393 réponses à ce sujet

[Dashen Thomas]

DA:O on console looked like inconsistent mismatch of graphical elements: sometimes high quality textures, but more often like PS2 quality.



In addition the general art style on all platforms was just uninspired. I started following Dragon Age development early when it was announced and was really disappointed to see how a Bioware unique dark fantasy IP just turned into a generic medieval Tolkien rip-off during its development time. The new graphics give me hope that Dragon Age franchise might get back on track and find its own identity.

[GnusmasTHX]

TrackerTrem wrote...

I think Dante is a perfect exmaple of this frm Devil May Cry



It's still the same ''universe'' but the characters have been so drastically altered it might as well be a whole new world altogether

( And I like ''new'' dante, he seems more realistic than platinum poser dante who has a one liner every 5 minutes)

Origins had that star wars feel, that this place had been lived in for a long time while still being a fantasy game

New Dragon age feels somewhat plastic, too fresh and sterile to be a deadly, rundown fantasy land

Lol please. The guys at Ninja Theory would have to be gods for that... thing to be Dante-proper, let alone fit within the current DMC universe. This new game has to be a reboot, otherwise it just doesn't make any sense. Also, LOL at the game dev copying this new Dante's hairstyle/ vice versa. As for the characterization of this new Dante, all you really know is that he doesn't wear a name tag, so...

Anyway, onto DA2. I like all the "changes" except for, you guessed it, the Dark Spawn. The change is unnecessary, and in fact, a step back from what they were. Which was intimidating, ghastly and villainous. Now it looks like they're KISS rejects with no lips.

I'm hoping they're special albino-Hurlock offshoots that the trailer just happens to show, but do not constitute the majority of the Dark Spawn in DA2.

Modifié par GnusmasTHX, 05 novembre 2010 - 07:07 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Pseudocognition wrote...

Those are the things you don't change. Armor style, architecture, costume design, weapon design, enemy design, are probably what Anarya is talking about, and those are what you have to work with to create a unique fantasy look.

Meh..I'm tempted to say "f**** that".
There's absolutely nothing wrog with "generic". NOTHING. It's an overused word that long since lost it's original meaning.
"I've seen something like this before" is NO reason to think an art style inferior in anyway. You want new? You want fresh? I don't. New and fresh usually means stupid in my dictionary. Novelty for novelties sake, sensless, soulless, only there so it can pretend to be "original".

[Saibh]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...

Those are the things you don't change. Armor style, architecture, costume design, weapon design, enemy design, are probably what Anarya is talking about, and those are what you have to work with to create a unique fantasy look.

Meh..I'm tempted to say "f**** that".
There's absolutely nothing wrog with "generic". NOTHING. It's an overused word that long since lost it's original meaning.
"I've seen something like this before" is NO reason to think an art style inferior in anyway. You want new? You want fresh? I don't. New and fresh usually means stupid in my dictionary. Novelty for novelties sake, sensless, soulless, only there so it can pretend to be "original".

In this sense, something that has been seen before does not mean it is generic. Generic means there's is no originality or uniqueness, no characteristic or definining aspect to something.

And, yeah, there's something wrong with that.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Anarya wrote...
Well, we haven't seen a whole lot. I'm thinking of some of the new armor designs (aside from the Darkspawn armor which I don't like), and the architecture, which I think already looks much less generic than in Origins and seems promising on that front.

You say promising, other people will say dissapointing. Peopel have started using the word generic to describe realistic. Architecture, armor, weapons, creature design - the more over-the-top, abstracted and sensless it is, the more I hate it.

Originality? There is no such thing really.

[uberdowzen]

Darkhour wrote...

... look like human midgets...A midget human is not a dwarf...Do you prefer the midget look?

You lost me at about the same time you used that term.

[Saibh]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You say promising, other people will say dissapointing. Peopel have started using the word generic to describe realistic. Architecture, armor, weapons, creature design - the more over-the-top, abstracted and sensless it is, the more I hate it.

Originality? There is no such thing really.

The setting of Assassin's Creed to is in no way over-the-top or ridiculous looking. Yet it's still beautiful and lauded as unique in gaming.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Saibh wrote...
In this sense, something that has been seen before does not mean it is generic. Generic means there's is no originality or uniqueness, no characteristic or definining aspect to something.

And, yeah, there's something wrong with that.

No, there isn't.

If you creater a friggin sword, there's only so much you can do to it and still call it a swrod. Especially if you want to create a regular, non-magical, ruin-of-the mill sword.

Uniqueness is overrated. It is useless. Besides, it's somewhat stupid to try to put your stamp on everything. I prefer the contents of the package to be "original" as oposed to a shiny "unique" wrapper. Why focus on the wrapper anyway?

[Lotion Soronarr]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Many people seem to feel that Tolkien-esque dwarves and/or elves are some sort of requirement and that any divergence from their established physical traits is a no-no. As much as I love the LotR series and movies, I don't mind seeing them try something different from the norm with the new art direction. I didn't play DA:O because the darkspawn or the humans really wowed me with their looks, so I'm not particularly attached to what others feel should be the "proper" or "established" look for each race.

What's the point of calling them elves if you change them that much?
Why not call them smurfs while you're at it?

As much as some people love to see "new" things, there are many people who don't want to lose the old. I for one like tolkien elves. Change them too much and I'll hate you.

Every time sometimes uses the word "generic" I cry a bit inside. I hate that word. I hate the people who use it.

[Lotion Soronarr]

filaminstrel wrote...

Why not have nice wrapping and contents both?

Because what you call nice wrappings I call garbage?

[JoHnDoE14]

The only thing that troubles me with the new art style is that it is a more cartoonish than Origins, and it reminds me of stupid JRPGs in a strange way. Other than that (and the silly looking darkspawn of course), I find this approach a little (but only a little) refreshing.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Saibh wrote...
The setting of Assassin's Creed to is in no way over-the-top or ridiculous looking. Yet it's still beautiful and lauded as unique in gaming.

Sez who?
It sure looks nice, but it also looks very realistic. Armors, weapons, buildings - they are all pretty muhc historicly accurate. By your own definition, that should be "generic"...except that it isn't. Because it's not set in europe, so it uses middle-eastern architecture, which is somewhat new to you (but the armors and weaposn are still mostly european). But to someone who's seen that architecture before, it IS generic.

Which is why it's a useless word to begin with. Because it relies too much on what peopel are exposed too and what they have seen. And different peope
le have seen different things.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 05 novembre 2010 - 08:10 .

[Saibh]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Sez who?
It sure looks nice, but it also looks very realistic. Armors, weapons, buildings - they are all pretty muhc historicly accurate. By your own definition, that should be "generic"...except that it isn't. Because it's not set in europe, so it uses middle-eastern architecture, which is somewhat new to you (but the armors and weaposn are still mostly european). But to someone who's seen that architecture before, it IS generic.

Which is why it's a useless word to begin with. Because it relies too much on what peopel are exposed too and what they have seen. And different peope
le have seen different things.

Says the overwhelming positive praise of critics and fans.

And you defined what you thought I and other people thought of as generic. My definition extends beyond "it looks like something realistic that I have seen before".

What a ridiculous statement. My point is that "realistic" does not mean "boring". That's what "generic" means. What you think of as being "realistic" in DAO is what many other people think is bland and uninteresting. I was pointing out Assassin's Creed (I should have specified the second one, which does occur in Europe, as the first one suffered from a colorless palette that made it less striking) was both realistic and beautiful, where DAO was not.

I've seen plenty of jungle areas in games over the years, but Uncharted made them beautiful. I thought the Brecilian forest was quite lovely and I've certainly seen plenty of forests over the years.

Modifié par Saibh, 05 novembre 2010 - 08:25 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

generic doesn't mean boring. At least that's not what it's definiton means.

–adjective Also, ge·ner·i·cal.

1.

of, applicable to, or referring to all the members of a genus, class, group, or kind; general.

2.

of, pertaining to, or noting a genus, esp. in biology.

3.

(of a word) applicable or referring to both men and women: a generic pronoun.

4.

not protected by trademark registration: “Cola” and “shuttle” are generic terms.

–noun

5.

a generic term.

6.

any product, as a type of food, drug, or cosmetic commonly marketed under a brand name, that is sold in a package without a brand.

7.

a wine made from two or more varieties of grapes, with no one grape constituting more than half the product ( distinguished from varietal).

Also, if you want to talk about "boring", do realise that boring is rather subjective too. By what you're saying it appears you like things to be "lively", "colorfull" or "beautiful"

[Anarya]

Um, I'm fully aware of what "generic" means and I used it properly:

Merriam-Webster wrote:
1a : relating to or characteristic of a whole group or class : general
b : being or having a nonproprietary name
c : having no particularly distinctive quality or application

I did not use it as a synonym for "something that has been seen already" or "something that is realistic" or "something that is boring" (generic things do tend to be boring, however).

You're bringing a lot of personal baggage you have with the word "generic" into our posts. I refuse to stop using the word that means exactly what I want to say just because you have issues with it. [insert "deal with it" gif]

Modifié par Anarya, 05 novembre 2010 - 10:45 .

[FDrage]

For me style and quality of graphic is something distinct different. While I might not like a specific style that does not necessary distract from a high quality images etc..(e.g. I don't like the style of the more well know Picasso pieces, but can still consider him a great artist ... well a lot of people do anyway). Quality to some degree can be objectivley argued with, style however is muchy more dependent ones own point of view (aka taste etc.).

Personally I like the style of Origins and I didn't think it was past its time. Quality or detail that maybe was, but that is something different to the style. Also I thought that it also fitted (in my opinion), what do some degree seems to be a "backwater place" called Ferelden very well (ok now Loghain will kill me, but then he didn't quite ... umm ... my Origin games anyway.
Until the moment I saw the Ogre I wouldn't have though the Darkspawn where darkspawn. But overall I would need to see more ... both in terms of trailers (some graphics just don't show their true quality in a picture e.g. moving things) and in game screen shoots (e.g different areas of Kirkwall, etc.).

Modifié par FDrage, 05 novembre 2010 - 12:15 .

[Collider]

I love the new art design. Keep it!

[Nozybidaj]

Chris Priestly wrote...

This is a Batman image drawn by artist Jim Lee.



This is a Batman image drawn by Sam Kieth.



Which image is "right"?

The Jim Lee one obviously.

[In Exile]

TrackerTrem wrote...

I think Dante is a perfect exmaple of this frm Devil May Cry



It's still the same ''universe'' but the characters have been so drastically altered it might as well be a whole new world altogether

( And I like ''new'' dante, he seems more realistic than platinum poser dante who has a one liner every 5 minutes)

Origins had that star wars feel, that this place had been lived in for a long time while still being a fantasy game

New Dragon age feels somewhat plastic, too fresh and sterile to be a deadly, rundown fantasy land

See, I think the loss of the platinum hair is terrible. It's an iconic look for Danta. You can see that if you ignore hair colour, it's basically the same dress. Giving him black hair is like giving him a blue trenchcoat - that breaks visual continuity.

It's not that he has to look the same - it's that he has to carry that "essence" of the character. It's like having Morrigan come back as a dark-skinned platinum blonde. Something gets lost along the way.

[Darkhour]

AlanC9 wrote...

Darkhour wrote...
The really telling thing about DA2 is that when I.. no, when ALL of us saw the first video we probably thought that horn dude was some kind of abomination or new beastmen race.  Not a single person, without prior knowledge, knew that grey, stony skinned, horned, slouching, growling beastman was a qunari.  So no, Sten is hardly a member of the same race.  Why they would even try to pretend like they didn't completely retcon the qunari is beyond me.  A better excuse would be that the qunari are a federation of at least two large races united under the Qun. Otherwise, it would be nice if they'd patch DA:O with updated qunari head models to reflect the new look and forget this "orcs and high elves are the same race" idiocy.

All I'm getting from this is that you really don't like changing the art look. We get it. Don't bother dressing it up further.

Took you more than the original post to figure that out?  That IS the entire point of the thread.

[upsettingshorts]

People said the same stuff when they cast a blonde guy as James Bond.

[Darkhour]

Saibh wrote...

But a maneless lion is a naturally occuring thing--a strong, identifying characteristic that does not appear in all members of the species.

Since when is a species defined by rare cases of genetic deformity?

A two headed humans are also naturally occuring.  That doesn't make it normal or "socially exceptable".  No one is going to describe a human as a zero, one, two, three, mayeb four armed one or two headed; zero, one, two or three legged creature with zero, one, two, three or four eyes that may or may not be hairless with possible zero, two, three, four, five, six, seven, etc. fingers, etc. etc.

It's totally cool how you ignored that my point about humans being born with pretty radical changes to their bodies (missing organs!) is common and normal, as well. Or that being hornless is a benign physical mutation without the qunari realizing it.

I don't only ignore it. I dismiss it. None of that is normal.  If it was normal you wouldn't be claimng they are missiong anything.  No one is going to tell me, "You're missiong a tail" because 0.000001% of humans may have such an abnormality.  By your logic anything that is possible is normal as long as it is not a result of direct human interference.

Yep, they were overhauled. New look. No one is denying that. What they deny retconning is that qunari ever had horns.

I'd like a patch to DAO to update the qunari models and codex.  Otherwise, Sten is a different race than those demonkin in DA2.

[Darkhour]

GodWood wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

GodWood wrote...
~ All females having massive breasts.

This was a change?

Well yes they were big before but now they're even bigger.

They weren't big before.