230 réponses à ce sujet

[nightcobra]

Apollo Starflare wrote...

I'm just glad they took the time to explain the change and think it through so Sten makes sense and whatnot. Although I do wish it seemed more likely that we'll run into some hornless Qunari in DA2, seeing a mixture in the screenshots with common visual identifiers between the hornless and horny (hee) so more casual/uninformed folks could see the connection to the few Qunari we see in DAO, as well as adding visual variety and highlighting one of the things that makes the Qunari interesting: The fact they -aren't- typical horned human-likes, nor just large humans, they are a strange and wonderful mixture of the two.

In fact one thing I really like about making at least some of them more beastial looking is that it pushes them into the 'cultured beast' category. Looking at their size and potentially beast like appearance gives the impression they will be a typical aggressive and unthinking enemy probably focused on fighting etc. But obviously as you find out more about them the player discovers that the Qunari are much more interesting than that.

Tangents are fun.

i also like that their civilization is on of the most technologically advanced and that they use gunpowder.
i want to see what else they use it for apart from cannons and other possible armaments.
they kind of remind me of the geth in the way that they strive to be as efficient as possible and that they value the good of their people higher than they value their own individuality, at least as far as Qun followers go. 

[Noviere]

The lack of armor doesn't really bother me. Par Vollen is supposed to be a tropical island, covered in rain forests. Wearing full plate in hot, humid weather seems unpleasant.

Besides, there have been plenty of instances in human history where heavy armor has worked against it's wearers, right?

Modifié par Noviere, 30 janvier 2011 - 03:09 .

[Jimmy Fury]

AlexXIV wrote...
Coincidently we had no horned Qunari in DA:O and we won't see any bronze/non-horned Qunari in DA2. Simple reason it was a retcon, just that it probably happened when they started to work on DA2, which was before DA:O was released. So they just had to rewrite the codex entry. It was probably too late to get it into dialogue, which is why Sten never mentioned it.

Not a retcon !

Contrary to popular fandom's intense belief, not all changes are retcons. Not even all retroactive changes are retcons. Retcon requires a change to the established continuity.
The whole "some have horns some don't" thing means the change is definitively not a retcon. It does not erase or alter the Qunari we've already seen. Only adds something new to the qunari we have not seen yet.
Continuity has in no way been altered therefore it can't be a retcon.

[t0mm06]

marshalleck wrote...

Because people hate, fear, and/or resist change. It's just part of being human. I'm sure if Bioware changed something about DAO which you appreciated and didn't think of as "broken" you'd at the least have a dissenting opinion, and might even be inclined to voice it. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you're not acting like an obnoxious spoiled child.

Fair enough, but no i wouldn't, like i said in my post, i trust that they are making the game better, so if they changed something i didn't feel was necessary i wouldnt complain... at least not unless i had played the game to see if i was right or not, but like i have said i trust that they are making it better. They made an excellent game with origins and i'm sure they are doing what they think is best, and so far there is no evidence that i shouldn't trust there decision, i actually think that me posting on these boards shows this in a way, because i've never posted on a game board before but this is how much i liked origins that i actually spend extra time on the internet about it aswell

[rNEBL]

one word... klingons

Modifié par rNEBL, 30 janvier 2011 - 03:19 .

[t0mm06]

SandyWB wrote...

I think it all comes down to that they didn't appear to have horns in Origins. I personally like the change, BUT I would have wanted them to have had horns in Origins as well. Saying that only some Qunari are born without horns seems like a stretch since ALL qunari you saw in Origins were horn-less. From Sten, to the Beresaad¨warriors in Sten's Fade nightmare, to the qunari mercenary you quite frequently bump into... they were all without horns. It's not impossible that all qunari we saw were these special horn-less qunari, or Tal'Vashoth, but it just doesn't seem plausible. Either way, I'm fine with the redesign, but I would have liked them to looks a bit more like they did in Origins.

This was my point! that the reason for this is because they decided to change it FOR dragon age 2, so that yes the 'no horns on some' reason is just an excuse as to why sten ect didn't have horns for the lore, but the real reason (and its not like they're trying to hide this reason, is that as of dragon age 2 they wanted to redesign them... fair enough, and its good that they made it lore with the 'no horns on some excuse' because if they just changed it with no canon reason then people would be even worse about it.

My main point was why cant people accept that the designers decided to change them for the second game to make them suit the game more? 

[Jimmy Fury]

t0mm06 wrote...
My main point was why cant people accept that the designers decided to change them for the second game to make them suit the game more?

Because nerds without nerdrage would wither and die like a plant without sunlight?

[Cutlass Jack]

I was actually hoping for the 'big reveal' that Sten was actually a child in Origins and his horns hadn't grown in yet.

But I'm really happy they made the race more distinctive. I was more than halfway through my first playthrough before I realized they were even supposed to be another race. I just thought it was just a regional distinction for humans (like the Chasnid) Even if it is a retcon, I have zero problem with it.

I am sad that their excellent design for female Qunari won't be in the game though. It would have been most awesome to have one as a companion who wanted to get away from the rigid rules they live by.

Modifié par Cutlass Jack, 30 janvier 2011 - 03:34 .

[Arthur Cousland]

I don't "hate" the redesign, it's just that the redesign is so dramatic.  Every qunari in Origins + dlc looked pretty much identical, with the hair being the only real difference.  Then here comes DA2 and all of a sudden the qunari have grown horns and look more like demons than people.  Bioware's only explanation was that some qunari have horns and some don't.  If that's so, then it would have been nice to have seen at least one qunari with horns prior to the DA2 pics.

The new look doesn't bother me at all, it's just hard to picture Sten being of the same race as the qunari in DA2.  Horns or not, the new qunari look more like demons or beasts that would growl or snort, rather than talk as a means of communication.

[TJPags]

crimzontearz wrote...

there is the difference between not liking the new look and not liking the fact that it was summarily changed.

Do I like the new darkspawn look? yes
Go I like the fact that if I was given 2 shots of Darkspawn Hurlocks, one from DA2 and one from DAO, I would have been convinced the two were not the same creature? no

This is so true.
 
I like the new Qunari design.  I don't mind the horns.  However, the body style/overall appearance looks a little inconsistent to me.
 
I like the new ogres, and don't see any appreciable difference.
 
I like the new hurlocks, just think they now look too much like the Disciples from DAA, which I thought were somewhat special.
 
I don't like the new genlock look, and don't like the change at all.
 
So there's a lot of variation there.  Not everybody is hating on every change, nor does everyone hate the general idea of changing anything.
 

rNEBL wrote...

one word... klingons

lol.  This is what I'll be thinking a LOT while playing DA2. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Arthur Cousland wrote...
Then here comes DA2 and all of a sudden the qunari have grown horns and look more like demons than people. 

That's what concerns me. Possible implications of the change. If this was done to make the Qunari look like the "alien other" and to villify them, I would be greatly dissapointed.
I hopefuly will be prven wrong, but looks and arts are generally used as a means to an end and to convey the lore. Making the Qunari look more like demons might be an attempt to demonize them or make them so alien as  to be incomprehensible.
The Qunari are different, but they are not, at least to me, incomprehensible.

But again, that's just fears that hopefully will be proven wrong.

It would have been much better if we get to see hornless Qunari in the DA2, alongside horned ones. It would make it look less like a retcon.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 30 janvier 2011 - 04:15 .

[AlexXIV]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
Coincidently we had no horned Qunari in DA:O and we won't see any bronze/non-horned Qunari in DA2. Simple reason it was a retcon, just that it probably happened when they started to work on DA2, which was before DA:O was released. So they just had to rewrite the codex entry. It was probably too late to get it into dialogue, which is why Sten never mentioned it.

Not a retcon !

Contrary to popular fandom's intense belief, not all changes are retcons. Not even all retroactive changes are retcons. Retcon requires a change to the established continuity.
The whole "some have horns some don't" thing means the change is definitively not a retcon. It does not erase or alter the Qunari we've already seen. Only adds something new to the qunari we have not seen yet.
Continuity has in no way been altered therefore it can't be a retcon.

It doesn't make much sense to discuss it since it doesn't change anything. Actually I wish this topic wouldn't come up again and again. Or at least wish I wouldn't jump on it anymore. But the notion that 'we' (who don't like it) fear change always prompts me.

Simply because it is rather obvious what happened for those who want to see it. As I said, the 'Qunari have horns' thing came rather late in development, if not as a last minute change. Proof is for me that they couldn't change the Qunari and neither even put one VO word of it in the game. The only place in DA:O that mentions horned Qunari is the codex, and rewriting a codex entry is like ... 5 minutes work?

Even the way Sten states mage Qunari 'are like animals' is kinda ridiculous looking how most of his specimen, and actually the 'normal' Qunari look more animalistic than Sten and humans. Makes it a rather ridiculous statement imo. If Bioware had made that decission earlier then Sten would have had horns and there wouldn't be hornless Qunari unless they lost it. So basically the lore got 'patched' to suit the new Qunari art style.

Qunari used to look like humans, just bigger. Now they are a minotaur-like crossbreed. More likely some sort of cursed or manufactured race than natural. And what some people said is also right. They don't wear armor anymore because they are more monster than humans now. It almost ridicules everything Sten said. The graphical change wasn't the biggest disappointment for me. It was that they were a 'more civilized' race and proud of it as Sten mentioned many times. But in DA2 they look to be rather brutish, just physically superior.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 30 janvier 2011 - 04:34 .

[Jimmy Fury]

AlexXIV wrote...
It doesn't make much sense to discuss it since it doesn't change anything. Actually I wish this topic wouldn't come up again and again. Or at least wish I wouldn't jump on it anymore. But the notion that 'we' (who don't like it) fear change always prompts me.

Simply because it is rather obvious what happened for those who want to see it. As I said, the 'Qunari have horns' thing came rather late in development, if not as a last minute change. Proof is for me that they couldn't change the Qunari and neither even put one VO word of it in the game. The only place in DA:O that mentions horned Qunari is the codex, and rewriting a codex entry is like ... 5 minutes work?

Even the way Sten states mage Qunari 'are like animals' is kinda ridiculous looking how most of his specimen, and actually the 'normal' Qunari look more animalistic than Sten and humans. Makes it a rather ridiculous statement imo. If Bioware had made that decission earlier then Sten would have had horns and there wouldn't be hornless Qunari unless they lost it. So basically the lore got 'patched' to suit the new Qunari art style.

Qunari used to look like humans, just bigger. Now they are a minotaur-like crossbreed. More likely some sort of cursed or manufactured race than natural. And what some people said is also right. They don't wear armor anymore because they are more monster than humans now. It almost ridicules everything Sten said. The graphical change wasn't the biggest disappointment for me. It was that they were a 'more civilized' race and proud of it as Sten mentioned many times. But in DA2 they look to be rather brutish, just physical superior.

I honestly can't even comprehend that kind of circular logic...
You don't like the changes because you assume they were made for reasons you don't like that are contrary to the reasons stated which you assume were stated for reasons you don't like... which is why you don't like the change....

-headexplodey-

unexplodey edit: I also have no idea what your response has to do with my clarifying the definition of retcon

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 30 janvier 2011 - 04:43 .

[AlexXIV]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
It doesn't make much sense to discuss it since it doesn't change anything. Actually I wish this topic wouldn't come up again and again. Or at least wish I wouldn't jump on it anymore. But the notion that 'we' (who don't like it) fear change always prompts me.

Simply because it is rather obvious what happened for those who want to see it. As I said, the 'Qunari have horns' thing came rather late in development, if not as a last minute change. Proof is for me that they couldn't change the Qunari and neither even put one VO word of it in the game. The only place in DA:O that mentions horned Qunari is the codex, and rewriting a codex entry is like ... 5 minutes work?

Even the way Sten states mage Qunari 'are like animals' is kinda ridiculous looking how most of his specimen, and actually the 'normal' Qunari look more animalistic than Sten and humans. Makes it a rather ridiculous statement imo. If Bioware had made that decission earlier then Sten would have had horns and there wouldn't be hornless Qunari unless they lost it. So basically the lore got 'patched' to suit the new Qunari art style.

Qunari used to look like humans, just bigger. Now they are a minotaur-like crossbreed. More likely some sort of cursed or manufactured race than natural. And what some people said is also right. They don't wear armor anymore because they are more monster than humans now. It almost ridicules everything Sten said. The graphical change wasn't the biggest disappointment for me. It was that they were a 'more civilized' race and proud of it as Sten mentioned many times. But in DA2 they look to be rather brutish, just physical superior.

I honestly can't even comprehend that kind of circular logic...
You don't like the changes because you assume they were made for reasons you don't like that are contrary to the reasons stated which you assume were stated for reasons you don't like... which is why you don't like the change....

-headexplodey-

unexplodey edit: I also have no idea what your response has to do with my clarifying the definition of retcon

Edit: If wookies would have horns in SWTOR, wouldn't that be a retcon for you?

What's not to understand about that, you just explained it perfectly

Modifié par AlexXIV, 30 janvier 2011 - 04:46 .

[Jimmy Fury]

AlexXIV wrote...
Edit: If wookies would have horns in SWTOR, wouldn't that be a retcon for you?

What's not to understand about that, you just explained it perfectly

Only if they claim all wookies always had horns. It's not an opinion thing, it's not about what's a retcon "to me." retcon has a definition. It's a combination of the words retroactive and continuity. It must meet both of those requirements to receive the label.
If they just made horned wookies without the claim that all wookies always had horns, thus creating a retroactive continuity, then no. It wouldn't be a retcon it would just be stupid.

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 30 janvier 2011 - 04:51 .

[Cutlass Jack]

AlexXIV wrote...
Edit: If wookies would have horns in SWTOR, wouldn't that be a retcon for you?

SWTOR predates the movie continuity by quite a bit. Maybe there were horned wookies we never met before. Or perhaps wookies always had horns but eventually started trimming them off Hellboy style because they were annoying (like humans with long fingernails) or because it made them look too much like biped Banthas.


There's always story reasons you can give. Even if the motivation is just making them look better.

[blothulfur]

Personally I liked the more subtle physical differences of the qunari because it was their ideology and worldview that made them so alien in origins, but so long as that aspect and the writing remain top class (well done to whoever's responsible by the way) I don't see a problem with the re-design, just don't think it was needed in the qunaris case.

[Xewaka]

youngzman wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
I just want them to carry armor. They're supposed to be this ironclad, intelligent, civilized foes, yet they charge barechested and with tight pants.

Granted, in the Destiny trailer, he was barechested. But, every other time you see Qunari without armor [I'm hoping, (and I'm talking in-game& pieces of info outside of the game.)] it's just them in their basic form.

What do you mean by "basic form"?
Do you mean the in-game screenshots that are floating around, clearly showing them fighting barechested?
Or dou you mean the Rise to Power in-game cinematic footage of Qunari charging barechested and getting jumpsliced by Hawke, or getting flashed then chestslashed by Isabela?

[Jimmy Fury]

filaminstrel wrote...
It does alter the qunari we've already seen. Sten would be hornless and would likely have bronze skin, but he would still look different. The (many) Tal'Vashoth we've seen would have horn stumps like this mage here. These things they've clarified about the peculiarities of qunari horniness and skin tone weren't really to explain DAO's look, just to expand the lore. All they use (and feel is necessary) to explain the visual difference is "different art direction."

Normally I would be very diplomatic about this but it's exhausting and I need more coffee.

You are wrong.

Nothing changes what we've seen. There is no reason at all to now say the Tal'Vashoth in Ferelden had stumps. Hornless Qunari are hornless and thus have no stumps.
AND....
Helmets...
Some of the Qunari mercs wore them.
So you can't actually say they didn't have stumps now can you?

And any theoretical changes to Sten (since he won't be seen you can't actually claim he looks different at all...) would be due to the art change the same way anything else from origins would look slightly different.
But art changes aren't retcons either so again... not a retcon.

[Hawke92]

The old skin was better cause they can;t just change the skin like that i can't imagine Sten horned :X

[upsettingshorts]

There are two primary objections. Those that view any change in art style as a problem, and those that simply do not prefer the new style.

<-is neither

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 janvier 2011 - 05:24 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

There are two primary objections. Those that view any change in art style as a problem, and those that simply do not prefer the new style.

<-is neither

3. Those who worry that the new art style is to potray the Qunari as incomprehensibly alien who look more like brutes and less "human" / civilized.

We are hoping to be proved wrong. At least I am.

[upsettingshorts]

I'd say that falls under #2. Just because the reasons are more well thought out does not mean that it isn't an issue of preferring one style to the other.

If the game tells you the incomprehensibly alien brutes are civilized, then they are. Even if that may or may not contradict a superficial evaluation of their appearance.

If there's a #3, it's to encompass all those who simply don't care or have no opinion.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 janvier 2011 - 05:30 .

[Jimmy Fury]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

There are two primary objections. Those that view any change in art style as a problem, and those that simply do not prefer the new style.

<-is neither

3. Those who worry that the new art style is to potray the Qunari as incomprehensibly alien who look more like brutes and less "human" / civilized.

We are hoping to be proved wrong. At least I am.

I think that falls into the first category.... sort of...

Also it's entirely debatable that the Qunari were ever portrayed as anything other than brutes to begin with... but that's a different debate entirely.

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 30 janvier 2011 - 05:30 .