this is pathetic. I think what the tc meant with the witcher 2 is, late game, you really need to pay attention because certain npcs will say things about a character or an event or a location and then later on you will encounter puzzles or situations where said knowledge comes in handy to either save your ass or help you advance forward.

No hand holding whatsoever as the game really forces you to think and pay attention even to the little details around you (non combat situations). Veterans of the game will know what I am talking about.

Demon's souls is another game with little to no hand holding. That game will force you to pay attention.

nope, it's off my "to buy" list with that stupid drm crap. Fortunately, there are more better games coming out on pc to keep me busy for a long time.

[QUOTE="malebog123"]

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"]

Oh boy, that's rich. You do realize those screens are far from impressive? I think the Witcher 2 looks better than Dragon Age 2, but I don't think these pics look much better than the ones I've taken.

Everything in Dragon Age 2 looks 'like plastic' or 'more clean' or 'sterile', so to say. That's the game's overall art style. They weren't going for flat-out photorealism, you realize that?

And again, this picture looks pretty underwhelming graphically.

SkyWard20

dude just stop. Do you work for bioware to know that they deliberately designed the game to look like that? Please, the engine is just not good enough to do more. Remember when the game was first announced a long time ago for pc? That was more than 3 years ago.

I don't believe the devs actually sat down and said, "Hey let's make everyone look like plasctic because it will give them a clean and sterile look." That's just utter horse crap.

"Overall, we feel that the technology changes have empowered our content creators to create clean, pretty, more consistent, very often visually striking areas that look and flow great throughout the game."

factsopinions.

oh yeah, like the devs are going to bash their own game before release. yep

[QUOTE="malebog123"]

you know what the best part is: Next time a console dedicated fanboy comes in with a new thread to troll pc gaming, the blizzard defense force will be among the first group to flame and vomit the usual crap about how pc gaming is the greatest. How we all get the ability to mod our fav games. How pc devs like blizzard and valve gives us total freedom and control over our games with no bullcrap drm andideas to milk their fanbase.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

Ubi did this and oh boy, did people flip, especially some of the defense force here. Now blizz pulls the same crap but with sugar coated words and asinine reasoning and they are like, "Oh well, it's blizz, they can never do anything wrong. They are not owned by a corporation, they do this because they are gamers for gamers. They are the true saviours of the pc."

Mograine

You're the one using asinine reasoning if you can't tell that Diablo are MP games and you keep making comparisons between things that cannot be compared.

I had no idea there were so many people that have absolutely no clue about what Diablo games are meant to be before this outrage to be honest.

yeah sure, so all the reviews out there that praised the single player aspect so much must have played another game. Go and read just about every review out there on d2 when it first came out, because they were mostly on the single player aspect before they touched on the multi.

Your response is the same crap you use always for all blizzard's games. "x game by blizzard is the best in the genre that's why they are still played today, compared to y game from an upstart company."

yeah........and that call of duty crap you said, get your facts straight before you post nonsense.

[QUOTE="Zyamaman"]

Well, the art design in DAII is not unimpressive, I'll give you that. Even though I prefer the design in TWII, because it's more... authentic, and I prefer it that way.

Also, before I continue, let me just say that I do not consider DAII to be a bad game, and I absolutely intend to finish it, sooner or later. But we're discussing the merits of it's graphical engine right now, and itshould be stated, in no uncertain terms, that for Our Lord's Year Two Thousand and Eleven, this game has absolutely, irrefutably substandard graphics.

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"]

I saw the locked thread discussing The Witcher's/Dragon Age 2's visuals a while ago and, while I do believe that the Witcher 2 looks better than Dragon Age, I made this thread to dismiss the recurring claims ( from people who've never even played the game, or at least, not with DX 11 enabled ) that Dragon Age 2 is, without question, 'a bad-looking game', or otherwise 'last-gen'.

SkyWard20

I'm sorry, but which one of your screenshots is supposed to lead us to a different conclusion?

Look at the textures of the screenshot below - what is this person wearing? What is it made of?

And those flag thingies right behind him, with the spikes poking out of them - it looks like plastic!

SkyWard20

In contrast, look here:

See Geralt's jacket? It's made of fabric, and leather, and there's a bloodstain on it, on the left side of his chest...

Why did you post this pic? What part of it is supposed to be "next-gen graphics"?

We covered the textures issue already, so let's look at the faces.

That's a person's face. It might not be the best skin texture out there today, but it's definitely "next-gen".

Whereas what you posted, it looks like this:

Now look at the character in the middle - look at the model.

See all the belts on his thighs and arms? They're flat. Looks like the better part of his outfit is nothing but plain texture.

Now look at Geralt's outfit here:

Oh boy, that's rich. You do realize those screens are far from impressive? I think the Witcher 2 looks better than Dragon Age 2, but I don't think these pics look much better than the ones I've taken.

Everything in Dragon Age 2 looks 'like plastic' or 'more clean' or 'sterile', so to say. That's the game's overall art style. They weren't going for flat-out photorealism, you realize that?

And again, this picture looks pretty underwhelming graphically.

dude just stop. Do you work for bioware to know that they deliberately designed the game to look like that? Please, the engine is just not good enough to do more. Remember when the game was first announced a long time ago for pc? That was more than 3 years ago.

I don't believe the devs actually sat down and said, "Hey let's make everyone look like plasctic because it will give them a clean and sterile look." That's just utter horse crap.

[QUOTE="menes777"]

[QUOTE="Vlashkgbr"]

again, why not one of the online blizzard fangirls defenders answered my questions in the last page?, why the hell would you compare a big persistent mmorpg like guild wars to a room based hack n' slash game with no persistent world and as big as a single player game?

Gamesterpheonix

Fanboys will defend anything, just look at Dragon Age 2, Crysis 2 and so on. They were clearly slaps in the faces of their fanbase meant to make the most amount of money possible but people still defended them. Pretty much their favorite brand could charge them to take a piss on their face and they would find a way to defend it.

becuase it wasn't made by blizzard? funny thing is, I enjoyed the game.

you know what the best part is: Next time a console dedicated fanboy comes in with a new thread to troll pc gaming, the blizzard defense force will be among the first group to flame and vomit the usual crap about how pc gaming is the greatest. How we all get the ability to mod our fav games. How pc devs like blizzard and valve gives us total freedom and control over our games with no bullcrap drm andideas to milk their fanbase.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

Ubi did this and oh boy, did people flip, especially some of the defense force here. Now blizz pulls the same crap but with sugar coated words and asinine reasoning and they are like, "Oh well, it's blizz, they can never do anything wrong. They are not owned by a corporation, they do this because they are gamers for gamers. They are the true saviours of the pc."

some people here just don't think. Too narrow minded and shallow.

[QUOTE="Planeforger"]

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"]The double standard is almost painful to witness. Ubisoft does it and they're the worst company in the world. Blizzard does it and it is all of a sudden it's no big deal? Come on......Gamesterpheonix

Agreed. Where are all of the boycotting threads?

I mean, I don't care either way, but anyone who has ever complained about Ubisoft's latest DRM should be completely up in arms about this.

splinter cell conviction had a multiplayer component.

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

[QUOTE="SkyWard20"]

Um, no.

First, the facial animations in The Witcher 2 are not 'subtle'; they're just not good. As in bad.

And second, there's a small description under those pictures. Please read it.

Let's take the first one, for example:

Yep, nobody would act like that.

SkyWard20

There's a reason people say the exact same thing I did every time those comparison pictures are posted, because it's true.

Oh boy, lots of people to prove wrong today...

---

Anyway:

First, the facial animations of Dragon Age 2's character models more accurately emulate human-like displays of emotion; it's not a matter of differing opinions.In many of the conversations, the differences will appear much more subtle, as the situation calls for it, by the way -- but of course, you haven't played the game.

Whereas the models in the Witcher 2 will most often than not have a very blank stare on their faces; you're welcome to prove me wrong with some better pictures of facial animations, of course. I've asked this before 'in the other' thread too, but got no direct response.

Second, you admitting to having copied the same argument from another thread does not constitute 'everyone' ( still waiting for those better pictures ) saying the same thing. In fact, I've seen quite a few other people bemoan that they 'can't see Triss' face well enough because it's too dark', or that 'the game plays on low-to-medium settings' -- none of which is true -- so having an original-but-unfounded argument is not entirely impossible.

Lastly, does she really just 'misspeak' ? I don't know this. Regardless, here are some more pictures:

Let me guess: who the hell makes those faces when they tell a joke?

you are not "proving" anyone wrong. Just stop using the word "prove" as it implies you're using facts to back your claims, which you are not.