250 réponses à ce sujet

[mildmort]

As always Qunaris out there look quite normal in my country though.

[Ulicus]

Meh. For the most part, aesthetic continuity is no way near as important as continuity of the world, events and characters. At least on my end. Were they telling us that Sten had horns all along, then -- sure -- that would bug the crap out of me. (He was a massive character, after all. In more ways than one!) But they're not.

"Leliana's Song" playing fast and loose with previously established events (though that can be massaged thanks to the way it was framed) bothered me a bazillion times more than any of the artistic changes I've seen in DA2.

Do I think the qunari needed to be horned? Not really. I certainly think it's a pity that the beauty of the Qunari looking "like, yet not like" humanity (or however Sten phrased it) has been diminished somewhat... but I understand and respect the arguments that the writers/devs have put out there and -- at the end of the day -- they have the right of it.

And that's my wholly unnecessary tuppence.

What I'm wondering now is whether or not it's only the hornless Qunari who are given weapons to be a "part" of them. Probably not, but it seems possible/interesting.

Modifié par Ulicus, 31 juillet 2010 - 06:24 .

[Maverick827]

I can't recall that phrase from Sten, but whatever it was it was entirely false. "...yet not like?" Sten is exactly human looking. Tall, sure. But he looks like a human. A human with a huge head and an even larger neck, sure. But still human.

If Qunari are supposed to look different, then some change needed to be made.

The art direction fits the story's needs, not the other way around.

[captain.subtle]

javierabegazo wrote...

I don't see why it's so hard.

All over DAO, we see tattoos, either facial or otherwise, and we ALSO see warpaint, be it on an Ash Warrior, or on a Mabari.  

Even in Modern military they use paint on faces as camoflauge. Sure it's a different usage of paint, but in the end, using paint isn't so strange of an idea, especially to a society like the Qunari, who's manarisms are much more tribal in nature anyways

Hmm.... I don't think that the Word Tribal describes Qunari well. They seem more like.... collectivists than Tribal as in the Collective Farming guy from Mother USSR .

Granted that paint is used to creative ends today like camoflauge, using it for war purposes... seems a bit.. Tribal. the Ash warriors don't put on a literal war-paint. The Khaddis is used for specific reason: The mabari can then smell the enemy from the allies. AND Ash warriors are good analogues to a tribal society too...

Perhaps I am just reading too much into something where there is only nothing but I thought I ought to ask..

[Ulicus]

Maverick827 wrote...

I can't recall that phrase from Sten, but whatever it was it was entirely false. "...yet not like?" Sten is exactly human looking. Tall, sure. But he looks like a human. A human with a huge head and an even larger neck, sure. But still human.

He had pointed ears and purple eyes.

[rolson00]

i said this in another tread



in response to David Gaider comments i think the guy was on about continuity as long as there is a reason why explained(and i think they have told us that there is a reason in the game) people will be happy. you know if the change is acknowledged in the game.

[Maverick827]

Ulicus wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

I can't recall that phrase from Sten, but whatever it was it was entirely false. "...yet not like?" Sten is exactly human looking. Tall, sure. But he looks like a human. A human with a huge head and an even larger neck, sure. But still human.

He had pointed ears and purple eyes.

So does a human with a rambunctious kitten and contact lenses.  Still a human.

[Solid N7]

David Gaider wrote...

Kordaris wrote...
its when you change the look of the world they played in-imagine their blond dwarf suddenly getting purple hair, or learning that humans have cat's eyes.

Sorry, but I consider that a specious argument. No-one's talking about giving dwarves purple hair or humans cat eyes or elves butterfly wings. Those are races with an established expectation for how they look, and one of the reasons we used elves and dwarves, for instance, is drawing on the pool of collected lore regarding them.

The qunari and the darkspawn, however, are our creation-- one you have had limited exposure to, at best. Making superficial changes to how we present them is not the same as presenting elves with monkey heads, and suggesting such is not going to fool anyone-- least of all us.

Kordaris "OWNED":devil:

[AngryFrozenWater]

By now I've killed thousands of darkspawn during the Blight, so one could say I am familiar with how they look. Like most of you. Hehe. I can only assume that they send their most powerful troops to me. After all, the Blight was not some minor incident. And that as how they looked like.



Of course there might be more variations, but a major change in appearance for the default darkspawn looks more like a marketing decision than a creative one.



I am not sure about the qunari. We have seen some of them. Let's hope not all shown in DA2 have horns. That would contradict the new lore about them (which says that only a few have horns).

[rolson00]

i do approve of certain changes elves dwarfs and Qunari DAO team just want them to look like the races they are ment to be i dont like the changes in the darkspawn but if as i said before if explained most people will stop blarting

[Grommash94]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I am not sure about the qunari. We have seen some of them. Let's hope not all shown in DA2 have horns. That would contradict the new lore about them (which says that only a few have horns).

Actually, I believe David clarified that the ones without horns are the ones that are special. Having horns is a norm.

[Wynne]

Gaider already explained himself quite well, I think. The original post just makes me think waaambulance thoughts.



Dude, seriously, just get over it. Not all darkspawn are going to look identical. Technology moves on, and so should the fans. It's not like they suddenly have tails. These changes are mild.

[Ulicus]

Maverick827 wrote...

Ulicus wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

I can't recall that phrase from Sten, but whatever it was it was entirely false. "...yet not like?" Sten is exactly human looking. Tall, sure. But he looks like a human. A human with a huge head and an even larger neck, sure. But still human.

He had pointed ears and purple eyes.

So does a human with a rambunctious kitten and contact lenses.  Still a human.

Ultimately, the fact is that Sten was not "exactly human looking". He looks both human and "other". The way you're acting it's like I was arguing that the changes suck, or something. I don't think they were necessary but I absolutely agree with your previous statement that "The art direction fits the story's needs, not the other way around"... and said as much.

There was nothing wrong with Sten giving voice to the opinion that humans looked like him... but also looked different enough to be disconcerting. *Shrug*

Modifié par Ulicus, 31 juillet 2010 - 06:37 .

[AlanC9]

captain.subtle wrote...

Granted that paint is used to creative ends today like camoflauge, using it for war purposes... seems a bit.. Tribal. the Ash warriors don't put on a literal war-paint. The Khaddis is used for specific reason: The mabari can then smell the enemy from the allies. AND Ash warriors are good analogues to a tribal society too...

Perhaps I am just reading too much into something where there is only nothing but I thought I ought to ask..

It's probably because modern culture associates such things with primitivism. Just an accident of history, really.

Modifié par AlanC9, 31 juillet 2010 - 06:37 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Grommash94 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I am not sure about the qunari. We have seen some of them. Let's hope not all shown in DA2 have horns. That would contradict the new lore about them (which says that only a few have horns).

Actually, I believe David clarified that the ones without horns are the ones that are special. Having horns is a norm.

Ah. I am cool with that.

That leaves the darkspawn. It's cool that they are updated to show more detail. That doesn't mean that they have to look entirely different. That is not good for the continuity. And that's what we are talking about. Not the changes in general.

[rolson00]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Grommash94 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I am not sure about the qunari. We have seen some of them. Let's hope not all shown in DA2 have horns. That would contradict the new lore about them (which says that only a few have horns).

Actually, I believe David clarified that the ones without horns are the ones that are special. Having horns is a norm.

Ah. I am cool with that.

That leaves the darkspawn. It's cool that they are updated to show more detail. That doesn't mean that they have to look entirely different. That is not good for the continuity. And that's what we are talking about. Not the changes in general.

so am i it makes our sten great

Modifié par rolson00, 31 juillet 2010 - 06:40 .

[Bryy_Miller]

People need to learn the meaning of the words they use.

[Jimmy Fury]

Ulicus wrote...

Meh. For the most part, aesthetic continuity is no way near as important as continuity of the world, events and characters.

Agreed. Changing the visuals doesn't change how the previous events unfolded. It's no more a blow to the contiuity of the story than recasting a character in a movie or switching artists on a comic book series.

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 31 juillet 2010 - 07:01 .

[Maverick827]

Ulicus wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

Ulicus wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

I can't recall that phrase from Sten, but whatever it was it was entirely false. "...yet not like?" Sten is exactly human looking. Tall, sure. But he looks like a human. A human with a huge head and an even larger neck, sure. But still human.

He had pointed ears and purple eyes.

So does a human with a rambunctious kitten and contact lenses.  Still a human.

Ultimately, the fact is that Sten was not "exactly human looking". He looks both human and "other". The way you're acting it's like I was arguing that the changes suck, or something. I don't think they were necessary but I absolutely agree with your previous statement that "The art direction fits the story's needs, not the other way around"... and said as much.

There was nothing wrong with Sten giving voice to the opinion that humans looked like him... but also looked different enough to be disconcerting. *Shrug*

I guess my point is that (and perhaps you can tell from my poor come-back) that you caught me unawares by saying that Sten had pointed ears and purple eyes.  I have played through this game many times, always saving Sten each time (though only using him a few), and I had never noticed.

He was always just a large human.

[mildmort]

The meanings of darkspawn in Origins seemed rather abstract.
They were deserve exterminate as a symbol of vice in a fantasy world.
But when a symbol had an instance, and if it is not so accurate, its meanings could have been changed, as in Awakening.
I liked the way meaning of darkspawn being abstract, just personally.

Modifié par mildmort, 31 juillet 2010 - 07:27 .

[Jamie9]

David Gaider wrote...

Kordaris wrote...
its when you change the look of the world they played in-imagine their blond dwarf suddenly getting purple hair, or learning that humans have cat's eyes.

Sorry, but I consider that a specious argument. No-one's talking about giving dwarves purple hair or humans cat eyes or elves butterfly wings. Those are races with an established expectation for how they look, and one of the reasons we used elves and dwarves, for instance, is drawing on the pool of collected lore regarding them.

The qunari and the darkspawn, however, are our creation-- one you have had limited exposure to, at best. Making superficial changes to how we present them is not the same as presenting elves with monkey heads, and suggesting such is not going to fool anyone-- least of all us.

I know this is your universe and that you may do with it what you wish, and I also want to say I loved DAO and will probably love DA2 come March 2011. However, the one thing I disagree with is the limited exposure to Darkspawn and Qunari. Now I class your elves and dwarves as different than the archetypal dwarves and elves in say LOTR. I used Sten nearly all my first playthrough and so that technically means I have had more exposure to a Qunari than I have an Elf or a Dwarf. I have been fighting Darkspawn all game, and so developed that relationship through war.

Now I actually don't mind too much if you change the Qunari or the Darkspawn, I'm obviously going to favour the DAO designs because I have experienced them already. My gripe is in the way it COULD be presented. If I see loads (more than 10) of these new Qunari in the Free Marches but none of the DAO Qunari then that would brake continuity, or in the very least be EXTREMELY unlikely that only that type would be seen in the Free Marches (assuming that's where we would see them) whereas only the Origins type was seen in Fereldan. Also has the Darkspawn change been explained in-universe? Did I miss that or is that going to be revealed at a later date? Thanks for listening to my queries/rant.

[Lux]

It's an all-new redesigned version. Nothing new here. I only wish they would be clearer on this instead of having us guessing what the heck is going on.

[Krytheos]

Jamie9 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Kordaris wrote...
its when you change the look of the world they played in-imagine their blond dwarf suddenly getting purple hair, or learning that humans have cat's eyes.

Sorry, but I consider that a specious argument. No-one's talking about giving dwarves purple hair or humans cat eyes or elves butterfly wings. Those are races with an established expectation for how they look, and one of the reasons we used elves and dwarves, for instance, is drawing on the pool of collected lore regarding them.

The qunari and the darkspawn, however, are our creation-- one you have had limited exposure to, at best. Making superficial changes to how we present them is not the same as presenting elves with monkey heads, and suggesting such is not going to fool anyone-- least of all us.

I know this is your universe and that you may do with it what you wish, and I also want to say I loved DAO and will probably love DA2 come March 2011. However, the one thing I disagree with is the limited exposure to Darkspawn and Qunari. Now I class your elves and dwarves as different than the archetypal dwarves and elves in say LOTR. I used Sten nearly all my first playthrough and so that technically means I have had more exposure to a Qunari than I have an Elf or a Dwarf. I have been fighting Darkspawn all game, and so developed that relationship through war.

Now I actually don't mind too much if you change the Qunari or the Darkspawn, I'm obviously going to favour the DAO designs because I have experienced them already. My gripe is in the way it COULD be presented. If I see loads (more than 10) of these new Qunari in the Free Marches but none of the DAO Qunari then that would brake continuity, or in the very least be EXTREMELY unlikely that only that type would be seen in the Free Marches (assuming that's where we would see them) whereas only the Origins type was seen in Fereldan. Also has the Darkspawn change been explained in-universe? Did I miss that or is that going to be revealed at a later date? Thanks for listening to my queries/rant.

I agree entirely; the only thing that will bug me to no end in DA: 2 is if we only see the new, updated Qunari; me, personally, I really liked the way the Qunari looked in DA: O and as long as we DO see some of them -- heck, even a passing glance at Sten when we're in Lothering for the brief time running away from the 'what the fuuuuuuuu-' darkspawn, would be fine. As long as Sten isn't changed SO DRAMATICALLY that I won't recognize him, isn't a deal breaker. I mean, I did listen to Sten and everything when he talked about the..

Ben-Hassrath? During their celebrations, where if a new 'Hero' -- I forget their term for them -- was crowned, everyone would party, and it would be all chaos and things, even executions, and it was interesting to say the least, so counter me upset if I see Sten with horns, or just not-looking-like-Sten at all, but if he's still very recognizeable, then yeah, I'd be fine with some due changes.

As for art continuity in general, I like the way they're going with most of the new screenshots released, so far. Not bad, not bad at all. If it's even close to an accurate representaiton in-game I will be very happy. As for the changei n Dwarves and Elves, I would definitely like to see -- as long as they're the same type of people in-game wise, I doubt I will mind their difference too much. As long as continuity in the world, and the events and things are all fine and good, I have very little actual problems with the art direction.

The only thing that bugs me is the darkspawn a bit, honestly. I mean, if the Darkspawn look largley the same, with more detail and more uglyness to them than before, great. The way they look now is kind of iffy to me. But that's my personal opinion.

[Perfect-Kenshin]

The way I see it, I just pretend that there are different kinds of darkspawn (the ones you encounter in this game) as well as different kinds of quanari. Problem solved.

[taine]

David Gaider wrote...

Kordaris wrote...
its when you change the look of the world they played in-imagine their blond dwarf suddenly getting purple hair, or learning that humans have cat's eyes.

Sorry, but I consider that a specious argument. No-one's talking about giving dwarves purple hair or humans cat eyes or elves butterfly wings. Those are races with an established expectation for how they look, and one of the reasons we used elves and dwarves, for instance, is drawing on the pool of collected lore regarding them.

The qunari and the darkspawn, however, are our creation-- one you have had limited exposure to, at best. Making superficial changes to how we present them is not the same as presenting elves with monkey heads, and suggesting such is not going to fool anyone-- least of all us.

You would think that after all the time spent on these forums that you would be more familiar with the strange being known as the FAN (recall that it is derived from fanatic). You know, the kind of person that would go on a rampage if Stan Lee had said at some point in the 70s that Spiderman wore tightey-whities, but then saw an issue in 2010 which showed him in Boxers. I don't really understand the mentality but there's no denying that it exists.