• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Dragon Age: Origins

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
It is definitely not a port. Bioware said multiple times that the PC version was their main platform.
Click to expand...

Well I hope the videos I've seen so far are from the console versions because it doesn't look great to me anyway.
 
I don't know.. I don't understand how they can make Mass Effect look so good yet DA does look kind of wishy washy.

Maybe the rule system running in the background drains too many resources? Alot of AI characters walking around? Huge areas? Now that I think about it pretty much EVERYBODY was just standing around in mass effect aside from the battles which the enemies probably don't spawn until you are so close anyways. If they have entire areas of AI characters that load during entering the area I suppose it might cause performance issues.. hence lowering texture quality.

But then again.. I don't truly understand how processor usage affects graphic performance when you have a video processor for that?
 
I think its just that video, when I watched it on the main dragon age page its the same but the other videos look fine
 
Yeah, its definately the video. I've seen the other trailers and this one is a bad one compared to them.
 
This trailer is worse than others, but don't expect a bleeding edge graphics engine. Except for Mass Effect, most of BioWare's 3D titles have always seemed to be 2-3 years behind the current state of the art to me, but the story and gameplay have never suffered for that. Personally, I'd rather they spend more of their budget on gameplay and story aspects rather than making super high-res models and textures and other eye-candy.
 
Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
It is definitely not a port. Bioware said multiple times that the PC version was their main platform.
Click to expand...

Yep, they delayed it to port to the consoles because we all know that if the PC version launches first, no one will buy a console version because of piracy.:roll:
 
The textures do indeed look very low resolution, but maybe they didn't use the highest in-game settings for that trailer, who knows, maybe it's just that. I hope it is... I don't like low resolution textures especially if the game is not a console port, I'd rather have low polygons count and high resolution textures than the opposite.
 
Like Diablo and Starcraft have separate development teams, the same goes for Dragon Age and Mass Effect. Dragon Age is from the old school Alberta camp and the character models make the game look suspiciously like a derivative of the Aurora engine. Mass Effect used the Unreal 3 engine.

Dragon Age ditched quite a bit of graphical polish in an effort to focus more on story and gameplay to be more in-line with Bioware's older RPGS (as the developer's claim, anyway). As we all know, Mass Effect was little more than a 10 hour game if you removed the aimless Oblivion-esque horse riding side quests (aka Mako).

Of course, we'll find out of DAO actually is a much more complete game than ME, or if they were full of it and it was just an euphemism for "we had a small budget."
 
You know, I'm almost always of the opinion that developers should put gameplay before graphics, yet I see one video with low res textures and I slag them for it. I'm an asshole.
 
Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
You know, I'm almost always of the opinion that developers should put gameplay before graphics, yet I see one video with low res textures and I slag them for it. I'm an asshole.
Click to expand...

Same here.

But still, instead of spending countless hours touching up the details on 3d objects adding more and more polygons it most likely takes a fraction of the time to beef up textures.

Like somebody else said, I can do without huge polygon counts in exchange for hi-res textures. But also, maybe the areas could just be so huge that an average graphics card doesn't have the memory for it? That's hard to believe though if you compare huge areas of others games...

I can do without pixel shaders, advanced shadowing, bloom and hi-def rendering.. just give me some nice textures!
 
Originally posted by: jonks
I'd still play this game if they used 16bit sprites.
Click to expand...

This

I'd gladly take bad graphics if the story/gameplay is awesome. Too many gamers won't even look at a game if it has shitty graphics which is sad cus they could be missing some great games.
 
After watching that video I felt like I was back in Moria in LOTRO..which is an MMO and looked way better. I hope it was just the video.
 
Originally posted by: Kalmah
Originally posted by: Pelu
lol... another crappy game for the history of PC games...
Click to expand...

lol... more ignorance based on graphics alone.
Click to expand...

Lets say.... more shortness crappiness on PC gaming.... well I dont really blame them, each day development of games takes more time and money lol... two things you dont have that much this days...
 
Originally posted by: Pelu
each day development of games takes more time and money. . .
Click to expand...

The answer for this is that too many publishers and developers are pushing graphics graphics graphics and nothing else. Take some of Stardocks games, for example, Sins of a Solar Empire was a fantastic game that sold more than some big budget shooter titles, and it didn't cost nearly as much to make as those games.

I have DAO on preorder myself, unless some nasty DRM rears its head prior to launch, I will enjoy playing it in October.
 
Companies will pump millions into making nice graphics but then not bother to do a decent ending. Half the time it's a 10 second cutscene which basically says "the end"

pisses me off. I'd rather have passable graphics and a great story with a neat ending.
 
Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
Companies will pump millions into making nice graphics but then not bother to do a decent ending. Half the time it's a 10 second cutscene which basically says "the end"

pisses me off. I'd rather have passable graphics and a great story with a neat ending.
Click to expand...

2 games come to mind: Bioshock and Fallout 3. Both horrible endings.
 
Originally posted by: zerocool84
Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
Companies will pump millions into making nice graphics but then not bother to do a decent ending. Half the time it's a 10 second cutscene which basically says "the end"

pisses me off. I'd rather have passable graphics and a great story with a neat ending.
Click to expand...

2 games come to mind: Bioshock and Fallout 3. Both horrible endings.
Click to expand...

I honestly didn't think either had horrible endings. Great endings? No. But certainly not horrible IMO.
 
Originally posted by: datalink7
Originally posted by: zerocool84
Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
Companies will pump millions into making nice graphics but then not bother to do a decent ending. Half the time it's a 10 second cutscene which basically says "the end"

pisses me off. I'd rather have passable graphics and a great story with a neat ending.
Click to expand...

2 games come to mind: Bioshock and Fallout 3. Both horrible endings.
Click to expand...

I honestly didn't think either had horrible endings. Great endings? No. But certainly not horrible IMO.
Click to expand...

Compared to the previous Fallouts, Fallout 3 had a pretty poor ending. However the Broken Steel DLC of course changes all that. In fact, with the Broken Steel DLC the game doesn't even really have an ending 😛
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top