Dragon Age 2 - Improved Graphics in the Sequel

Fix the damn story, not graphic!

Originally Posted by Konjad
Fix the damn story, not graphic!

I thought the story was great, just finished it today and it was the best rpg I've played in quite some time I must say. The fighting got a bit boring towards the end, but it was the story that kept me going.

Originally Posted by Davion
I think they're more talking about the graphics on the consoles than on the PC. I've heared some pretty bad stories about the graphics on them.

I have heard some issues as well … but nothing that would rate as 'gawd awful'.

I'd like some more atmosphere, please. More ambiance both in sound and setting. DA was made in such a way that you were pushed forward relentlessly, there was neither the time to just take everything in, nor was there an incentive to do so. Everything seemed to have a story related purpose or was only made for combat … I'm one of those people who happened to like the free roaming areas in BG for instance, with a strong focus on ambient sounds. Or even something as simple as footsteps. While DA did have different running sounds for different armor types (leather, chain), footsteps sounded the same no matter where you were running on. Stone, grass, soft soil, wood … no difference. Stuff like that made the world feel flatter than BG, which is kind of ironic.

Basically I'd like to see more things that aren't completely streamlined.

Originally Posted by Arhu
Basically I'd like to see more things that aren't completely streamlined.

I'm quite sure that's not gonna happen.After DA's success Bioware don't have any reason something like this.

Originally Posted by Kostaz
I'm quite sure that's not gonna happen.After DA's success Bioware don't have any reason something like this.

Not only that, what incentive do OTHER companies have to create something outside of the Dragon Age or Oblivion molds?

. . .

My small glimmer of hope is that some always do.

I prefer story driven games rather than open "empty" world games. 12 years ago, I was playing M&M style games (less story, more same endless killing, same landscape and such) day and night like a maniac, but not anymore. I want diversity. Yes, Dragon Age is a little linear, but offers lots of choosing. And I think it's the worthy successor of BG.

As for the graphics, I must admit I was a little dissappointed when I first opened DA. I had expected Mass Effect quality. Low textures, but the game makes up that with nice animations.

I felt DA suffered from what a lot of games released on PC and Consoles do, that is many smaller environments rather than larger open areas. ( I havent' seen Fallout 3 or Oblivion on a console so I don't know how they handle the large view distances and open areas). I don't know if developers do this for consoles because the machines memory cannot hold a large area or because console customers like it that way.

I know I hate loading screens so always prefer a single large city compared to a number of parts. Denerim was one of the worst examples of this, it doesn't feel like the capital of Ferelden at all. More like some dusty little town. I am trying to think of a large scale city that felt like a city…The Daggerfall cities felt large and the Morrowind city felt large mainly because they did a good job of covering the compartmentalisation of the areas.

The recent Bioware cities all suffer from this chopped up feel. I think I first noticed it in KOTOR and ever since. The cities feel like a string of areas and not a city at all.

Dragon Age could definitely do with a face lift outdoors. It is possible to be looking out on a bare polygon hill or one with a couple of trees.

Still I don't mind the Bioware games for this as it is the story that drags you a long. I defintely play the Bioware games differently from the Bethesda games. In Bioware ones it is all about advancing the story to see what comes next. In Bethesda ones I rarely do what I am told and just wander off to have my own adventure - see what is over the next rise, in the next village or in that tomb. I like both styles depending what mood I am in.

The graphics aren't too bad in DA but they aren't real good, either. A big Direct-X 11 facelift would be great stuff.

Yeah, I think it's mostly pathic console memory (roughly 256mb) that keeps the areas small. It's probably also behind the tendancy for people to all have look-alike bodies with different heads plopped on top. There's also load time considerations.

I'd say forget about better graphic but more story plz. I tire of endless, pointless battles without much story progression atm.

Originally Posted by xSamhainx
i thought the graphics were awesome, certainly nothing to complain about!

+1

I also thought the graphics were great. Actually, I thought they were better than just great. In some places I would just walk around and admire the scenery. My only complaint was that there was not as much scenery to admire. The areas were too small.

The graphics were not as good as Oblivion or Fallout 3, but who cares? The game is a mix of a lot of things that were done right like the story, length, gameplay, graphics and even the characters (though they can be improved a bit). All of that mixed together made for one grea ride. Who gives a rat's behind if DirectX 11 could shiny it up a bit. It was plenty shiny to start with.

They can update the graphics all they want , it will still remain and hand holding , small ,boring , party based , linear , quest driven , empty game.
I imagine that in the sequel you will spend 80% of the time speaking to your sociopath companions , micromanage combat of the "fail to do the obvious" AI and reloading so the dragon can chew you again.

I prefer to wait 10 more years for the next elder scrolls than to play any BW game.

Some of the external areas were a bit ho-hum but the internal areas looked fantastic - no graphics improvements are needed for me.

As for why the areas were small, I think you guys are barking up the wrong tree with the console accusations. Leaving aside that DA was in development for PC-only for a long time (let's assume they were lying), open world games are extremely common on consoles. It's almost hard to buy anything else. I'm not exactly a console expert but Infamous, Assassins Creed 1/2, Saints Row 1/2, the GTAs, Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Protoype, Crackdown, various driving games…I'm sure someone who actually has experience can give a long list. Assassins Creed 2 has a large world, climbing, swimming and impressive NPC densities and works nicely on consoles.

I'd suggest it's a design choice. BioWare likes to streamline their games (I don't necessarily mean that in a "dumbed down" way) - think Baldur's Gate, "dead" exploration areas --> BG2, no "dead" areas. They have a certain amount of content planned, they never use world simulation elements (no real schedules, NPCs doing tasks or the like) and obviously it makes it easier technically, including for the mod support DA has, so they choose small areas.

same no matter where you were running on. Stone, grass, soft soil, wood … no difference. Stuff like that made the world feel flatter than BG, which is kind of ironic.

Basically I'd like to see more things that aren't completely streamlined.

Hmm, good ideas I'll think about this for T:MoF.

Originally Posted by pox67
I felt DA suffered from what a lot of games released on PC and Consoles do, that is many smaller environments rather than larger open areas. ( I havent' seen Fallout 3 or Oblivion on a console so I don't know how they handle the large view distances and open areas). I don't know if developers do this for consoles because the machines memory cannot hold a large area or because console customers like it that way.

Neither. It's not a console thing; it's a Bioware thing. Fallout 3, for example, had a wide-open landscape, great draw distance, and a distant horizon. The linearity and "small chunk" approach of DA has to do with the way Bioware likes to construct their games, not with console memory limitations (which are real, but just not the explanation here).

Originally Posted by purpleblob
I'd say forget about better graphic but more story plz. I tire of endless, pointless battles without much story progression atm.

That is more what I am saying - I fear that the focus will shift towards providing more eye-candy compared to better overall RPG experience.

Yeah, I agree.

Bioware definitely needs to turn down the endless filler combat. I'd say cut fights in half, and it'll be fine.

Beyond that, I'd like them to take a look at class diversity - especially for rogues. Basically, there are too few classes and not enough ways to diversify them. I'm not talking about "specialisations", unless they genuinely change the way you approach your class.

I think that visually what the game needed most was a face generator that didn't make humans look like lummoxes, make some bloody decent looking presets for a change.

Also what was up with the weapons hovering 2 feet away from your back? Magic instead of sheathes?

Originally Posted by txa1265
Not only that, what incentive do OTHER companies have to create something outside of the Dragon Age or Oblivion molds?

This sounds almost to me as if the "Blizzard phenomernon" will happen again … Loads of clones …. for decades …

Originally Posted by xSamhainx
i thought the graphics were awesome, certainly nothing to complain about!

Which might be a hint towards the luxury gamers are used to nowadays … Pure luxury … Then even the smallest stain might become a giant … distraction.