PC gaming is the same.

 

I find it futile those that cry about how that can't but a new video card or cpu every 18 months or so and yet want the newest games to still work well on their outdated box. Some hobbies require resources to fully partake in simple as that.

[sorophx]

A more personal example of my point, I would love to have a Julia Child's kitchen to cook in. I simply can't afford a $50,000 all pro kitchen. Thus I engage my cooking hobby with what I can do with the tools I can afford. However I don't go around slamming the makers of kitchen equipment to stop developing and making better, and thus more expensive, equipment. I realize this hobby isn't one I can partake in on the level of Gordon Ramsey and I accept that. The hobby of PC gaming is the same.

I think the point isn't that people can't afford to upgrade their PC to play new games. it's the fact that publishers have to spend 5 times the money to make games both interesting and visually appealing nowadays- and after that they have to face the fact that they need to ship 10 times the amount of boxes to recuperate , compared to 1998. for example

[Hassat Hunter]

Hassat's point is worth addressing, though - as ugly as FNV is at some points it's nice for me that it thus runs so well on all kinds of computers.

Not for me .

I think the point isn't that people can't afford to upgrade their PC to play new games. it's the fact that publishers have to spend 5 times the money to make games both interesting and visually appealing nowadays- and after that they have to face the fact that they need to ship 10 times the amount of boxes to recuperate , compared to 1998. for example

This is exactly what I am trying to make clear. I love nice graphics as much as the next guy, but I realise that driving it even further cannot really be maintained indefinitely. At one point the amount of required sales cannot be achieved...

 

It's a good thing not all movies require 400 million to make like Avatar for example...

[Cantousent]

Surprise surpise, I see both Harliequin's and Tig's point. I think graphics matter. All things being equal, I want better graphics and I have *never* said otherwise. On the other hand, I *do* remember text adventures and I have an emulator so I can stiill play them, a bit of an achievement for those of us using vista 64. ...And those of us overindulging in a bottle of port.

[TheHarlequin]

A more personal example of my point, I would love to have a Julia Child's kitchen to cook in. I simply can't afford a $50,000 all pro kitchen. Thus I engage my cooking hobby with what I can do with the tools I can afford. However I don't go around slamming the makers of kitchen equipment to stop developing and making better, and thus more expensive, equipment. I realize this hobby isn't one I can partake in on the level of Gordon Ramsey and I accept that. The hobby of PC gaming is the same.

I think the point isn't that people can't afford to upgrade their PC to play new games. it's the fact that publishers have to spend 5 times the money to make games both interesting and visually appealing nowadays- and after that they have to face the fact that they need to ship 10 times the amount of boxes to recuperate , compared to 1998. for example

 

Again, one can say the same thing about my cooking hobby. 25 yrs ago we had much less technology in stoves, fridges and the like. Now they auto clean, dispense drinks, make ice, various heat controls only dreamed of 25 yrs ago. However the flip side of technology going forward is they cost more to make and thus cost more to buy or/and make a profit. Simply put thats how it is in ANY field of business. Technology gets better so you increase such in your product and it thus end up costing more on some level, then add inflation vs those items made 25 yrs ago and you see what direction it's going.

 

The issue with PC games specifically is there was a lot more profit as their cost for PC games have remained about the $50. for over a decade yet production costs have gone up, what you eluded too above. Some games have jumped to $60. to help offset that but still a bit of a issue as they have to sell a lot more vs a game made by 4 guys in a garage in 1985, inflation aside. Unless one is advocating going back to the 4 guys in a garage model of business... Which I think we all know the odds of making it like that in todays market of mega-publishers who have the market sewn up is slim.

 

But that's progress. PC's can do a lot more and publishers want to use all the processing/GPU power they never had in the 80's or 90's. Just like sex sells, so does eye candy. That's advertising 101. If you doubt that look at the first ads for Unreal 1. They were full mag spreads showing a screen shot of the landscape on max. Not game play, not story, just visual. Even nwn1 took a full page ad out in playboy with what.. a in-game succubus temping the reader to play. That's what sells to MOST people. (Before you get your panties in a bunch I said most, not all) if that wasn't the case ppl in advertising would have changed their strategy long ago.

 

So while its fine in our little bubble on this board to talk about who cares about visuals, and they are over rated and the 6 other silly things I read people post about when it comes to FX. However, outside this bubble in reality it does matter and all the discussion here isn't going to change that fact. The genie is out of the bottle per se and its never going back. Game publishers will keep pushing the tech and hardware ppl will keep making more processing power. It's a cycle that has existed in PC game dev since the 70's and will continue.

Edited December 11, 2010 by TheHarlequin

[sorophx]

I remember reading previews of Unreal even then I couldn't understand what the hype was all about. but I was never a FPS person (not counting Q2's DM1 )

The issue with PC games specifically is there was a lot more profit as their cost for PC games have remained about the $50. for over a decade yet production costs have gone up, what you eluded too above. Some games have jumped to $60. to help offset that but still a bit of a issue as they have to sell a lot more vs a game made by 4 guys in a garage in 1985, inflation aside. Unless one is advocating going back to the 4 guys in a garage model of business... Which I think we all know the odds of making it like that in todays market of mega-publishers who have the market sewn up is slim.

we're trying to figure out why the production costs have gone up. hardware is pretty much where it's always been in terms of prices. marketing? most probably the biggest money-sink. salaries? well, of course you need huge teams now. and I'm not sure but I'm guessing the gfx have a lot to do with it

[TheHarlequin]

I remember reading previews of Unreal even then I couldn't understand what the hype was all about. but I was never a FPS person (not counting Q2's DM1 )

The issue with PC games specifically is there was a lot more profit as their cost for PC games have remained about the $50. for over a decade yet production costs have gone up, what you eluded too above. Some games have jumped to $60. to help offset that but still a bit of a issue as they have to sell a lot more vs a game made by 4 guys in a garage in 1985, inflation aside. Unless one is advocating going back to the 4 guys in a garage model of business... Which I think we all know the odds of making it like that in todays market of mega-publishers who have the market sewn up is slim.

we're trying to figure out why the production costs have gone up. hardware is pretty much where it's always been in terms of prices. marketing? most probably the biggest money-sink. salaries? well, of course you need huge teams now. and I'm not sure but I'm guessing the gfx have a lot to do with it

 

You have 40 to 100 full time people working on a game now a days vs the 4 guys in a garage working in their free time. So yes salaries. Considering the average computer animator/modeler makes $50K a year. And there are usually at least half a dozen of them. Then add the design guys, sound guys, scripting guys, PR team... its not surprising games take millions to make today.

[Tigranes]

Won't go on and on about this - suffice to say the market does and ideally should consist of graduated levels of affordability/accessibility, and talking about stoves and cavemen is just diving headfirst into black and white needlessly. Of course there's technological progress but what do you achieve by reducing everything down to that?

 

Hrm... it would be nice to see some proper ragdoll applied to fantasy RPGs though, for once. Fireball making people and small objects fly around and so forth. I guess Oblivion had it, but it wasn't really noticeable due to its rather dour magic.

[Humanoid]

One thing that does irritate me about graphical advancement is that it's in some way retrograde - fridges are quieter, more spacious and more power efficient. Video cards are louder, bulkier and more planet-warming. So yes, while we do have technological advancement, I'd classify it as a relatively immature one where only one factor really matters. So yes, we now have painstakingly modelled, high-polygon, tesselated breasts; but at the same time our ears are assaulted by the incessant hum and rattle of modern "coolers," require investment in bigger, bulkier, more heavily ventilated enclosures, require air-conditioning in summer, and draw as much power as the rest of the house combined.

 

 

Now, granted it's only been 15 years since 3D acceleration was born, but I hope the next 15 years bring a wholly more balanced set of advancements.

[Orchomene]

Again, one can say the same thing about my cooking hobby. 25 yrs ago we had much less technology in stoves, fridges and the like. Now they auto clean, dispense drinks, make ice, various heat controls only dreamed of 25 yrs ago. However the flip side of technology going forward is they cost more to make and thus cost more to buy or/and make a profit. Simply put thats how it is in ANY field of business. Technology gets better so you increase such in your product and it thus end up costing more on some level, then add inflation vs those items made 25 yrs ago and you see what direction it's going.

 

You can't compare both on developent cost. The entertainment industry doesn't follow the same model as the equipment one costwise. Fridges and equipment don't cost 100 times what they cost ten years ago to be developped. Maybe electronics could follow this model partially.

The closest comparison with the video game industry seems to be the movie industry.

One can see that in a mature market (movie), there are places for low budget films and for blockbusters. I can fully enjoy a movie that has 1/100 the budget of a movie like Avatar and won't go and see Avatar.

Thus, I think that in ten years or maybe more or less, the video game industry can reach such balance too. That means having professional that can spread information about high quality products outside of the shinny aspect that is too much considered those days.

Video games critics are clearly immature, in majority. People enjoying vidoe games are also clearly immature because it's not been a long time that video game is a mass market. But in ten years, I'm not sure people will keep on only buying the video games with good graphics and high mareting budget.

We have to wait for the video game culture to become more developped in the masses.

[TheHarlequin]

Again, one can say the same thing about my cooking hobby. 25 yrs ago we had much less technology in stoves, fridges and the like. Now they auto clean, dispense drinks, make ice, various heat controls only dreamed of 25 yrs ago. However the flip side of technology going forward is they cost more to make and thus cost more to buy or/and make a profit. Simply put thats how it is in ANY field of business. Technology gets better so you increase such in your product and it thus end up costing more on some level, then add inflation vs those items made 25 yrs ago and you see what direction it's going.

 

You can't compare both on developent cost. The entertainment industry doesn't follow the same model as the equipment one costwise. Fridges and equipment don't cost 100 times what they cost ten years ago to be developped. Maybe electronics could follow this model partially.

The closest comparison with the video game industry seems to be the movie industry.

One can see that in a mature market (movie), there are places for low budget films and for blockbusters. I can fully enjoy a movie that has 1/100 the budget of a movie like Avatar and won't go and see Avatar.

Thus, I think that in ten years or maybe more or less, the video game industry can reach such balance too.

 

In hindsight that was a better analogy then mine but you still got the point.

 

However I disagree with your perception. As I said before the genie is out of the bottle. In 5 yrs or 50 yrs FX is still going to be a major selling point. And in no way are gamers going to settle for 90's era FX due to smaller teams, less dev time. At least thats the impression I am left with reading your post.

 

As my analogy, yours isn't quite equal to the situation. You can have a crew of 6 or less make a really good quality, coffee house movie that certainly one can enjoy more then avatar or the like. However to program a modern game that will even be looked at you need engine programmers, animators, scripters, artists, sound engineers, Q&A folks and designers at the bare minimum. Granted some positions can be merged (designer and engine programmer or sound guy and Q&A) but the odds of finding a handful of people that can make a good indie film and one that can do all those game dev tasks is pretty hard. I don't know a individual that could write a game engine, do animation/model design, sound composing/editing and texturing/art assets. However I do know folks who can run a film camera, do film editing and direct/write.

 

The reason games take so many people to make is because all the skills are highly technical and few single people can do 3 or 4 positions skillfully unlike filming. There ARE a few exceptions granted but overall I think the rarity of those folks makes my point. You need a half dozen programmers for the engine and another half dozen for animations and some for the art assets and a couple for music and so on. Even at its smallest there no way any kind of quality PC game can be made with the smallest film crew. I have seen decent indie films made with less then half a dozen people not including cast. There is no way a quality game would even make it out the door in any reasonable time frame with that number of devs on a modern pc game. Game dev is simply to complex for the 3 guys in their spare time in the garage these days.

 

With all that said I do agree some kind of leveling off point is required and prob will naturally happen at some point. But 10 yrs is way to optimistic. Perhaps toward the end of our gaming days but not that soon IMO.

Edited December 11, 2010 by TheHarlequin

[Orchomene]

As time goes on, we will see more and more open source engines. At the moment, already some exist for indie devs but the tech is a bit old. Yet, with time, the tech will reach some limit imposed by the human body : perception is limited, so nything that is better than what one can see is just useless.

Of course, blockbusters will keep having best sales (which it requires because of the big budget), but there will be a lower tech gap between blockbusters and small devs.

[sorophx]

In 5 yrs or 50 yrs FX is still going to be a major selling point. And in no way are gamers going to settle for 90's era FX due to smaller teams, less dev time. At least thats the impression I am left with reading your post.

well, they should just look at Torchlight or DeathSpank. very good games that don't have to be photorealistic for people to enjoy them. you're picturing a pretty shallow gamer, who doesn't care about the story or characters. you do remember what happened when Half-Life came out, right? it set a new standard for FPS games, it killed single player campaigns in Q3 and Unreal, which were always about graphics

[trulez]

Is this thread still about DA2 ?