230 réponses à ce sujet

[FurousJoe]

Dark Specie wrote...

I like the horns, but as for the rest of it... Not sure. For all in-game lore we've heard about them, this makes them seem far more barbaric than they gave an impression of in the first DAO. I'm not yet sure if that's a good thing or not though...

But that's pretty narrowminded isn't it? Just because creature looks like A means he can't be about B, it just doesn't hold up.

They have legs and arms and all the intellect in the world as far as we know, a couple of horns will not hinder their ability to create civilization 

Modifié par FurousJoe, 30 janvier 2011 - 08:08 .

[nightcobra]

 

Dark Specie wrote...
I like the horns, but as for the rest of it... Not sure. For all in-game lore we've heard about them, this makes them seem far more barbaric than they gave an impression of in the first DAO. I'm not yet sure if that's a good thing or not though...

well...think of it like this, you're now seeing a qunari as a human from thedas would see one, a mean looking dark giant of the likes which you've never seen. your first impression would be like the fort drakon's priestess reaction to sten:

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 30 janvier 2011 - 08:11 .

[t0mm06]

Arthur Cousland wrote...

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.

Look this is the point! there wasn't any Qunari with horns in dragon age origins, not because that was a design feature they decided to leave out, but because they hadn't made the decision to have horns untill later! its like you want them to go back in time and change the past.
Its how designers work, no artist whether they make games, movies, animations or painted canvases, will like there work 100%, so why not let them change it, it is after all there work.
Even da vinci went back and changed some of his work/' ideas because he felt it wasn't right first time

[Jimmy Fury]

filaminstrel wrote...
Generously we could say that his "imaginary" comment supports the notion that they were, in fact, all naturally hornless, but he also says that they could have just as easily done otherwise. Whether it's a retcon or not, they could have retconned it and wouldn't have had a problem doing so. That's what I get out of it.

Indeed they could have. That's why I'm so quick to defend them and argue against it being called a retcon. Frankly I think we're lucky we got any explanation at all let alone one that actually works and maintains the lore and canon as we know it.
Most companies wouldn't bother. They'd just retcon, come up with some crap about human-qunari DNA and be done.

Don't get me wrong, it's certainly a change and the whole "some Qunari have horns" is totally an excuse to explain the change. I'm not trying to say they had it planned that way the whole time, just that we should count our blessings that Gaider came up with an excuse that is simple and actually fits and isn't technically a retcon.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

The new qunari look is alright to me. I wish it was more consistant with Origins but...oh well! Changing art direction after a successful first game is kind of a strange decision to me. The main visual developement that gets on my nerves would have to be some of the combat animations.

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

Ah yes, the Reap-.. ah yes, the idea of making races more distinct from each other by making them less distinct from all other races in a market (horns = demon = diablo, Kratos-like paint, tieflings, D&D4/MtG art..).. and, of course, it was completely neccesary to use one in a big bang trailer as an antagonist.



Well, I think that developers show their audience what they want to show. If they would like to show technologically advanced disciplined race of stoic warriors backed up with philosophy, they would use them for marketing somehow. Instead, they used those horned painted dudes which kind of blend with fantasy style most people are comfort to go with nowadays, and they used them as enemies. Why? Your guess is no better than mine. But perhaps it is something that insult DA:O gamers on their intelligence level.

[AlexXIV]

DamnThoseDisplayNames wrote...

 Why? Your guess is no better than mine. But perhaps it is something that insult DA:O gamers on their intelligence level.

I think that's it. I was wondering myself what exactly disturbed me so much. Thank you.

[crimzontearz]

I love this.



People complain about those who dislike the "change" in an of itself (as opposed to the resulting look" by berating them and belitteling them....by calling them immature and unable to deal with change.



so....uhm.....is attention to continuity (visual or otherwise) so very inconsequential to all these people? Could the new art direction have been used to still keep some semblance of visual continuity with some of the worse offenders (hurlocks, Emissaries.....apparently Genlocks)..I mean the "corpses" remained pretty much identical and so did the Giant spiders....



anyway I am digressing. If the change was a purely mechanical one I would understand, you know like the masses of angry teenagers who started screaming when they realized that Bungie had nerfed the handgun in Halo 2. But a visual retcon that leaves some people saying "wait is this even the same creaure?"....



Is a retcon deemed ok because it's Bioware? And before anyone jumps and says "it's not a retcon".....be reminded that your REAL defense should be :"It's not a retcon, The chantry's recordings (and your codex) were just faulty because they just never saw them up close and if they did they were wearing helmets so they thought they were hoprnamental....and they were to much in a hurry after the wars to look at all the corpses that were left behind...." and so on and so forth until you have filled in all the holes left behind by this "new look"

[ladydesire]

t0mm06 wrote...

Arthur Cousland wrote...

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.

Look this is the point! there wasn't any Qunari with horns in dragon age origins, not because that was a design feature they decided to leave out, but because they hadn't made the decision to have horns untill later! its like you want them to go back in time and change the past.
Its how designers work, no artist whether they make games, movies, animations or painted canvases, will like there work 100%, so why not let them change it, it is after all there work.
Even da vinci went back and changed some of his work/' ideas because he felt it wasn't right first time

Actually, according to the Codex entry on Broodmothers, the Ogres come from Qunari females that got transformed, so in a sense we have seen horned Qunari. B)

[slimgrin]

The new qunari are cool, but I think they may have gone overboard by giving them such classic villain/devil features with the huge horns and claws and all. I mean, that's basically how Satan should look.

Modifié par slimgrin, 30 janvier 2011 - 09:56 .

[Meltemph]

Is a retcon deemed ok because it's Bioware?

So are you implying that retcons are bad because they are retcons? I personally don't care what people want to call it. The design looks good to me, this is a new setting and changes in design/art and ect are to be expected(at least to me).



Everyone wants visual continuity but I think it is evident that they were not completely happy with everything, look wise, in the game. And if they truly want this to be a franchise setting, then obviously they are going to want to make sure they have the visual style they want.



Before this change of look(or expansion of look) happened, at least to me, it did not make sense why they were not considered human. NOW, it makes sense.

[Atakuma]

slimgrin wrote...

The new quanri are cool, but I think they may have gone overboard by giving them such classic villain/devil features with the huge horns and claws and all. I mean, that's basically how Satan should look.

That is a problem I have with the art style in general; it's so ham-fisted. There's no subtlety; the Qunari are big scary barbarian monsters, the elves are barefoot hippie tree folk, Isabela is sexy, so her ****** are falling out of her "dress". It's all just a bit too much.

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

Before this change of look(or expansion of look) happened, at least to me, it did not make sense why they were not considered human.

You can add horns, tails, wings and every other thing lustful teenage girls add to their deviant drawings. But until you came up with characters and ideas like, for example, Star Control 2 had for it's races, they will all be same humans with horns, tails and wings.

[Dark Specie]

Atakuma wrote...
That is a problem I have with the art style in general; it's so ham-fisted. There's no subtlety; the Qunari are big scary barbarian monsters, the elves are barefoot hippie tree folk, Isabela is sexy, so her ****** are falling out of her "dress". It's all just a bit too much.

It's a change from DAO, indeed. In DAO, they went with a fairly "neutral" look on things - Elves, Dwarves and Qunari weren't THAT much differently-looking from humans. Yet here, they've set out to set the races apart - in some cases radically so, as with the Qunari...

[AlexXIV]

slimgrin wrote...

The new qunari are cool, but I think they may have gone overboard by giving them such classic villain/devil features with the huge horns and claws and all. I mean, that's basically how Satan should look.

Satan looks like Al Pacino. Just sayin'.

[crimzontearz]

Meltemph wrote...

Is a retcon deemed ok because it's Bioware?

So are you implying that retcons are bad because they are retcons? I personally don't care what people want to call it. The design looks good to me, this is a new setting and changes in design/art and ect are to be expected(at least to me).

Everyone wants visual continuity but I think it is evident that they were not completely happy with everything, look wise, in the game. And if they truly want this to be a franchise setting, then obviously they are going to want to make sure they have the visual style they want.

Before this change of look(or expansion of look) happened, at least to me, it did not make sense why they were not considered human. NOW, it makes sense.

why would a total retcon be good?

no seriously, what is good about changing something visually so much that  without being told, some people would be completely convinced they are looking at 2 completely different creatures?

now aside that, there was no reason to add gigantic horns to the Qunari to make them look not human where they could have just capitalized on what made them different to begin with (size and skin) why changing minor things

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

distinguetraces wrote...

ladydesire wrote...
Actually, according to the Codex entry on Broodmothers, the Ogres come from Qunari females that got transformed, so in a sense we have seen horned Qunari.

By the same token, it would be unsurprising to run across a community of elves with carapaces and spiky mandibles.

Oh just wait, DA 3 screenshots are on their way!

[jontepwn]

The new Qunari looks more defined and unique and that's fine with me. Can't say the Qunari interested me at all in Origins and that's basically because Sten looked just like a Human. No defining characteristics at all, now imagine Sten looking like THAT. Now there's a character I'd like to get to know.

[Jimmy Fury]

crimzontearz wrote...
Is a retcon deemed ok because it's Bioware? And before anyone jumps and says "it's not a retcon".....be reminded that your REAL defense should be :"It's not a retcon, The chantry's recordings (and your codex) were just faulty because they just never saw them up close and if they did they were wearing helmets so they thought they were hoprnamental....and they were to much in a hurry after the wars to look at all the corpses that were left behind...." and so on and so forth until you have filled in all the holes left behind by this "new look"

Why do I get the impression that this was directed at me... <_<

It's not a retcon.
Period.
The only defense I need is that Retcon has a definition and giving the Qunari horns doesn't fit that defintion.

[Dark Specie]

jontepwn wrote...

The new Qunari looks more defined and unique and that's fine with me. Can't say the Qunari interested me at all in Origins and that's basically because Sten looked just like a Human. No defining characteristics at all, now imagine Sten looking like THAT. Now there's a character I'd like to get to know.

*sigh*. Would that he had looked like that to begin with...

[xxSgt_Reed_24xx]

who cares about the quanri... it's the darkspawn that look incredibly stupid now!!!!

[Apollo Starflare]

I'll just reiterate that if they make it clear in the game that the Qunari are still intelligent, cultured beings with all the subtlety Sten showed or suggested then I think the decision to give them an appearance that wouldn't traditionally suggest such is a good one.



Should the Qunari themselves be portrayed as a much more typically 'crush, pillage, destroy' type of villain then it would definitely be a step in the wrong direction, but I can't for the life of me see the writers or the rest of the team making that decision.