1230 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

errant_knight wrote...
When it's more than one, it sounds like political talking points, and MAN, do I hate being fed talking points!

"Cartoony" is a political talking point in this discussion. If you'd like it not to be, you need a list of specific objects in the images that qualify as "cartoony" and how that situation could be rectified.

[In Exile]

Terror_K wrote...
In either case, DAO's original art design certainly didn't suffer budget and technology constraints. Part of DAO's appeal was its look and feel and that seems to have gone out the window now entirely.

This may be true for you, but it is not neccesarily true for everyone. I do want to clarify a point, however: are you saying the change in art direction is bad, because once a series establishes an art direction it ought to keep it for the whole series (so regardless of what the change is, it is always bad) or are you making the more specific point that you liked the art direction in DA, and that changing it would make you unhappy?

Both I feel are games that were just as defined by their artistic nature as they were by their lore and setting. If the ME people suddenly said, It's the same thing here as far as I'm concerned. DAO's visual style, to me, is part of what defines it. And now that's just thrown out the window for a completely new approach.

Ah, so it's the former. Okay, I get it. I just don't see it. Why is the art style important? I'm just not a graphics person beyond wanting it to be at a certain level of technology (i.e. better than KoTOR at max settings on a solid current gen PC). I can't appreciate the significance of art style to the game. Could you explain why it is that you feel it is so critical?

[Jimmy Fury]

soteria wrote...

yeah but taking a series thats supposed to be "dark" and making it look cartoony kind of goes against the atmosphere of the other titles doesn't it?

I know some people who would say batman was kinda dark. It was a cartoon, and it looked (gasp) cartoony. Photo-realism =/= "dark."

Sorry to post again so soon (oi we went and got all busy in here!)
but THIS is an extremely good point.
The original Dark Knight (comic) was extremely brightly colored and very very cartoony with straight up caricatures being used. Yet it is by far one of the darkest comics ever. Choi's current art on X-force is extremely soft and pretty yet it's the bloodiest most visceral the x-men have ever been.  So I very much agree realism=/=darkness

errant_knight wrote...
stuff. snipped.

I beleive Woo's point was in reference to the "They shouldn't change anything" attitude of some posters. Finding the art style not to your taste or having experience with a feature you dislike is fine. But claiming that any change is inherently bad is a very basic fear of change.

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 19 juillet 2010 - 05:59 .

[the_one_54321]

In Exile wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
In either case, DAO's original art design certainly didn't suffer budget and technology constraints. Part of DAO's appeal was its look and feel and that seems to have gone out the window now entirely.

This may be true for you, but it is not neccesarily true for everyone.

He hits the nail right on the head. How has the look and feel gone right out the window? Give us a list of qualities that you find depart from the defining qualities of the look of DA:O.

[Jallard]

I am playing ME2 for the first time today, because I wanted to see what it was like. As for the art design in DA:O I think it surpasses ME2. The characters look more real than in ME2. ME2's characters, the humans at least, seem deformed and distorted. I would much prefer seeing Morrigan or Leliana than the female Shepard or that other chick. What's her name?

In addition, I can see ME2 as a console game, as the action is more intense and resereved for the young whose hand and eye cordination are quicker than say, this old man. Heck, I can barely type fast any more. There is just too much going on in ME2. for me at least.

Modifié par Jallard, 19 juillet 2010 - 06:15 .

[soteria]

If you are proud of your superior intelligence, you clearly believe you are more intelligent than most; or are you saying that it is possible to believe you are stupid and phrase that as superior intelligence? Can't see how that would be possible outside of some sort of tongue-in-cheek sarcastic comment.

I'm saying I think there was some sarcasm there. I've met plenty of people who I could describe as "proud of their superior intelligence" that really weren't all that bright, except in their own minds.

That being said, while there may well have been a stereotype of PnP players as being basement dwelling nerds, I don't think there is one anymore of cRPG players.

That probably depends on the company you keep. I've met a fair number of people that associate tabletop DnD, WoW, and everything in between with that stereotype (as portrayed in the South Park cartoon).

[errant_knight]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

soteria wrote...

yeah but taking a series thats supposed to be "dark" and making it look cartoony kind of goes against the atmosphere of the other titles doesn't it?

I know some people who would say batman was kinda dark. It was a cartoon, and it looked (gasp) cartoony. Photo-realism =/= "dark."

Sorry to post again so soon (oi we went and got all busy in here!)
but THIS is an extremely good point.
The original Dark Knight (comic) was extremely brightly colored and very very cartoony with straight up caricatures being used. Yet it is by far one of the darkest comics ever. Choi's current art on X-force is extremely soft and pretty yet it's the bloodiest most visceral the x-men have ever been.  So I very much agree realism=/=darkness

errant_knight wrote...
stuff. snipped.

I beleive Woo's point was in reference to the "They shouldn't change anything" attitude of some posters. Finding the art style not to your taste or having experience with a feature you dislike is fine. But claiming that any change is inherently bad is a very basic fear of change.

Very few people are saying that, I think. Most have specific reasons for not liking the proposed changes, and can list them succinctly untill your head explodes. And different people list different things. This smacks of disarming opposition by making it sound irrational. I didn't say anything about it when David Gaider said it a while ago, because he can say what he likes, but now that I'm hearing it from multiple Bioware employees, I'm wondering if it isn't a tactic.

Modifié par errant_knight, 19 juillet 2010 - 06:15 .

[AlanC9]

One can be proud of his superior taste for liking intellectually demanding fare, rather than for intelligence per se.

[Jimmy Fury]

Jallard wrote...

I am playing ME2 for the first time today, because I wanted to see what it was like. As for the art design in DA:O I think it surpasses ME2. The characters look more real than in ME2. ME2's characters, the humans at least, seem deformed and distorted. I would much prefer seeing Morrigan or Leliana than the female Shepard or that other chick. What's her name?

...

At least 3 of the characters were modeled on actual people. According to Rana (the model for Samara) this was done using a 3d scan of their faces (per one of her pictures of Samara on her Model Mayhem account).
I mean, I'm not trying to argue the preference part of your post but in terms of realism it doesn't get much better than that...

[Addai]

errant_knight wrote...

Y'know I'm starting to find the 'afraid of change' line irritating. When it's just one person, you go 'well, that's a tad annoying'. When it's more than one, it sounds like political talking points, and MAN, do I hate being fed talking points!

This particular one makes it sound like I don't already know that I don't enjoy voice acting from a protagonist--because I've done that before--but fear the possibility out of unwillingness to try new things, for example. Played VO, know I don't enjoy it, no fear.

I also can see with my actual eyes that I don't care for the new art style. Does that mean it won't work? No. Does it mean I reject it out of fear? No. I just plain think its unappealing.

Saying 'people don't like change' reduced their opinions to knee-jerk response and means that no one needs to take them seriously--that's the fear talking, not reason or past experience. Buck up little camper! *Pats fan on head*

Agreed.  We could as easily say "Bioware fears consistency" and it would mean about as much.

Modifié par Addai67, 19 juillet 2010 - 06:19 .

[AlanC9]

errant_knight wrote...
Very few people are saying that, I think. Most have specific reasons for not liking the proposed changes, and can list them succinctly untill your head explodes.  

Well, there has been an awful lot of rhetoric on the board saying that DAO was a big success so Bio shouldn't change anything. Plus posts saying that Bio's obviously making all the changes for a quick buck. Not to mention the posters that hold both positions simultaneously, which makes my head spin.

[CarlSpackler]

In Exile wrote...
Which industry are we talking about, here? Again, I would certainly agree that this is possible, but I think the industry itself and the product the subsidary is producing is a very important part of the extent to which a parent company involves themselves in production.

Certainly, and I agree that Bioware caters to a specific sector of gaming in the same way Halo, Madden, and Starcraft cater to specific sectors.  But usuallyin the highest circle of decision making the education level with regard to the actual market place can often be rather low.  A high level investor may have a rather high education with regard to wall-street but have no knowledge of the nuance of game genre.  To this individual video game development is video game development.  This type of thinking seems most readily apparent in the film industry.  Where you often hear tales of executives missing the story and character nuances that made a particular action film successful and instead wanting to ramp up either the special effects or some other un-related aspect.  For one example read Guillermo Del Torro's story of trying to get Hellboy made, there are some pretty funny anecdotes about what artistic direction the movie producers thought that story should go.  As a second example here, after The Dark Knight's rabid success, a lot of move producers believed it was because The Dark Knight was a "dark" film and that was what people wanted to see so there was to be an emphasis on moving their adaptions in that direction.

I understand your point here, but I've seen it time and time again where a parent company looks at a sub, sees that it is profitable, looks at some of their other subs and decides to "streamline" their overall production and as a result the quirky profitable sub begins to resemble their corporate siblings. 

Could you provide examples?

Example 1 - Sterling Software (formerly one of the large software companies in the 90s, I believe they were swallowed up by Computer Associates sometime in the early part of the decade.)  They had a profitable line of business selling a low-cost insurance management system to smaller subs of large insurance companies.  The line was profitable, made the company money and employed approx 100 people.  But the revenue for this particular line was small (comparatively speaking) and so the decision was to kill the product, fold some of the resources into existing lines to boost those businesses in an attempt to boost overall revenue elsewhere.  Now whether that strategy was successful or not, I cannot say, but a profitable line of business was gone and those particular revenues were gone from the company.

Example 2 - Pick any "Big 4" remaining accounting firms.  KPMG, PWC, E&Y, D&T:  Their consulting rates have become obscene.  An entry level CPA (or similarly fielded consultant) is expected to bring in 7-10 times in revenue what his current annual salary is.  Now out of that total revenue, his salary, and probably a healthy bonus of 50% plus his benefits, with the rest kicking up to corporate to be paid out to partners.  Again if you have an individual only yeilding 2-3 times his annual salary, its often viewed as dead weight to be kicked out of the annual budget.  Many profitable individuals are often layed off for committing this particular corporate no-no. 

Like I said - I very much believe EA is looking at Bioware, looking at their other departments, and looking at market research and saying, we believe feature X needs to be out and feature Y needs to be in to extend our market reach.

I certainly believe EA would push, for example, for graphics and gameplay to go in a particular direction. But at the same time, I think these are non-critical elements of a game for Bioware, because of how they have flipped their art-style and graphics as well as their gameplay elements from game-to-game.The only constant has been a dedication to story and story choice (to some degree). This is what I see Bioware as being uncompromising on.

Now plausibly EA could change this, as well, but realistically I think that would include removing a dramatic portion of the current Bioware staff. As is, Bioware is not good at things like gameplay and graphics and very good at things like story. Plausibly, their current staff could ignore one to improve at the other. But there is no guarantee they would be good at it. So I would think that a better indication of a dramatic change in outlook at Bioware is a dramatic increase in new faces and the removal of staples we are familiar with for years. 

  Yes I think you probably correct here.

I said it's silly [i[not[/i] to think they are involved, i.e. we have to take for granted there is some involvement. To me, it is only a question of how involved, but I happen to think EA will not touch the core of what Bioware is, which is the stories they produce relative to their customizable PCs, and to the degree that I want to purchase games from Bioware, this is enough for me.

Ah, looks like I misread your initial intent there.  And again, I agree with you - so far whatever changes Bioware are making to their current gaming model (positive and negative) haven't forced me into a position where I no longer wish to purchase Bioware games.  In truth they're still my favorite game developer - by a decent margin.  And while the above discussion between us may be interesting, its really just academic as neither of us are in a high-level position within Bioware or EA..... or are you?

[errant_knight]

Re: the 'cartoony' thing which seems to have taken over the thread, although I think it's the least of the issues to be concerned about.... I find the ogre and the darkspawn not cartoony, but comic-booky. Golden age comic-booky, to be precise. I have no intrinsic problem with that style of art, I love comic books, but I do think living in a world that looks like that might prove to be less than immersive. Hawke and his sister--that doesn't look cartoony, or comic-booky, it looks drawn, like a pastel drawning (don't jump down my throat, it's just an example to express something I'm finding difficult to express), There's something a bit odd about the face shapes, but I can't really gripe about that, I mean, look at Howe's nose.... I'm not sure why I find these folks offputting, and it may well be that by the time it gets to final, they won't look so...whatever it is.... 2D on a 3D figure? Bah, I don't know. I need more analytical words.... Anyway, I think it's all just too stylized for my taste, but that's the least of the concerns.

[errant_knight]

AlanC9 wrote...

errant_knight wrote...
Very few people are saying that, I think. Most have specific reasons for not liking the proposed changes, and can list them succinctly untill your head explodes.  

Well, there has been an awful lot of rhetoric on the board saying that DAO was a big success so Bio shouldn't change anything. Plus posts saying that Bio's obviously making all the changes for a quick buck. Not to mention the posters that hold both positions simultaneously, which makes my head spin.

I have to admit that some are going over the top. I lost my temper on a couple of occasions, I know. But the devs are people trying to do their jobs and feed their families, just like anyone else. That doesn't mean that I don't think they might not have consulted an expert at managing fallout. Heck, if I were going to announce such major changes to a well loved, existing product, that's what I'd do. Doesn't mean I like being on the receiving end.

Modifié par errant_knight, 19 juillet 2010 - 06:35 .

[b09boy]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Seriously, though, I know folks are
afraid of change, but regardless of how you think it looks, how about
seeing how it plays--you know, because it's a game from a
company you say you are/wer a fan of--before walking off in a huff and
taking your ball with you?

That's one way to take a
critique.  Lump the people who complain together and say they're simply
afraid of change.  [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/pinched.png[/smilie]

Please,
don't treat fans of your company's work as if they have no clue what
they enjoy.  It's insulting that you think we're so stupid and
simple-minded.  People have very specific reasons for not liking much of
what has been announced and those reasons aren't simply 'because it's
different'.  As well, many of these reasons come backed up with a proven history not just with Bioware games, but many others as well.

[the_one_54321]

b09boy wrote...
People have very specific reasons for not liking much of what has been announced ...  As well, many of these reasons come backed up with a proven history not just with Bioware games, but many others as well.

Well, let's hear it. Start listing.

[Stanley Woo]

b09boy wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Seriously, though, I know folks are
afraid of change, but regardless of how you think it looks, how about
seeing how it plays--you know, because it's a game from a
company you say you are/wer a fan of--before walking off in a huff and
taking your ball with you?

That's one way to take a
critique.  Lump the people who complain together and say they're simply
afraid of change.  [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/pinched.png[/smilie]

Please,
don't treat fans of your company's work as if they have no clue what
they enjoy.  It's insulting that you think we're so stupid and
simple-minded.  People have very specific reasons for not liking much of
what has been announced and those reasons aren't simply 'because it's
different'.  As well, many of these reasons come backed up with a proven history not just with Bioware games, but many others as well.

That's one way to make an argument: dismiss my sarcastic generalizations while saying the same thing I am, using different terms.

So... people are listing all the reasons they don't like something a little different from what they're used to, based on what they've experienced in the long history of both BioWare and other RPGs they know and love? You're right, that doesn't mean "afraid of change" at all, does it? Let's call it something different, then, like "uncomfortable and hesitant about things not remaining the same as they were in DAO."

I don't think people are stupid or simple-minded at all. I do, however, think they are opinionated about the things they're passionate about and are venting that opinion based on what little they've heard of DA2 so far. That's all right as far as hesitation and uncertainy go, but some folks are really jumping off the deep end with conspiracy theories, platform elitism and doomsaying, not to mention those who have already decided to walk away from this and future BioWare products.

[Jallard]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

Jallard wrote...

I am playing ME2 for the first time today, because I wanted to see what it was like. As for the art design in DA:O I think it surpasses ME2. The characters look more real than in ME2. ME2's characters, the humans at least, seem deformed and distorted. I would much prefer seeing Morrigan or Leliana than the female Shepard or that other chick. What's her name?

...

At least 3 of the characters were modeled on actual people. According to Rana (the model for Samara) this was done using a 3d scan of their faces (per one of her pictures of Samara on her Model Mayhem account).
I mean, I'm not trying to argue the preference part of your post but in terms of realism it doesn't get much better than that...

None of those women in MassEffect 1 or 2 hold a candle to those in Dragon Age Origins: But, that just my assessment..

[In Exile]

Jallard wrote...

I am playing ME2 for the first time today, because I wanted to see what it was like. As for the art design in DA:O I think it surpasses ME2. The characters look more real than in ME2. ME2's characters, the humans at least, seem deformed and distorted. I would much prefer seeing Morrigan or Leliana than the female Shepard or that other chick. What's her name?

I don't think the Unreal engine can handle female faces. The male faces aren't bad, but the female faces it can't handle. The major problem I think is that the engine wasn't intended to be used for customization this way but rather to create character models the way default male Shepard was, or how Miaranda and Jack were made.

And are you thinking if Kelly? The secretary?

[Khavos]

Stanley Woo wrote...
So... people are listing all the reasons they don't like something a little different from what they're used to, based on what they've experienced in the long history of both BioWare and other RPGs they know and love? You're right, that doesn't mean "afraid of change" at all, does it? Let's call it something different, then, like "uncomfortable and hesitant about things not remaining the same as they were in DAO."

Actually, I'd prefer to call it, "displeased with having been sold a third person shooter that claimed to be an RPG, and now concerned about being sold a God of War clone."

Change itself I have no problem with.  Specific changes - such as taking all of your franchises in the "streamlined" direction of Mass Effect - I would have problems with.  

[Stanley Woo]

Khavos wrote...
Actually, I'd prefer to call it, "displeased with having been sold a third person shooter that claimed to be an RPG, and now concerned about being sold a God of War clone."

i respectfully disagree with you on pretty much the entirety of that statement. Sorry, i liked both Mass Effect 1 and 2 (especially 2), and disagree that a game you've heard only a tiny bit about can be considered a god of War clone at this point. also, i disagree that Mass Effect and Dragon Age are connected in the way you're inferring.

Change itself I have no problem with.  Specific changes - such as taking all of your franchises in the "streamlined" direction of Mass Effect - I would have problems with.

So your specific issue with the game is all your preconceived notions of the word "streamlined?" Well, that is rather specific, but to quote one of my favourite movies, "I do not think it means what you think it means." More on that, I can not and will not say at this point. You'll just have to stay tuned to learn more.

[Foreman20]

Khavos nailed it. BioWare does have a track record. From KOTOR to Jade Empire, to Mass Effect to Dragon Age Origins to Mass Effect/2.

[the_one_54321]

Stanley Woo wrote...
"I do not think it means what you think it means."

So long as you're telling the truth, that was awesome.

[Khavos]

Stanley Woo wrote...
i respectfully disagree with you on pretty much the entirety of that statement. Sorry, i liked both Mass Effect 1 and 2 (especially 2), and disagree that a game you've heard only a tiny bit about can be considered a god of War clone at this point. also, i disagree that Mass Effect and Dragon Age are connected in the way you're inferring.

I liked ME1 and 2 as well.  2 despite the fact that I found the third-person shooter gameplay to be awfully boring, especially when I expected to get an RPG.  It was entirely the story and the characters that kept me in it and enjoying it.  I could've watched all the conversations and cutscenes on YouTube and enjoyed it just as much.  It definitely wasn't an RPG.

So your specific issue with the game is all your preconceived notions of the word "streamlined?"

That's a tad disingenuous, wouldn't you say?  I got my ideas about what Bioware "streamlining" means from...watching Bioware "streamline".  

If you guys prove me wrong and make DA2 an actual RPG rather than an action game with a razor-thin RPG veneer à la ME2, I'll be thrilled.  There's really nothing to suggest you will at this point, though, as the press so far eerily resembles what was said about ME2's changes. 

[b09boy]

Stanley Woo wrote...

That's one way to make an argument: dismiss my sarcastic generalizations while saying the same thing I am, using different terms.

Not...at...all? 

So... people are listing all the reasons they don't like something a little different from what they're used to, based on what they've experienced in the long history of both BioWare and other RPGs they know and love? You're right, that doesn't mean "afraid of change" at all, does it? Let's call it something different, then, like "uncomfortable and hesitant about things not remaining the same as they were in DAO."

It's sad that I really need to write up examples.  Haven't been paying close attention to the complaints have you.

Dialogue wheel.  People don't like it because when you pick a response you may frequently find your character saying or doing something you yourself did not intend as the response description is too shortened.  It's simply the nature of the system.  Voiced protagonist.  There has yet to be a game released which has as much content as, say, DAO when every character including the player is voiced for many various reasons.  Both issues also directly contribute to making games third person RPGs instead of first person RPGs - the latter of which is a major reason many were so interested in DAO in the first place.

I don't think people are stupid or simple-minded at all.

You say that yet you generalize to make we doubters so simple-minded.  You can say you don't hold that opinion all you want, but when your posts show otherwise...well, that makes you a liar.

I do, however, think they are opinionated about the things they're passionate about and are venting that opinion based on what little they've heard of DA2 so far. That's all right as far as hesitation and uncertainy go, but some folks are really jumping off the deep end with conspiracy theories, platform elitism and doomsaying, not to mention those who have already decided to walk away from this and future BioWare products.

And they have the right to do that when they feel like a company is taking a bad turn.  If you (and the rest of Bioware) don't like it then Bioware as a whole has a lot to prove otherwise because with some of the features announced everyone is going to have to come through in ways most developers (except perhaps Molyneux) wouldn't even dream of to live up to the DAO role playing experience as a whole.

Also, if you don't like people jumping to conclusions about changes, perhaps the company shouldn't reveal bare tidbits about only changes then refuse to go into further details.  It doesn't help paint a pretty picture.