SW:TOR gets caught advertising high textures that are not present in the game.

[Taidan]

/back on topic

Relevant news post:

http://www.swtor.com/community/showt...74#edit1499874

As stated, cinematic scenes use high resolution textures because we have control over how many characters are rendered on-screen at once. This is how the game was always intended to look in cinematics. We did not 'remove' high resolution textures - they were always in the game for use in cinematics.

With that said, thank you for all of your responses. We understand everyone's desires around this issue, and although it's not going to be an overnight fix, as mentioned we're working on addressing this. Many of the suggestions you have made are similar to potential changes the development team is investigating.

I rounded up the development team once more and had another discussion, and wanted to update you with a better timeline and some more precise details on what we're doing right now.

The first major changes will be in our next major Game Update, which will have the version number of 1.2. Those changes will bring greater visual fidelity to your character and those around you, but will still allow for good performance in situations where a lot of characters are on-screen at once. In other words, for those screenshots of your character in their best gear, you should see a marked improvement.

[csuzw]

I quite like the 1st part of the statement as I've recently had a few cutscenes which random passers by have managed to appear in (great when they stand on top of/in the way of the person who is talking). So no it doesn't seem like they have control over how many characters appear in the cinematic bits either.

[c-Row]

It just makes no sense. He's saying that if a game set in Eberron was a D&D one he'd play it even if it was made by BioWare. Now, Eberron is a D&D setting anyway. Both Eberron games that have been released carry the D&D logo on the cover. Therefore I'm finding it really difficult to get any meaning whatsoever from this post. The best I can come up with is something like "I would love BioWare to make a D&D game set in Eberron." And even then it's largely irrelevant to anything talked about previously.

People were ranting about how the BioWare logo was a seal of quality. You were stating that the D&D logo on a box usually stood for quality as well (which was totally irrelevant to the discussion to begin with, mind you). I was saying that if there was a D&D logo on a new Eberron game, I would even buy it if it came from BioWare, as I value both of the former high enough to not let such an opportunity pass, thereby supporting your view on the quality a D&D logo usually suggests. Then you got all pissed for no apparent reason.

[Wizardry]

People were ranting about how the BioWare logo was a seal of quality. You were stating that the D&D logo on a box usually stood for quality as well (which was totally irrelevant to the discussion to begin with, mind you). I was saying that if there was a D&D logo on a new Eberron game, I would even buy it if it came from BioWare, as I value both of the former high enough to not let such an opportunity pass, thereby supporting your view on the quality a D&D logo usually suggests. Then you got all pissed for no apparent reason.

No. I suggested that the main reason Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II sold the millions of copies that they did and made BioWare famous was the D&D attachment. BioWare were a relatively new company at the time and weren't well known for their previous game. Even the Interplay connection couldn't have helped that much considering Fallout sales were a whole lot less. And Knights of the Old Republic? Considering it was primarily a console game, and a lot of console gamers had no clue about Baldur's Gate, I'm sure it sold mostly off the Star Wars name.

So yeah, for a big part of BioWare's existence it wasn't the BioWare label that sold their games, it was the licenses they used. Which is exactly what I replied to originally when the following was posted:

This. There was a time when seeing Bioware on the box was all you needed to know to buy a game. Not so much anymore.

[Skalpadda]

So yeah, for a big part of BioWare's existence it wasn't the BioWare label that sold their games, it was the licenses they used.

I'm thinking the fact that a lot of people loved the games might have had something to do with it.

[Wizardry]

I'm thinking the fact that a lot of people loved the games might have had something to do with it.

You can only love a game after you play it.

[Skalpadda]

You can only love a game after you play it.

Because good press and word of mouth have never led to increased sales, right?

[Wizardry]

Because good press and word of mouth has never led to increased sales, right?

And good press and word of mouth don't often stand up to well regarded licenses. Just compare the sales of Baldur's Gate and Fallout.

[Skalpadda]

I didn't say it was the only factor, but you were making it sound like the licences were the one major reason why the games sold, which sounds like nonsense to me. Making games a lot of people want to play and marketing them to the right audience is still the best way to sell games.

[Grizzly]

I didn't say it was the only factor, but you were making it sound like the licences were the one major reason why the games sold, which sounds like nonsense to me. Making games a lot of people want to play (Emphasis mine - Grizzly) and marketing them to the right audience is still the best way to sell games.

Making a game Dungeons and Dragons is a sound way of attracting quite a large audience (as D&D is much more then a licence).

EDIT: The idea is that the FIFA games wouldn't have sold as well if football hadn't been a popular sport, for example.

[Skalpadda]

Sure, I'm not in any way saying that licences don't play a big part in getting a game attention, but they also wouldn't have sold well if people hadn't enjoyed the games for what they are. There have been plenty of games with big licences that haven't done well and plenty of original IPs that have.

What I objected to was Wizardry's notion that "the main reason Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II sold the millions of copies that they did and made BioWare famous was the D&D attachment" and "for a big part of BioWare's existence it wasn't the BioWare label that sold their games, it was the licenses they used". I think it had more to do with them being good at making games that a lot of people enjoyed.

[Wizardry]

Sure, I'm not in any way saying that licences don't play a big part in getting a game attention, but they also wouldn't have sold well if people hadn't enjoyed the games for what they are. There have been plenty of games with big licences that haven't done well and plenty of original IPs that have.

But we aren't comparing the quality of the game with a label on the box. We are comparing one label on the box with another label on the box. Did you even read the original post I replied to?

This. There was a time when seeing Bioware on the box was all you needed to know to buy a game. Not so much anymore.

All I meant was that for a period of time it was the D&D label rather than the BioWare label that was the most important label on the box. I'm not at all playing down the positive reviews.

What I objected to was Wizardry's notion that "the main reason Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II sold the millions of copies that they did and made BioWare famous was the D&D attachment" and "for a big part of BioWare's existence it wasn't the BioWare label that sold their games, it was the licenses they used". I think it had more to do with them being good at making games that a lot of people enjoyed.

Sure. But then you have to consider than Baldur's Gate wouldn't have been made if it weren't for the D&D license.

[Skalpadda]

But why on earth would you assume "a time when seeing Bioware on the box was all you needed to know to buy a game" was referring to before or at the time the Baldur's Gate games came out? If people had bought the games on the strength of the D&D licence but then didn't enjoy them then surely that wouldn't have made Bioware famous?

To be absolutely clear, what I'm saying is that while the licence may have gotten them a lot of initial attention, the reason they became a big name studio was primarily because people liked their games.

Anyway, this is all off topic so I'll leave it be.

[c-Row]

And Knights of the Old Republic? Considering it was primarily a console game, and a lot of console gamers had no clue about Baldur's Gate, I'm sure it sold mostly off the Star Wars name.

I think "being sure" is still quite an understatement in that case - the Star Wars license pretty much sells anything it's tacked on.

[Taidan]

I quite like the 1st part of the statement as I've recently had a few cutscenes which random passers by have managed to appear in (great when they stand on top of/in the way of the person who is talking). So no it doesn't seem like they have control over how many characters appear in the cinematic bits either.

Either you're making up stories, or that's a hell of a bug. I'd report it just to be sure, because the SWTOR the rest of us are playing doesn't render players in cutscenes unless they're grouped with the person who triggers said scene. Even then, the game itself positions each player according to the script for that scene, so you should never see anybody standing on an NPC during a conversation.

[csuzw]

It's certainly a bug and it doesn't happen regularly. The rogue players aren't actually part of the cut scene, they just appear in them as they would in normal game play, most likely they were going to talk to the same NPC I was. I never saw it while getting my Sorcerer to 50 but I've seen it a handful of times on my mid 20s Trooper.

[R-F]

Either I've got insane or WIZARDRY IS STARTING TO MAKE SENSE.

[Grizzly]

Wizardy has always made sense. Sometimes one simply does not get the context.

[Wulf]

I'm starting to wonder whether it's called The Old Republic because of the era, or whether it's actually because the player base seem to spend most of their time moaning like a bunch of old women.

Because making a relatively polite and entirely reasonable complaint categorises the person or people responsible as moaners. And I'm not even touching the misogyny there, sport. :p

Funny thing is is that I agree with you. This is a very minor consideration, and nothing compared to the shenanigans that have gone on (that were very news-worthy). However, responses like this one really don't help things.

[duff]

Choose your weapon!

guess-handbags.JPG