243 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

randName wrote...
Most people when they talk about generic when they talk about fiction simply refers to the product being the same as the next, with nothing of its own to add.

& DA:O was very generic, esp. visually, and DA2 is still generic and follows the normal fantasy formula, but they moved away from it in some regards visually, but only ever so slightly, and one of the movements seems to be towards more of a anime/japanese/manga flair on the armour design, for better or worse.

Bollocks.

You talk as if everything has to bring something new to the table in every category. Visually, you are limited in what you can do. There isn't really anything "new" to add.
And one doesn't haev to.
Uniquness for it's own sake is horrible, horrible, HORRIBLE thing.

DA:O looks "generic" because it tries to look real. So it's hte most stupid complaint in the history of complaints.

As I said before - it's like complainign that all WW2 movies looks the same. OR all cop shows look the same...or what have you.

They could have made their own races, and not had the standard elves, the standard ugly angry dark enemy brought on by an angry god, they could have skipped many of these and it would still have been as realistic as having them, for nothing says realism like elves.

You could argue that its generic to have humans, and having humans adds realism, or a sense of realism to the game; but since having an other type of being as the avatar wouldn't be less realistic, just less referential to us and thus we would feel less immersed.

I approve of generic fantasy to some extent, and I don’t want to play a totally different being that would feel alien to me, I wouldn’t want a made up language with subtitles, but it has little to do with realism.

And realism is an inclination toward literal truth and pragmatism, not towards looking like everybody else, or having elves and dwarves.

So are you talking about VISUAL style or story and setting in general? Because I find NOTHING wrong with the setting.

And as for "looking like everyone else" - that feel comes naturally from pragmatism and common sense.

[randName]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Teh mages have more animations - that is a good thing. But animations are often over-the top, which is a bad thing.

Personal taste, I kind of agree that they went over the top, but you can't fault someone for prefering the new animations.

And I found most of the animations in DA:O to be bad, or boring ~ the running animation while in combat was one of the worst offeneders, esp. for anyone using two handed weapons, or just looking at Morrigan or Wynn run was sad.

Sure they tried to look like they were ready for anything, the problem was that the animation only partly worked for when you were circling people within a skirmish, something the mages rarely did, yet they were forced to use the same animation.

And DA:O had many other just sad animations within it.


They had some better, like women running outside of combat, and some of the DA2 animations are so over the top it makes me cringe.



As for spell effects DA:O had horribly intrusive sustained spell effects that makes me dislike magic unmodded, once modded, removing all the auras it was sound, and the larger AoE are esp. nice.

So DA2 vanilla are for me better than DA:O vanilla, just because it got less horrible sustained effects, and primarely because they are removed after combat.

But I would agree that the larger spells, or even effects like cone of cold were nicer in DA:O. 


And in the end this is mostly about taste as well, perhaps a few people even love all the sustained effects, and are angry that DA2 removes them after the combat ends? 

[randName]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You talk as if everything has to bring something new to the table in every category. Visually, you are limited in what you can do. There isn't really anything "new" to add.
And one doesn't have to.
Uniqueness for it's own sake is horrible, horrible, HORRIBLE thing.

No, I said in paragraph one that generic is simply that the product is relating to or descriptive of an entire group or class, and this is what most say when they talk about it X being generic.

In paragraph two I said that DA:O is very generic, and so is DA2, even if it moves away from the standard formula a little bit when it comes to the visual.
And we are mostly talking about things relating visual, but often they are correlated, since I’m staying on topic.

Nor did I claim that I wanted the game to individualise every visual aspect, making every pebble unique, nor did I describe any need to even make the game less generic at this point, or as I ended it [DA2 did it ] “for better or worse”.
Nor do you need to do so to make it less generic.

As for what you can do, if you wanted it to be less generic? Well for one, as explained before there is no realism in using Dwarves or Elves, and they could have done away with them, and exchanged it for something else, or left them out all together. There lies some logic in Dwarves being sturdy and short, living underground, but they could have skipped the generic accents and beards, or even hair, gone for say an Italian, or Thai over the Scottish/Irish flare, and had them pale as snow with little or no hair, like Heterocephalus glabers, and at least their visual look would now be more realistic since the naked Mole Rat are like Dwarves dwellers of the rock and earth.  

If they needed an old race, that lost their immortality, or agelessness, they could have cast them differently, as a race not attuned to nature, without slanted eyes, without pointed ears, and without a latinesque language to make them feel archaic and old. They could have made them bearded, had them be in love with engineering, instead of the opposite, they could have done a ton of things, to make the world their own.

Not saying they should, and never did.

DA:O looks "generic" because it tries to look real. So it's the most stupid complaint in the history of complaints.

I assume you read my previous post, the one you replied to - many of the generic fantasy traits used in DA:O are simply generic ideas based upon LotR without any claim to realism.

As I said before - it's like complaining that all WW2 movies looks the same. OR all cop shows look the same...or what have you.

Not sure why I would validate this even with an answer, or did you read what I wrote?  
For one I never claimed being generic was bad, I simply refuted that DA:O would have been less realistic if they made it less generic to other fantasy, for DA:O is not a documentary take of a long lost world of ours, unless you actually believed we could cast magic, and that we had elves and dwarves among us.

There is a point were a drive to purge anything remotely used before would force a product to become alien and totally unrealistic, but generic doesn’t say without similarities, it says. relating to or descriptive of an entire group or class.
A product can be similar to a lot of things without being generic to, since it doesn’t relate to the to what we relate it with. So a generic fantasy romp is simply a tale/product that relates well within its compared group or class, as it is generic to have dwarves in fantasy, but if they don’t have beards they are not generic within their own class, or Varric isn’t generic to the normal fantasy dwarf, but not less realistic due to it.

So are you talking about VISUAL style or story and setting in general? Because I find NOTHING wrong with the setting.

I talked about what is generic or not, and what little “generic to other fantasy” has to do with any sort of realism. That said I tried to keep it about the visual style, since I’m trying to stay on topic.

Or what I was saying was, as I ended the last post.

And realism is an inclination toward literal truth and pragmatism, not towards looking like everybody else, or having elves and dwarves.

And as I said in this post generic is

relating to or descriptive of an entire group or class.

OR DA:O or DA2 are not generic realism, a term few would use, since realism implies that from the start (as in if your physics engine is relating to or descriptive of [an] inclination toward literal truth and pragmatism of physics you would simply say that it’s realistic, or at least tries to be).

Or by default calling something realistic nullifies, or makes, generic redundant, since by default realism contains that its generic to pragmatical and literal truth.

So when someone talks about a fictional work being generic you talk about it being generic to the class it belongs, so someone saying "DA:O was too generic" translates into that DA:O is too generic to its default class, which would be other fictional fantasy works, more specifically other fictional fantasy ARPGs, as in it contains too many descriptive similarities to group to which it belongs.



EDIT: some italics and typos/spelling fixed ~ I'm truly am a horrible poster ~

Modifié par randName, 12 avril 2011 - 12:37 .

[BlackwindTheCommander]

I like the style for the new and improved humans and "good guy" races (including Quanari in this.)

I think the elven redesign is cool, but I would love it if they weren't so damn skinny. Give them semi more human thinkness and proportions.

I have the new dakspawn though. I miss the old versions of the Hurlocks. They actually looked like something we could fear, and were dangerous. These new ones look like Hannah-Barbera cartoon rejects.

Everything else however is ok in my book for DA2. The environment (though very few) were nice enough and had an impressive amount of detail. The color pallet was good,but it could use a bit more.

Personally I want to see a mix of both styles, and please for the love of god, BRING BACK THE DARKSPAWN!

[randName]

BlackwindTheCommander wrote...
Personally I want to see a mix of both styles, and please for the love of god, BRING BACK THE DARKSPAWN!

I would like to fix that by saying "Bring back what you did to the darkspawn in DA:A".

DA:O had in my opinion ugly, for the wrong reason, darkspawn, but I was pleasently surprised by these in DA:A.


And I find both that the new DA2 and the DA:O pales in comparison.

Modifié par randName, 12 avril 2011 - 12:26 .

[Mecher3k]

DA:O

Though I do love the look of the Qunari, that's about it though. The look of the elves is horrible. Just look at Zevran for proof. Merill looks good though, but it seems they didn't go full out DA2 on her.

Darkspawn do not look like the evil they are suppose to be. Though I must agree how they looked in DA:OA was epic.

I just hate cartoony art styles especially when they just don't fit in the world because the rest of the world looks normal.

And that is how DA:O looked like, normal.

Then there is the animations. Look at the rogues when they jump backwards to cloak! They look disconnected from the world while doing it. And yes I know they are in the air, but they just look like weird.

Now the mages, LOL. Seriously the staff attacks are horrible, half the time I'm spinning instead of attacking, it's stupid as hell to watch. Not to mention how fast the animation is. I was expecting my be making the typical kung fu sounds while doing them. "wuhhh wuh wuh!!!"

And now the warriors and their weightless swords, it's like they aren't even swinging anything. In DA:O that massive sword, which in DA2 is like a dagger compared to the "swords" in it, looked like it was heavy as hell, as it should be.

Oh then there is hunchback anime Fenris. Fenris looks horrible, looks like the typical "male" in Japanese games that you can't is a male or female. I wouldn't mind if there was a option to outright kill him after dealing with his mage QQing for the billionth time. But that is going off topic.

[Aaleel]

Origins (PC) by far, it was darker and grittier, was just a far better atmosphere not even close.

DA2 looked way too cartoonish, bodies exploding, legs standing by themselves and all that nonsense. 

Modifié par Aaleel, 12 avril 2011 - 02:34 .

[FaeQueenCory]

DA:O (PC)
Everything just meshed together more.... and the massive armors look better... if impractical.

[Killjoy Cutter]

It depends on what you mean.

The overall look of Kirkwall being different is fine, it's a different part of the world. It's farther north and closer to the equator than anywhere you visit in Origins, especially places like Redcliff, Lothering, etc. The buildings look different because of different cultures and history. That's all fine.

However, the darkspawn change just didn't work. The new dwarves look like they're wearing bad masks. Some of the new elves look believably alien, and some look like they had a congentital bone disorder that affected their skull growth. Much of the weapon and armor design is purely artistic, with no throught to practicality (in more ways than DAO, even). The animations are often cartoonish, like they were imported from bad bad BAD anime.

[PriscilaSSR]

DA2 - PC (Except Darkspawn).

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]randName wrote...

As for what you can do, if you wanted it to be less generic? Well for one, as explained before there is no realism in using Dwarves or Elves, and they could have done away with them, and exchanged it for something else, or left them out all together. There lies some logic in Dwarves being sturdy and short, living underground, but they could have skipped the generic accents and beards, or even hair, gone for say an Italian, or Thai over the Scottish/Irish flare, and had them pale as snow with little or no hair, like Heterocephalus glabers, and at least their visual look would now be more realistic since the naked Mole Rat are like Dwarves dwellers of the rock and earth.  

If they needed an old race, that lost their immortality, or agelessness, they could have cast them differently, as a race not attuned to nature, without slanted eyes, without pointed ears, and without a latinesque language to make them feel archaic and old. They could have made them bearded, had them be in love with engineering, instead of the opposite, they could have done a ton of things, to make the world their own.

[/quote ]

FYI -Ii hate each and every one of your suggestions.
If they have dwrves, they should look like dwarves. "Re-imagining" stuff is horrible. Words have friggin meanings. If you use the word "sword" then I want to see a sword - not a friggin table.

And agian, you're dvelving outside of the visual style and talking in general. Which is not the point.


[quote]
I assume you read my previous post, the one you replied to - many of the generic fantasy traits used in DA:O are simply generic ideas based upon LotR without any claim to realism.
[/quote]

Generic as in regards to how elves and dwarves are portrayed as? It should be. If it's not a recognizable dwarf, then there's no sense in using a dwarf in the frst palce. And if it is recognizable, you're gonna have  stupid poepel complaining it's generic.



[quote]
Not sure why I would validate this even with an answer, or did you read what I wrote?  
For one I never claimed being generic was bad, I simply refuted that DA:O would have been less realistic if they made it less generic to other fantasy, for DA:O is not a documentary take of a long lost world of ours, unless you actually believed we could cast magic, and that we had elves and dwarves among us.[/quote]

Fantasy setting that are made liek that take are the best one..Simply because they feel more real.


[quote]
There is a point were a drive to purge anything remotely used before would force a product to become alien and totally unrealistic, but generic doesn’t say without similarities, it says. relating to or descriptive of an entire group or class.
A product can be similar to a lot of things without being generic to, since it doesn’t relate to the to what we relate it with. So a generic fantasy romp is simply a tale/product that relates well within its compared group or class, as it is generic to have dwarves in fantasy, but if they don’t have beards they are not generic within their own class, or Varric isn’t generic to the normal fantasy dwarf, but not less realistic due to it.
[/quote]

What's the point of complaing that X is generic if being generic isn't bad?

either it's bad, and hte complains are valid, or it's not and complains are crap. It can't be both.
Altough it seem to be a lot of people are using generic as "I've seen simialr bfore and I dont' like it. wow me!"


[quote]
Or by default calling something realistic nullifies, or makes, generic redundant, since by default realism contains that its generic to pragmatical and literal truth.

So when someone talks about a fictional work being generic you talk about it being generic to the class it belongs, so someone saying "DA:O was too generic" translates into that DA:O is too generic to its default class, which would be other fictional fantasy works, more specifically other fictional fantasy ARPGs, as in it contains too many descriptive similarities to group to which it belongs.
[/quote]

If it didn't contain similarities with the group it belongs to, then it wouldn't belong in that group in the first palce, no?

and no, it doesn't contain "too many" similarities.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 12 avril 2011 - 04:46 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

randName wrote...
Most people when they talk about generic when they talk about fiction simply refers to the product being the same as the next, with nothing of its own to add.

& DA:O was very generic, esp. visually, and DA2 is still generic and follows the normal fantasy formula, but they moved away from it in some regards visually, but only ever so slightly, and one of the movements seems to be towards more of a anime/japanese/manga flair on the armour design, for better or worse.

Bollocks.

You talk as if everything has to bring something new to the table in every category. Visually, you are limited in what you can do. There isn't really anything "new" to add.
And one doesn't haev to.
Uniquness for it's own sake is horrible, horrible, HORRIBLE thing.

DA:O looks "generic" because it tries to look real. So it's hte most stupid complaint in the history of complaints.

As I said before - it's like complainign that all WW2 movies looks the same. OR all cop shows look the same...or what have you.

They could have made their own races, and not had the standard elves, the standard ugly angry dark enemy brought on by an angry god, they could have skipped many of these and it would still have been as realistic as having them, for nothing says realism like elves.

You could argue that its generic to have humans, and having humans adds realism, or a sense of realism to the game; but since having an other type of being as the avatar wouldn't be less realistic, just less referential to us and thus we would feel less immersed.

I approve of generic fantasy to some extent, and I don’t want to play a totally different being that would feel alien to me, I wouldn’t want a made up language with subtitles, but it has little to do with realism.

And realism is an inclination toward literal truth and pragmatism, not towards looking like everybody else, or having elves and dwarves.

So are you talking about VISUAL style or story and setting in general? Because I find NOTHING wrong with the setting.

And as for "looking like everyone else" - that feel comes naturally from pragmatism and common sense.

Form follows function -- a sword looks like a sword because it is a sword and happens to look that way when it has the properties it needs to function as a sword is intended to function.

When I look at the equipment depicted for a game or movie or series, and it is clearly nonfunctional, it takes away from the qualities of the setting and reminds me that I'm just watching a movie or playing a game, and that the makers of that game or movie did not care enough to get it right. 
 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 13 avril 2011 - 01:24 .

[randName]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

FYI -Ii hate each and every one of your suggestions.

You do understand that these were only examples right? That I just showed how it could be less generic and as realistic?

If they have dwarves, they should look like dwarves. "Re-imagining" stuff is horrible. Words have friggin meanings. If you use the word "sword" then I want to see a sword - not a friggin table.

This has nothing to do with that, you claimed generic was more real, now you are saying that you simply prefer what is generic, some don’t, but not because of realism.

the rest is up to taste, some prefer when a world is not the same as the other, some don’t, there is no universal right in this, nor can you lay claim that a less generic work of art is less realistic, or will feel less real, since it could be less generic for being more realistic and pragmatic.

And again, you're deviling [I assume? devolving could fit] outside of the visual style and talking in general. Which is not the point.

Not of this thread no, this argument in it self is only about generic not being realistic.

Generic as in regards to how elves and dwarves are portrayed as? It should be. If it's not a recognizable dwarf, then there's no sense in using a dwarf in the first place. And if it is recognizable, you're gonna have  stupid people complaining it's generic.

Tastes, and has nothing to do with realism, since LotR dwarves are not actual and real, only a generic creation of fantasy literature/tales.

Fantasy setting that are made like that take are the best one. Simply because they feel more real.

You prefer generic because you are used to them, not because the follow an inclination toward literal truth and pragmatism. I already went through this before.

It’s a matter of taste, not because its more realistic.

What's the point of complaining that X is generic if being generic isn't bad?

I’m not complaining that generic is bad, I never was - quote me when I said generic is bad, I simply said that a generic work of fantasy is not more realistic than a non-generic work of fantasy

Either it's bad, and the complains are valid, or it's not and complains are crap. It can't be both.
Although it seem to be a lot of people are using generic as "I've seen similar before and I don't' like it. wow me!"

You aren’t really reading anything I’m writing right?

All I’ve written about is that there is no connection with generic fantasy and more real, and realism.

If it didn't contain similarities with the group it belongs to, then it wouldn't belong in that group in the first palce, no?

and no, it doesn't contain "too many" similarities.

Obviously if a work of art does not contain any similarities with fantasy it would not be classed as fantasy, or any other class to whom it doesn’t belong.

This does not say that it has to contain everything within a class, just enough.

And do you grasp that I’m saying that similarities does not make a work of fantasy generic fantasy, but that “too many descriptive similarities“ does. It’s a value judgment, when someone says it’s too generic, they say that there are too many similarities to the standard class it belongs within.

If you like think DA:O contains just the right amount of similarities to the class it belongs, its not too generic for you.

If someone claims that it does, there are too many descriptive similarities for their taste.

And when someone says that it’s too generic, they might just as well ask for it to be more pragmatic and realistic than the normal LotR class of fantasy that DA:O subsribes to, with every intention to feel more real.

Generic and real are not the same.

Modifié par randName, 12 avril 2011 - 05:23 .

[PirateT138]

DA:O (360).

Realism > silly jRPG over-the-top combat/art style.

[randName]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Swords

Take swords, something you brought up - in generic fantasy swords are the weapon of choice among heroes, swords in reality are effective against certain types of materials, while normally weak against others; now most games, and most works of fantasy ignores how swords actually work when it comes to details.

So making a game more realistic when it came to damage, where weapons like swords actually work more as they do reality, forcing you to avoid metal plates and try to find gaps in the armour would make this game less generic compared to the genre to which it belongs, while making it feel more real.

Or by avoiding the generic the work becomes more realistic, in this case.

Modifié par randName, 12 avril 2011 - 05:36 .

[dielveio]

DA2 (PS3). Except the new darkspawn and exploding enemies.

[45hitman]

da2 pc

[jadefishes]

DA2 - PC

[laudable11]

DA2

[brightblueink]

I prefer DA2's style. I think stylized characters animate better, which was definitely the case in DA2 for me--the characters seemed more expressive and I could read the emotions clearly on their face. I also liked the sort of tapestry feel the game tried to do, although it needs some tweaking. DA:O was nice but nothing really stood out to me, and the character models there set off uncanny valley reactions in me a number of times.

[SoR82]

I enjoy the more dynamic mage animations as I mage I felt I was doing something lol

The shield weilding warriors zipping about in a instant... kinda made the agility of rogues less unique

Every single rogue is a ninja... did you give Varric the backflip? XD

Darkspawn... truely dreadful what the hell were Bioware aiming for here? Skeletor?

The new Qunarii not a bad design but.... maybe would have been better used sparingly the ones that had huge horns been special....

Locked armour appearences... horrid

Shields.... the best shields i found for my Hawke had that horrid spiked rectangle appearence.... or that weird ass pyramid thingie

Champion Armour.... horrid on Tank.... only class ive seen it on so far

Kirkwall itself bland and unpopulated mess wheres the downtrodden masses of darktown? Wheres the snooty arsed nobles of hightown? Wheres the husle and bustle of low town market?

Now a biggie Exploding enemies after been hit with a sword... seriously wtf deathblows in origins were far cooler. Leave exploding enemies to spells that are supposed to make them do that! If I hit someone with a sword they will not explode! Seriously how cool was the dual weild deathblow of stab in the chest and decapitate

The Elves.... what the hell happened to them lol they are supposed to be beautiful to humans... that quest with the lunatic? Killed them because they are beautiful I was laughing my arse of at that.

I like the new templar armour and shield type.

Dalish Elven shields... errrr I really dont know what to say.... im going with weird... and not in a good way.

The bizare Rogue weapons... some of those... wow wtf lol

All in all I gotta come down on origins side

[Lotion Soronarr]

randName wrote...
This has nothing to do with that, you claimed generic was more real, now you are saying that you simply prefer what is generic, some don’t, but not because of realism.

the rest is up to taste, some prefer when a world is not the same as the other, some don’t, there is no universal right in this, nor can you lay claim that a less generic work of art is less realistic, or will feel less real, since it could be less generic for being more realistic and pragmatic.

Generic is a word that seems to have no real meaning on the internets, as it is throw naround a lot without proper context or thought.
Indeed, it is used as a sort of insult.

And again, you're deviling [I assume? devolving could fit] outside of the visual style and talking in general. Which is not the point.

Not of this thread no, this argument in it self is only about generic not being realistic.

That would depend on what kind of generic, no?

For example, a "generic" sword is more real than a lavish, impractical high-fantasy one?

Generic as in regards to how elves and dwarves are portrayed as? It should be. If it's not a recognizable dwarf, then there's no sense in using a dwarf in the first place. And if it is recognizable, you're gonna have  stupid people complaining it's generic.

Tastes, and has nothing to do with realism, since LotR dwarves are not actual and real, only a generic creation of fantasy literature/tales.

Doesn't matter.
The word does have connotations and mental images associated with it, this giving it substance and presence.

When I say "dwarf", 90% of peopel will immgaine a classival LOTR or D&D  dwarf. Anything that diverges fromthat will seem less..dwarfy.
Dwarfs may not exist physicly, but they do exist as concepts..whic his why straying too muhc from the concepts can make it feel less realistic or believable.

Fantasy setting that are made like that take are the best one. Simply because they feel more real.

You prefer generic because you are used to them, not because the follow an inclination toward literal truth and pragmatism. I already went through this before.

It’s a matter of taste, not because its more realistic.

Don't tell me what I prefer like you know what I like.
I like fantasy that feels real. LOTR move >>> D&D movie.

I’m not complaining that generic is bad, I never was - quote me when I said generic is bad, I simply said that a generic work of fantasy is not more realistic than a non-generic work of fantasy

As I said before - it depends. Generic compared to WHAT?

DA:O was said to look like LOTR..which according to you is generic fantasy...But D&D is also generic fantasy..and doesn't look like LOTR nor feel as real as LOTR. Clearly, LOTR feel mor realistic than D&D.
Whic his why this whole thing makes little sense.

Frak..I'm begingin to hate the word, becaue ever retard on the internet is using it to complain about everything.

[Lotion Soronarr]

randName wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Swords

Take swords, something you brought up - in generic fantasy swords are the weapon of choice among heroes, swords in reality are effective against certain types of materials, while normally weak against others; now most games, and most works of fantasy ignores how swords actually work when it comes to details.

So making a game more realistic when it came to damage, where weapons like swords actually work more as they do reality, forcing you to avoid metal plates and try to find gaps in the armour would make this game less generic compared to the genre to which it belongs, while making it feel more real.

Or by avoiding the generic the work becomes more realistic, in this case.

Would depend on the setting (or game). There are fantasy games that did that.
And we're now talkign mechanics again and nto visual design....

And you could pierce full plate with a sword (but it wasn't easy)...you couldn't slash trough tough.
But adding more variety and life to the combat system? Sure, I'd love that...