339 réponses à ce sujet

[Trumellionaire1]

The fact that people are still complaining aboot the new darkspawn look is funny. While I don't like the new change, it took me literally 5 seconds to decide that the change is not even near decision swaying for me. Regardless if they made the darkspawn skeletor clones, kept them the same, or made them look like yautjas, id still buy the game because DA:O was disgusting(in a good way). Pretty much everyone in this forum feels the same way or else they wouldnt be here so why still with the complaints? not like its gonna have significant impact on anything.

Modifié par Trumellionaire1, 26 octobre 2010 - 12:56 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Riona45 wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

No I agree with you, its just somewhat silly to me to completely change the art style just for the sake of changing the art style.

Of course that implies that they are changing it just to change it, and don't have "good reasons" beyond that.

LOL right.

[David Gaider]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
So much for continueity   So basically every game, should there be a DA3 we should expect the darkspawn to look completely different just so you can have your art department have something "new" so they don't get bored or something?

I'm not saying they will be different, but they might be. We're not changing the look of the game just for the hell of it, but with a specific artistic vision in mind-- that, yes, is different from DAO's.

Or, I should say, the art team is doing so. Personally I support their decision, as I think the game will benefit from a unifying and consistent "look" that's very much goes beyond the changes to the darkspawn themselves.

Also just out of curiousity do you really need to be so apprehensive anytime someone makes a post that doesn't praise a design decision?

The post I questioned was of the pointless variety (ie. "tell Matt Goldman his darkspawn suck ass"). Sorry, but that sort of person doesn't get to claim "but you're ignoring my opinion!" when they come up with that kind of drivel. Just because those sorts of posts are critical of design decisions doesn't make them any more extra special than posts that are blindly positive -- is there any reason why you get so apprehensive every time someone questions a criticism?

Modifié par David Gaider, 26 octobre 2010 - 01:00 .

[Riona45]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

LOL right.

You are sooo predictable, Sarah Instigator.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

David Gaider wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
So much for continueity   So basically every game, should there be a DA3 we should expect the darkspawn to look completely different just so you can have your art department have something "new" so they don't get bored or something?

I'm not saying they will be different, but they might be. We're not changing the look of the game just for the hell of it, but with a specific artistic vision in mind-- that, yes, is different from DAO's.

Or, I should say, the art team is doing so. Personally I support their decision, as I think the game will benefit from a unifying and consistent "look" that's very much goes beyond the changes to the darkspawn themselves.

Also just out of curiousity do you really need to be so apprehensive anytime someone makes a post that doesn't praise a design decision?

The post I questioned was of the pointless variety (ie. "tell Matt Goldman his darkspawn suck ass"). Sorry, but that sort of person doesn't get to claim "but you're ignoring my opinion!" when they come up with that kind of drivel. Just because those sorts of posts are critical of design decisions doesn't make them any more extra special than posts that are blindly positive -- is there any reason why you get so apprehensive every time someone questions a criticism?

Continuity and consistant are good things.  I thought it was a reply to Brock, though I did read that early poster you're refering to, I now get where you're coming from.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Riona45 wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

LOL right.

You are sooo predictable, Sarah Instigator.

Thats ok, so are you. my lil BDF'er buddy!

[Riona45]

You seem very familiar as well.

[Brockololly]

Well, I think in the Gamescom chat from back in August, it was mentioned by Laidlaw that the change in art style made things easier on the engine. Make of that what you will.

The redesign of the visual style has an added benefit of running much smoother on our engine. We can get a lot more creatures on screen, with better framerates.

But in terms of the darkspawn and everything, I just think the new darkspawn don't look that good compared to the concept art even and this was my issue with Origins graphically- the concept art would look great, but its like something got lost in translation to the in game model.

The concept art for the new darkspawn looks ok:


The skin actually looks diseased and they have a bunch of nastiness going on around their mouth and face area- its not like the ingame shots where they seem to have N64 polygon S&M armor and just treated their pearly whites to some Crest White strips. Its the lack of the little details in the in game shots that mostly bothers me. Maybe that'll change though once the game gets polished up?


But its just like the details from the concept art are lacking in the in game shots- everything looks too clean and uniform in the game. Its subjective, I know, but mostly it just bugs me when they change the look of already established things. I can only imagine how any returning characters may look in this new art style. Its like recasting a new actor for a role in a movie- it may still be written as the same character but visually they look different and for me at least, thats annoying and pulls me out of the movie/game.

Just look at the brouhaha when Sucker Punch tried to change the look of Cole for inFamous 2- people disliked it. And they changed his look back to more in line with how he was in the first game.

Modifié par Brockololly, 26 octobre 2010 - 01:22 .

[Sable Rhapsody]

Brockololly wrote...

But its just like the details from the concept art are lacking in the in game shots- everything looks too clean and uniform in the game. Its subjective, I know, but mostly it just bugs me when they change the look of already established things. I can only imagine how any returning characters may look in this new art style. Its like recasting a new actor for a role in a movie- it may still be written as the same character but visually they look different and for me at least, thats annoying and pulls me out of the movie/game.

Just look at the brouhaha when Sucker Punch tried to change the look of Cole for inFamous 2- people disliked it. And they changed his look back to more in line with how he was in the first game.

I'm kind of astonished at how everyone's picking up on the tiniest little details in the design changes.  When I saw the new darkspawn, my thoughts were literally, "Oh, darkspawn.  Ho hum.  OK, where's the next screenshot?"  I hardly noticed the changes until they were pointed out to me--as far as I was concerned, they still registered as darkspawn and that was that.  The most noticing I ever did was "Oh, SPIKY darkspawn.  Mmk...still yucky and brown."

More generally, graphics upgrades can have much more affect on the visual look of a game than an art design facelift.  So what, Legend of Zelda needed lore justifications and the devs flagellating themselves when it went from 2D to 3D?  If the devs for video games actually tried to lore justify every time they upgraded the graphics of their games, we'd still be in 8 bit.

[Riona45]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...
I'm kind of astonished at how everyone's picking up on the tiniest little details in the design changes. 

I can see the differences when I study them closely, but like you I recognized that DA2 darkspawn were indeed darkspawn when I first saw them.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Brockololly wrote...

Well, I think in the Gamescom chat from back in August, it was mentioned by Laidlaw that the change in art style made things easier on the engine. Make of that what you will.

The redesign of the visual style has an added benefit of running much smoother on our engine. We can get a lot more creatures on screen, with better framerates.

But in terms of the darkspawn and everything, I just think the new darkspawn don't look that good compared to the concept art even and this was my issue with Origins graphically- the concept art would look great, but its like something got lost in translation to the in game model.

The concept art for the new darkspawn looks ok:


The skin actually looks diseased and they have a bunch of nastiness going on around their mouth and face area- its not like the ingame shots where they seem to have N64 polygon S&M armor and just treated their pearly whites to some Crest White strips. Its the lack of the little details in the in game shots that mostly bothers me. Maybe that'll change though once the game gets polished up?


But its just like the details from the concept art are lacking in the in game shots- everything looks too clean and uniform in the game. Its subjective, I know, but mostly it just bugs me when they change the look of already established things. I can only imagine how any returning characters may look in this new art style. Its like recasting a new actor for a role in a movie- it may still be written as the same character but visually they look different and for me at least, thats annoying and pulls me out of the movie/game.

Just look at the brouhaha when Sucker Punch tried to change the look of Cole for inFamous 2- people disliked it. And they changed his look back to more in line with how he was in the first game.

That pretty much sums up how I feel as well Brock, though the "engine running smoother" comment is interesting along the lines of just how long Origins sat in dev. Makes me wonder just how outdated Eclipse already very well might be due to that.

[Morroian]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Riona45 wrote...

Of course that implies that they are changing it just to change it, and don't have "good reasons" beyond that.

LOL right.

You don't think they have reasons that can be construed as reasonable even if you don't like the results?

[Brockololly]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
That pretty much sums up how I feel as well Brock, though the "engine running smoother" comment is interesting along the lines of just how long Origins sat in dev. Makes me wonder just how outdated Eclipse already very well might be due to that.

Well, seeing as DA2 is being built with the consoles in mind first, I think its more to do with designing for the consoles first. I mean, in Origins you have more enemies on screen per encounter in the PC version compared to the console version due to the hardware differences. So with DA2 and designing for the consoles and porting "up" to the PC,  they don't have to worry about that, since they have the simplified visual style easing things on the engine.

Only problem is you're not taking advantage of the PC's hardware with this approach, unless they're adding stuff graphically when they work on the PC version.

[SirGladiator]

I think the bottom line is that DA's graphics, while excellent, weren't nearly as good as they could've been because the game was so long in the making. With DA2 they have a chance to make a HUGE step forward in that department, and from the looks of things it would seem they're going to do that very nicely. Of course we won't know for sure until we see it for ourselves next March, but for right now I'm pretty optimistic.

[In Exile]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

No I agree with you, its just somewhat silly to me to completely change the art style just for the sake of changing the art style. Unless it ends up looking better, which well, thats somewhat debatable at this point.

The fundamental problem is that the art style wasn't changed for the sake of changing it. It seems pretty obvious Bioware legitimately believed DA:O lacked an identifying visual style and thought to change that. The art team at least thinks this style is superior to the previous one, and likely more distinct.

Obviously there's a lot of disagreement over this, but I'd like to be charitable to the art team at least that the changes that were made were done on a belief that they were improvements.

[Jestina]

Brockololly wrote...
Well, seeing as DA2 is being built with the consoles in mind first, I think its more to do with designing for the consoles first.

That's yet another problem with the game. If I want a console game then i'll buy a console...don't want a made for consoles game on my pc.


Maybe they'll have giant nugs for Shepard Hawke to ride around on.

[Morroian]

In Exile wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

No I agree with you, its just somewhat silly to me to completely change the art style just for the sake of changing the art style. Unless it ends up looking better, which well, thats somewhat debatable at this point.

The fundamental problem is that the art style wasn't changed for the sake of changing it. It seems pretty obvious Bioware legitimately believed DA:O lacked an identifying visual style and thought to change that. The art team at least thinks this style is superior to the previous one, and likely more distinct.

Obviously there's a lot of disagreement over this, but I'd like to be charitable to the art team at least that the changes that were made were done on a belief that they were improvements.

QFT

[Morroian]

Jestina wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
Well, seeing as DA2 is being built with the consoles in mind first, I think its more to do with designing for the consoles first.

That's yet another problem with the game. If I want a console game then i'll buy a console...don't want a made for consoles game on my pc.

Good thing its not a made for consoles game then.

[In Exile]

Brockololly wrote...
Only problem is you're not taking advantage of the PC's hardware with this approach, unless they're adding stuff graphically when they work on the PC version.

If there is one thing I like about the proliferation in consoles is just how dramatically it's hampered the PC-centric drive for greater graphics & hardware. PC gaming used to be very resource intensive in terms of keeping games running at high-end performance because of how rapidly each new release would be deisgned to take advantage of the newest gadget on the market. Now, with the need to release on static hardware consoles, top tier graphics for games have to stagnate to some extent on the PC. I see this as a positive.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Morroian wrote...

Jestina wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
Well, seeing as DA2 is being built with the consoles in mind first, I think its more to do with designing for the consoles first.

That's yet another problem with the game. If I want a console game then i'll buy a console...don't want a made for consoles game on my pc.

Good thing its not a made for consoles game then.

You're aware the 360 is the main sku, and the PC version will more than likely be a port for the most part, GUI non withstanding right?

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

In Exile wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
Only problem is you're not taking advantage of the PC's hardware with this approach, unless they're adding stuff graphically when they work on the PC version.

If there is one thing I like about the proliferation in consoles is just how dramatically it's hampered the PC-centric drive for greater graphics & hardware. PC gaming used to be very resource intensive in terms of keeping games running at high-end performance because of how rapidly each new release would be deisgned to take advantage of the newest gadget on the market. Now, with the need to release on static hardware consoles, top tier graphics for games have to stagnate to some extent on the PC. I see this as a positive.

I'm not quite sure how stagnating PC games into being forced to use Directx 9 indefinately or at least until the next console gen, is a positive. With the Quad Core PC's and SLI/Crossfire options available now, it's quite easy to build a machine that can handle just about anything you can throw at it.

[Brockololly]

Morroian wrote...
Good thing its not a made for consoles game then.

Really?  This interview with associate producer Heather Rabatich would suggest otherwise:

It’s going to look great across all three, that was part of building it  on the console. When you’re porting something over, with a PC you have  the opportunity to build it with such high graphics that you can lose  that by porting a game, but when you’re building it for that system you  have the opportunity to make it look as nice as it would on the PC.

They're building the base game with the hardware limitations of the consoles in mind and porting that up to the PC, just adding in the PC's GUI. So unless they're taking more attention to the hardware capabilities of a PC when porting up, they said as much the consoles will look the same as the PC- which isn't making use of the PC's hardware if thats the case. I mean, the 360 has 512MB of memory to work with. Compared to your run of the mill gaming PC which likely has at least 2GB if not more, thats a big difference to take into account for designers in terms of using higher res textures and other memory considerations.

Modifié par Brockololly, 26 octobre 2010 - 02:08 .