57 réponses à ce sujet

[phoenixds24]

I'll agree that from a technical standpoint, DAO appears to be fairly average, which doesn't really bother me. What does bother me is that when most people talk about graphics these days, the technical side is all anyone ever discusses. There's an artistic component to video game graphics that I think gets ignored far too much. Now, obviously, I haven't played the game, but from what I have seen, the art direction looks superb, so while the game shouldn't get more than an average-ish score on graphics from a technical standpoint, the artistry should give it a boost (if you in fact believe the art direction is great--I've been around the internet long enough to know there'll be plenty of people who will disagree).

[robotnist]

let me shed a little light as to where im coming from here. im not at all concerned with the "7". i KNOW the story will rock as well as the games general atmosphere. so when it comes to the GFX, whatever bioware has done is bonus as long as its not ugly.



so, for every aspect of the GFX that they go beyond the "usual", is a huge notch towards my added joy via eye candy.



yes, i come to expect all PC games to be released with AA. yet theres still many that are released without it and it really ruins it for me. so it was important for me to bring that up.



now im not sure to what length mass effect had ani-sotropic but it appears that it was either software emulated or that it just wasnt x16. i would love to see DA have a X16 AS.



HDR. i love HDR. i used to be indifferent if not slightly hostile towards it, but i have come to enjoy this feature in PC games. it adds to my gaming experience like shadows did in NWN1.



if i could have these 3 features stated just now, along with mediocre to above average textures in the background. i would give DA at least an 8/10.



because having HDR along with atmospheric shadows, x8 AA and x16 AS, its the holy trinity for me.



because we know the character models are a 10/10!!!



thats what spurned my creation of this thread. if the characters look this god damned good, how could the rest of the game be "below average", (compared to the rest of the games average scores).



so, if bio decided that they needed to cut back on some of the newer graphic tech to keep the game on track or for whatever reason, then i undertand a lower score. i almost dont mind "bland-ish" ground textures as long as i can run them in x16AS. but if the game only has AA and many other features are skimmed, then i may be a tad disappointed.



like i said, i know i already love the game. thats not the question. i just want to know, what kind of canvas and paint bioware used...

[cocaholic]

I appreciate the art direction more than the graphics power of the engine. From what I've seen I really like the design of the game, the creatures in particular. As far as fancy graphics tricks, any badly designed visuals can get slapped with a bloom and other effects (not naming names....). I imagine there were many drawbacks to developing for multiple consoles and the like, they have scalable graphics between them, but probably limited to the same assets, leaving the least powerful system dictating the overall asset count. Plus games like Fallout and Crysis have a very uniform overall environment. It seems like the areas in Dragon Age are much more diverse and this limits what can be reused for each area adding to development time. But yeah. Its all about art direction.

[robotnist]

sorry for the double post, forgot one of the most important points for me here.



i dont think that just because the technology for doing 3D games was found 10-15 years ago that 98% of all games should be 3D!!! especially because when it first came out most of the games looked much worse than 2D!!! i hated the way NWN1 looked. if it was a top down, 2D game i would still be playing it today!!!



so of course art style is important to me. because i think its easier to create a fully realized atmosphere in a 2D game than a 3D. obviously that has changed over the last 5 years to a degree that if you want a cinematic look it might have to stay 3D. but if your going for a different artistic package, 2D might be the way to go.



im surprised that its taken this long to get back to doing 2D games. i love sprites and would love to see more games done with them. theres such an untapped potential for the 2D world.



look at stuff like machenarium!!! perfect example. or a game like castle crashers on the 360, are you kidding me? has it taken someone 10 years to come back to the 2D medium to make such a gem of a game???



hell, im playing DA: journeys and i love it.

why, if im a GFX snob and i "demand" DA:O to have all the new tech???



because, when i look at DA:J, its a "complete" package. my problem with 3D is, for me to be content it takes many of that technologies different aspects to make it seem "whole" to me.



where as a 2D game like DA: journeys is visually complete to me because i dont see any nasty jagged edges. i dont see any out of place shadows etc...



see, when a dev co. is trying to make a 3D game, they are essentially trying to re-create what they know as "true" atmosphere. unfortunately there are many "laws" to follow to get the gamer to buy into the world their selling.



where as when we play a 2D game its more of a liberal experience IMO. therefore dispelling any pre conceived notions of "right and wrong" by disarming us with a start in an atmo that is not based in reality. maybe its just me, but i can let go easier in 2D but become very skeptical in 3D...



sorry for the long rant. great posts in the thread BTW, thanks for your thoughts.

[Lughsan35]

Jayross wrote...

The graphics seem a step up from WoW, and with a bit more shrubbery.

First you must cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with ...... A HERRING!

[Baelin Firestorm]

I'd play DA:O on an Etch-A-Sketch if that was my only option. No.. ..REALLY!

[cocaholic]

etherhonky wrote...

sorry for the double post, forgot one of the most important points for me here.

i dont think that just because the technology for doing 3D games was found 10-15 years ago that 98% of all games should be 3D!!! especially because when it first came out most of the games looked much worse than 2D!!! i hated the way NWN1 looked. if it was a top down, 2D game i would still be playing it today!!!

so of course art style is important to me. because i think its easier to create a fully realized atmosphere in a 2D game than a 3D. obviously that has changed over the last 5 years to a degree that if you want a cinematic look it might have to stay 3D. but if your going for a different artistic package, 2D might be the way to go.

im surprised that its taken this long to get back to doing 2D games. i love sprites and would love to see more games done with them. theres such an untapped potential for the 2D world.

look at stuff like machenarium!!! perfect example. or a game like castle crashers on the 360, are you kidding me? has it taken someone 10 years to come back to the 2D medium to make such a gem of a game???

hell, im playing DA: journeys and i love it.
why, if im a GFX snob and i "demand" DA:O to have all the new tech???

because, when i look at DA:J, its a "complete" package. my problem with 3D is, for me to be content it takes many of that technologies different aspects to make it seem "whole" to me.

where as a 2D game like DA: journeys is visually complete to me because i dont see any nasty jagged edges. i dont see any out of place shadows etc...

see, when a dev co. is trying to make a 3D game, they are essentially trying to re-create what they know as "true" atmosphere. unfortunately there are many "laws" to follow to get the gamer to buy into the world their selling.

where as when we play a 2D game its more of a liberal experience IMO. therefore dispelling any pre conceived notions of "right and wrong" by disarming us with a start in an atmo that is not based in reality. maybe its just me, but i can let go easier in 2D but become very skeptical in 3D...

sorry for the long rant. great posts in the thread BTW, thanks for your thoughts.

I totally agree. I think also devs shouldn't be so scared of making stylized 3d games... Its (mostly) all realistic gritty brown environments that get so damn repetitive.  Plus everyone compares them to looking real because they are trying to look real but the tech just isn't there yet. Games like Brutal Legend or the Ratchet and Clank (even WoW) are not as critizised for their technical achievments (even though they are technically good) because they present a unique and interesting viewpoint, just like most 2d art does.  Hopefully this race for the most "realistic" game will stop and devs (and consumers) will start pursuing stuff that is more unique. Like more 2d!

[Sam-_-Fisher]

Game was started in like 2004. They are not that bad btw.