1593 réponses à ce sujet

[Harcken]

I'm liking all the new models and the armor and such (aside from the darkspawn they just look like puke hanging out in a desert with nothing but dirt).The only potential problem I see lurking from all these model and animation changes is loot deficiency. While I love unique models and animations, it usually means that a simplified loot system is implemented (Hawke's "starting" armor, the Qunari genie pants, Flemeth's outfit, they all seem set in stone). I honestly hope that this is just fearful suspicion from me as a result of loving a game series so much, but pleeaassseee dont Mass Effectizize loot.

[Krilral]

I think it's an interesting change. In my opinion it was a bit silly in DA:O that when they needed another race they just made one that looked completely like humans except they were larger.

[rolson00]

hmmm im not impressed with DA2 but the Qunari people are ment to look alien and this does look better lets just hope that they redesign better dark spawn didnt like the new ones at all

[Jimmy Fury]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Jimmy Fury wrote...
What original source work?

Tolkien. Who addapted his ideas from old fairy tales and folk legends. And the old tabletop RPGs addapted them slightly further for game use. And in the following decades elves and dwarves have become slightly more and more.... 4e..... WoW.... DA. It's not a good thing. They don't need to evolve. Nothing is wrong with them. If you want something different. Think up new ideas instead of bastardizing ideas that were never yours.

Dragon Age isn't a Middle Earth game though... so Tolkein isn't a source. He is, at best, an influence. There is quite a big difference.
Not to mention that by your logic Tolkein wasn't even true to the source material since his Elves were not exactly like mythological elves. Nor were his dwarves. Do you think Tolkein bastardized the ancient myths he was influenced by?

And as Gaider stated, who gets to claim mythology? I'm quite sure the norse warriors who told tales of god-like dwarven craftsmen would probably think Tolkein's dwarves were pathetic weaklings.
And which elves are the correct elves? The ones in Norse Mythology? Germanic? Icelandic? Scottish? They share similar roots but they're all quite different... So which one is the correct elf? The Magic inclined immortal godlings or the tiny woodland sprites?
Not to mention that the wide variety of elves in myth shows that the myths themselves evolved over time... Were ancient cultures just not as creative and awesome as older ancient cultures since they didn't invent entirely new mythological races?

[Dewarren2010]

I'm guessing that most quanari don't have horns, and only the "bull" (in lack of a better term) or alpha quanari do. Would make sense, and would help keep continuance between DA1 and DA2

[Funny_chan]

I still believe that one good explanation for the lack of horns and other bestial characteristics in some qunari, like Sten, is the fact that they are "mixed blood" with humans or even some other race (elves, dwarfs). We already know that other races are accepted into following the Qun (sometimes they are even forced into following it), it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that those humans (and/or even the dwarfs and elves) have bred with the qunari. So, the mixed qunari would be excellent for espionage missons, because they don't "stand out" as much as the "pure qunari".

Modifié par Funny_chan, 29 juillet 2010 - 05:00 .

[Funny_chan]

Dewarren2010 wrote...

I'm guessing that most quanari don't have horns, and only the "bull" (in lack of a better term) or alpha quanari do. Would make sense, and would help keep continuance between DA1 and DA2

That's also an excellent explanation! We were wondering that a few posts ago...

[tmp7704]

the_one_54321 wrote...

And what's done is done. You can't retcon them out. That would be worse. My point is that Tolkiens races were perfect as-is, and that Qunari were an awesome creation. I think you should do more of the latter, and make less alterations on the former. (I hope I got former and latter in the right order there, it always confuses me) 

Since i find the alteration of the "perfect" elves one of more interesting things DA did, i'm personally hoping to see both the former and the latter.

As for "you can't retcon" thing. Didn't the very Tolkien you keep bringing up retcon lot of his own creations over the years? To mention just Balrogs....

[the_one_54321]

Jimmy Fury wrote...
And as Gaider stated, who gets to claim mythology? I'm quite sure the norse warriors who told tales of god-like dwarven craftsmen would probably think Tolkein's dwarves were pathetic weaklings.
And which elves are the correct elves? The ones in Norse Mythology? Germanic? Icelandic? Scottish? They share similar roots but they're all quite different... So which one is the correct elf? The Magic inclined immortal godlings or the tiny woodland sprites?

These are all the roots. Stories passed down by word of mouth and told at fireside and all that romantic stuff. Tolkien gets to claim elves and dwarves (and gets to claim to be the source of almost all fantasy stories we are familiar with) because he took these roots and turned them into somthing writte, comprehensive, and epic. And he was the very first person to do it.

Think of it this way. The Qunari are an awesome creation, full of their own cluture and personality. So are the Salarians, Turians and etc etc. Why not do more of that instead of making alterations on ideas that someone else came up with?

[the_one_54321]

tmp7704 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
And what's done is done. You can't retcon them out. That would be worse. My point is that Tolkiens races were perfect as-is, and that Qunari were an awesome creation. I think you should do more of the latter, and make less alterations on the former. (I hope I got former and latter in the right order there, it always confuses me)

Since i find the alteration of the "perfect" elves one of more interesting things DA did, i'm personally hoping to see both the former and the latter.

As for "you can't retcon" thing. Didn't the very Tolkien you keep bringing up retcon lot of his own creations over the years? To mention just Balrogs....

He made a few small retcons between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. And he made a few very minor changes between the appendicies in The Return of the King and The Silmarlion. I have no idea where you're getting the idea that he retconed anything about balrogs.

[Mallissin]

I'm not going to lambaste the art team for taking a new direction, because that's what you should always expect from artists.



But if the writers make a cheeky "horny qunari" joke in companion dialog, I'm going to turn the game off and demand a refund.

[sporky1]

Funny_chan wrote...

Dewarren2010 wrote...

I'm guessing that most quanari don't have horns, and only the "bull" (in lack of a better term) or alpha quanari do. Would make sense, and would help keep continuance between DA1 and DA2

That's also an excellent explanation! We were wondering that a few posts ago...

Except the article seems to suggest that the hornless quanari are the rare ones...

[tmp7704]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I have no idea where you're getting the idea that he retconed anything about balrogs.

Changing them from strong but unremarkable creatures which existend in hundreds/thousands to terrible menace with no more than seven known specimens isn't "retconing anything"? Colour me surprised. http://tolkien.slimy...ssays/TAB2.html

[MaxQuartiroli]

the_one_54321 wrote...

These are all the roots. Stories passed down by word of mouth and told at fireside and all that romantic stuff. Tolkien gets to claim elves and dwarves (and gets to claim to be the source of almost all fantasy stories we are familiar with) because he took these roots and turned them into somthing writte, comprehensive, and epic. And he was the very first person to do it.

True... But this doesn't mean that Tolkien is the owner of Fantasy genre, and The Lord of the Rings is the compendium that must be followed like a Bible if you want to write about fantasy
There are many "common" elements in fantasy world, everyone is free to make free use of them for his creations, either a book or a game or a movie.
If you think so you should consider Bram Stoker the owner of the vampire genre, and Dracula the only reliable Vampire and therefore considering crap about the 99% of every book/game concerning vampires released after it

[Sirsmirkalot]

The new take on the Qunari looks good, but I'm not entirely sure it was needed. I don't mind the "old" Qunari looks. They were dark skinned, red eyed, giant men. Combined with their culture they felt alien, sinister and frightening to me.

I fear that they'll actually lose a bit of their monsterous aspect with their new look. The Qunari in DA:O had such a different way of thinking that when combined with their odd human-like looks, it made them look like real monsters to me. It was as if they looked human, but behind those red eyes of theirs, a monster was hiding. And that's what I don't like that much about the current artwork, it looks too much like a monster. It shows a true monster, not a sinister form of a man that's hiding the true monster. And in a way, that might make them less sinister and frightening to me.

But then there is the fact that most of the races in DA:O looked like rescaled humans, with the Qunari being one of them. It'll be good to see something who's silhouette it at least a bit different from a human. In the end, that's the main reason why I don't mind this new take on them. I especially like the body painting, but not so much the horns (they work though). Just don't give them hooves, please

I look forward to the looks of the Dwarves and Elves. I hope the Dwarves got bigger beards this time, and hopefully they'll even be able to tie their tankards to their beards.

Modifié par Sirsmirkalot, 29 juillet 2010 - 05:06 .

[the_one_54321]

tmp7704 wrote...
Changing them from strong but unremarkable
creatures which existend in hundreds/thousands to terrible menace with
no more than seven known specimens isn't "retconing anything"? Colour
me surprised. http://tolkien.slimy...ssays/TAB2.html

It's not a retcon if his son published it years later!
What was written and published by JRR Tolkien is what is in TLotR and The Silmarilion. What's in the book of lost tales may indeed be his writings, but they are notes that were collected and published by his son. Some things may have changed with the formation of his ideas but what he had published is what he had published. And what are notes are what are notes.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 29 juillet 2010 - 04:53 .

[the_one_54321]

MaxQuartiroli wrote...
If you think so you should consider Bram Stoker the owner of the vampire genre, and Dracula the only reliable Vampire and therefore considering crap about the 99% of every book/game concerning vampires released after it

Yeah, I would go with that. Most of the contemporary vampire crap is... well, crap.

[Funny_chan]

sporky1 wrote...

Funny_chan wrote...

Dewarren2010 wrote...

I'm guessing that most quanari don't have horns, and only the "bull" (in lack of a better term) or alpha quanari do. Would make sense, and would help keep continuance between DA1 and DA2

That's also an excellent explanation! We were wondering that a few posts ago...

Except the article seems to suggest that the hornless quanari are the rare ones...

Oh yeah... There's that too...

That's the reason I insist so much in the "mixed blood" theory. It seems the less "far fetched".

[tmp7704]

the_one_54321 wrote...

It's not a retcon if his son published it years later!
What was written and published by JRR Tolkien is what is in TLotR and The Silmarilion.

Then even using just these sources you have Tolkien changing the concept that "all Balrogs were utterly destroyed" to "some were able to escape". Still not a retcon?

[the_one_54321]

tmp7704 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
It's not a retcon if his son published it years later!
What was written and published by JRR Tolkien is what is in TLotR and The Silmarilion.

Then even using just these sources you have Tolkien changing the concept that "all Balrogs were utterly destroyed" to "some were able to escape". Still not a retcon?

What the characters in the story know and what the author knows are two different things. They thought all the balrogs were destroyed. It turned out that one survivded deep under Moria.

[Tasuru]

Looks awesome, but people will still whine about it. I don't know when the trend started, but it is what it is. Thanks for more info BioWare/GameInformer.

[tmp7704]

the_one_54321 wrote...

What the characters in the story know and what the author knows are two different things. They thought all the balrogs were destroyed. It turned out that one survivded deep under Moria.

Except Silmarillion uses third-person omniscient narrative throughout. I don't think it ever concerns itself with what some particular character may or may not know which only makes sense given what the work is trying to achieve.

[the_one_54321]

tmp7704 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
What the characters in the story know and what the author knows are two different things. They thought all the balrogs were destroyed. It turned out that one survivded deep under Moria.

Except Silmarillion uses third-person omniscient narrative throughout. I don't think it ever concerns itself with what some particular character may or may not know which only makes sense given what the work is trying to achieve.

My memory isn't perfect, but I did finish reading the Silmarillion again about two months ago, so it's still fairly fresh. I don't believe it ever says specificaly "all the balrogs were destroyed." 

[Vaeliorin]

Sirsmirkalot wrote...
I fear that they'll actually lose a bit of their monstrous aspect with their new look.

I don't think the Qunari are really supposed to be monstrous, though.  That's something I rather like about the new look, they now actually look somewhat monstrous but are really quite civilized and advanced.  They're certainly an alien culture, but I don't think they're meant to be portrayed as evil or scary.  Just different.