183 réponses à ce sujet

[Lycans Bane]

The problem with change is there will always be people who complain. some DA:O graphics looked more natural than DA2 and some DA2 moreso than DA:O. If graphics are changed i hope that it isn't qute as radical as that between DA:O and DA2, as I couldn't deal with another goliath round of complaint (even if there are some valid points brought up).

[nicethugbert]

DA:O was The Shiney, everything hab an unearthly glow. It's beautiful, but, it makes me chuckle at it's lack of realism.

DA2 didn't have Teh Shiney all over the place, which is more realistic.

[tmp7704]

Scimal wrote...

The benefit of style is to impress the player. It's a chance for the developers to strut their stuff and make the world feel effervescent. If you have a 15 second shot to make the player go, "Holy %$#!... that looks great," then you're not going to win with things like, "classical RPG inventory and stat-based gameplay!" You're not even going to get anywhere with "in-depth, impactful stories" if you're BioWare - it's a given.

However, if you can show an achingly-beatiful vista or dungeon, a few seconds of dynamic action, and then add that to the "fantastic story" - you suddenly have the attention of gamers. BioWare needs new customers if they want to survive, and gamers are very visual people. If all we wanted were stories, we'd be reading books. If all we wanted were stat-based games with stories, we'd be playing D&D.

I don't think this makes a point how you need the style to achieve such "holy ****" reaction in the gamers. It appears to have more to do simply with the fidelity and using reasonably modern technology. Case in point, both Witcher 2 and Skyrim are about as bland fantasy games as it comes in their designs, yet people who watch the trailers do indeed go "holy ****" at the quality of what they see. DAO/DA2 lacks this effect because it falls short in comparison.

At the same time i don't think you'll find many people who go "holy ****" at the gameplay trailers of say, WoW... even though it could be argued this game is all about the style graphics-wise at this point.

I would disagree. I think you'd only have to have a very casual relationship with WoW or ME2 to pick them out.

In case of WoW that could've been true when that game launched or shortly afterwards. But it's few years down the road and there's been lot of games which show very similar approach. I think someone who only had brief exposition to it would have lot of trouble telling it apart from screenshots of say, Free Realms, Warhammer Online, Alganon, Mythos, Torchlight and many, many others.

ME2 is even more dubious -- especially the screenshot you've chosen to show has, when you look at it objectively, simply group of generic humans in combat armours, standing in middle of what seems like a warehouse out of all places (location which would be probably the purely tasteless core of the blandness, if there was one)  A screenshot like that tells me next to nothing -- it's a shooter, probably. It has people in vaguely futuristic/modern armour so perhaps it's Halo? Or maybe some new spin of the Rainbow Six/Sam Fisher games? Or maybe it's even some game set in Star Wars or Star Trek universe? When the person has only cursory knowledge of these things, they really blur together.

Heck, while I was browsing for more pictures I stumbled upon one that was for LotRO which was so obviously Tolkienesque I guess that it was a LotR game before I looked at the website. That's style, when I have no idea what game it is, just that it's a LotR game.

I'd say that probably isn't as much style but rather your familiarity with the subject, beaten into your head through multiple books, movies and/or games about it. If i hear "elves, dwarves, hobbits and orcs" then my first thought it's going to be "LotR" too and there's no style in that sentence at all. Just the elements of the settings which i've grown to associate with that particular title/universe.

Another example of the same effect -- "early ages, England, sword in the stone, a round table". That'd be equally easy guess, no? And again no style to it, just elements of a very popular myth/story. It wouldn't matter at all what style would be used to draw such image.

Maybe that's what the DA devs should focus on -- creating iconic and memorable settings and story elements, not how long ears their elves have. They have some of that with the qunari and the mage issues at least, and had DA2 done a better job dealing with these, maybe it would've helped with its perception.

In the end, you're right. People intimately familiar with the setting will be able to tell it apart. However, it matters very much in how recognizable your game is, and the ability of people to recognize your game directly correlates with popularity.

If I don't know what I'm looking at unless I've already bought it, there isn't any reason for me to buy it off of the visual presentation  alone.

But you know, i feel this is a bit of a red herring. Because really, how often do you get to view images from games and it's not easy to tell what game it is ... either from the context, or associated info in general? How often do game magazines post screenshots of games without specifying what game these screens are from? How often there's game ads without the game title in them? When someone posts screenshots of a game in a forum thread, doesn't that typically come in middle of discussion about the game in question, or there's explicit remark with it how "this is X, isn't it great/doesn't it suck"?

Sure. However, guess what I see every day? Humans. Elves that look like humans will look like humans, not elves. The different stylized version of elves will draw different crowds, but at least they're easily and notably different, and humans thrive on diversity.

I have to say i'm honestly puzzled by all the "they looked like humans before and don't look like humans now" comments. Maybe because i don't perceive it as any real change to go from shorter humans to anorexic humans -- the resulting figure remains equally humanoid... and the facial changes are of the Star Trek sort, which is widely mocked for its "humans pretending to be aliens" stylistics. Yet, Star Trek aliens are "lol, humans pretend to be aliens" and DA2 elves are "awesome, they're a notably different species". Go figure.

Actually, I'm glad you brought this up. I agree completely.

It delineates the difference between basic character design and style. As long as the character design is similar, the character will be recognizable. Batman is Batman because of the suit, the Bat-symbol, the cape, the pointed ears, and the mask.

However, the Batman franchise has gone through many different styles. (..)

Same character design, same setting, but vastly different styles.

But then again, if the style not only doesn't make difference in how recognizable the franchise is, and you can even go through multiple styles without affecting that ability to recognize your product, what's the point in obsessing over which style to pick?

Of course, this can be important factor when it comes to a dfiferent issue -- that is, drawing in specific audience. Some people after all like fluffy fun and some like the /wrists doom and gloom. But aiming at specific audience is entirely separate from making something recognizable, which was the subject.

[Addai]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Tha DA 2 image looks pretty generic to me, even moreso than Origins. That could be guild wars, Aion, the Witcher 1, pretty much anything aside from the interface.

Witcher 1 was much more beautiful, grim, in general more detailed in its environments.  Compare the sewers in Vizima to the fake wood paneling of the Kirkwall "sewers."  In TW you could practically smell the rank.

[druplesnubb]

I never understood why people I think the graphics in DA2 are somewhow less realistic. I literally can't see any of that "stylising" or "comic book/anime style" everyone seems to talk about. I just hope they revert the darkspawn models while keeping the horned qunari.

Modifié par druplesnubb, 29 avril 2011 - 10:56 .

[Scimal]

[quote]tmp7704 wrote...

I don't think this makes a point how you need the style to achieve such "holy ****" reaction in the gamers. It appears to have more to do simply with the fidelity and using reasonably modern technology. Case in point, both Witcher 2 and Skyrim are about as bland fantasy games as it comes in their designs, yet people who watch the trailers do indeed go "holy ****" at the quality of what they see. DAO/DA2 lacks this effect because it falls short in comparison.[/quote]

Their engines are very nice, no doubt. Their style isn't super-pronounced, but it is there, too.

There have always been and will always be techno-visual junkies. The Crysis crowd who go gaga over DX11 water effects or how well the game utilizes quad-sli.

However, it's poignant to note that weaker engines can be made to look their best with a good, comprehensive style. The best engines will always be eyecandy, but they are also somewhat limiting in that you're relying on hyper-realism to make up the visual impact.

DA:O/DA2 do lack a high-powered engine (particularly since W2 and Skyrim are both focused on a single player at once - not a group of 4-5 facing a dozen enemies), but they could've still made bold statements if their visual style had been better.

[quote]At the same time i don't think you'll find many people who go "holy ****" at the gameplay trailers of say, WoW... even though it could be argued this game is all about the style graphics-wise at this point.[/quote]

I don't know about that. One thing Blizzard has done is perfect their version of the boss battle, and some of the bosses are impressive. The first time I saw Ragnaros I squeeled in delight at the sight. I doubt they've slacked too much in that department.

Yes, WoW is pretty much all about style at this point. Just about anything can run it, but it's still recognizable, and the style is so darn well put together that I have some very fond memories of the game.

[quote]In case of WoW that could've been true when that game launched or shortly afterwards. But it's few years down the road and there's been lot of games which show very similar approach. I think someone who only had brief exposition to it would have lot of trouble telling it apart from screenshots of say, Free Realms, Warhammer Online, Alganon, Mythos, Torchlight and many, many others.[/quote]

Agreed - but this only goes to prove my point that style can be integral to a game's identity. Not only did other companies try to rip off WoW's gameplay, but their visual style as well.

Nobody has tried to rip off BW's style as far as I'm aware. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and I think it's time BioWare had their due.

[quote]ME2 is even more dubious -- especially the screenshot you've chosen to show has, when you look at it objectively, simply group of generic humans in combat armours, standing in middle of what seems like a warehouse out of all places (location which would be probably the purely tasteless core of the blandness, if there was one)  A screenshot like that tells me next to nothing -- it's a shooter, probably. It has people in vaguely futuristic/modern armour so perhaps it's Halo?[/quote]

Noo... I don't think you'd ever mistake ME2 for Halo. They're not similar at all in their visual styles. The fact that you see a guy in armor that isn't Spartan-issue is a dead giveaway. :-)

[quote] Or maybe some new spin of the Rainbow Six/Sam Fisher games? Or maybe it's even some game set in Star Wars or Star Trek universe? When the person has only cursory knowledge of these things, they really blur together.[/quote]

Rainbow Six? That's another deep stretch, but probably the most plausible.

Star Wars? No Jedi, no Stormtroopers.

Star Trek? When was the last time you used body armor in Star Trek?

Yes, admittedly, if someone doesn't have any familiarity with any of the IPs, they might get confused. However, I'm pretty sure by the time you decide that you like Fantasy or Sci-Fi genres, you're more than capable of picking those IPs apart. Heck, even if you've owned a console, I bet you could at least nix the SW and ST possibilities.

Like it or not, ME2 does have it's own vibe to it - ME1 moreso than ME2, but a vibe nonetheless.

[quote]I'd say that probably isn't as much style but rather your familiarity with the subject, beaten into your head through multiple books, movies and/or games about it. If i hear "elves, dwarves, hobbits and orcs" then my first thought it's going to be "LotR" too and there's no style in that sentence at all. Just the elements of the settings which i've grown to associate with that particular title/universe.[/quote]

I haven't read the books, and it was a picture of a gazebo.

However, isn't that the point? I saw the movies, saw the picture, and went, "Aha! Lord of the Rings!" without so much as a hobbit bobbing around.

Visual style sticks with you. Last time I saw the movies was years ago - but they were so impactful in their presentation that I'm still able to recognize them in other media formats.

That's what DA needs.

[quote]Another example of the same effect -- "early ages, England, sword in the stone, a round table". That'd be equally easy guess, no? And again no style to it, just elements of a very popular myth/story. It wouldn't matter at all what style would be used to draw such image.[/quote]

Stick figures might not garner the attention to the Arthur legend that you want. However, fill the movie with fog, robes, and lots of mysticism and you have Avalon, the award winning TV-movie.

I do agree with you - as long as those elements are present it's the Arthur legend.  However, as mentioned, style can have a big affect on reception.

[quote]Maybe that's what the DA devs should focus on -- creating iconic and memorable settings and story elements, not how long ears their elves have. They have some of that with the qunari and the mage issues at least, and had DA2 done a better job dealing with these, maybe it would've helped with its perception.[/quote]

How do you create iconic and memorable settings? Surely part of it is what happens there. However, the other part is its presentation. What's the style of the architecture? What are the colors involved? What about the weather, the plant life, and everything else?

Style can make or break a setting, and I agree - they should focus on making the settings in DA3 memorable.

[quote]
But you know, i feel this is a bit of a red herring. Because really, how often do you get to view images from games and it's not easy to tell what game it is ... either from the context, or associated info in general? How often do game magazines post screenshots of games without specifying what game these screens are from? How often there's game ads without the game title in them? When someone posts screenshots of a game in a forum thread, doesn't that typically come in middle of discussion about the game in question, or there's explicit remark with it how "this is X, isn't it great/doesn't it suck"?[/quote]

I don't know if it's so much a red herring as just a moot point. However, even if you're aware of what the game is, it doesn't always come with a review and detailed information. Sometimes it is just a screenshot and a nametag.

[quote]I have to say i'm honestly puzzled by all the "they looked like humans before and don't look like humans now" comments. Maybe because i don't perceive it as any real change to go from shorter humans to anorexic humans -- the resulting figure remains equally humanoid... and the facial changes are of the Star Trek sort, which is widely mocked for its "humans pretending to be aliens" stylistics. Yet, Star Trek aliens are "lol, humans pretend to be aliens" and DA2 elves are "awesome, they're a notably different species". Go figure.[/quote]

Inherent in just about every post-Tolkien "elf" is the humanoid form. Two hands, two legs, a head on top if its shoulders, etc. If BW went for something drastically different - say, Elcor or Hanar different, - I think people would throw a tissy about how un-"elf-like" they were. Would I personally be complaining? No. I enjoy variety.

Given the implicit humanoid form they should be distinct from a distance. Wasn't always so in DA:O, but with the small changes to their character design, I can spot an elf at a hundred paces.


[quote]But then again, if the style not only doesn't make difference in how recognizable the franchise is, and you can even go through multiple styles without affecting that ability to recognize your product, what's the point in obsessing over which style to pick?[/quote]

Having a recognizable character is only part of brand recognition. Out of all the Batman movies, which two were the most popular?

Burton's "Batman" and "The Dark Knight." If it was purely characters that mattered, why weren't Batman Forever and Batman and Robin super-popular? Why was the camp version never brought back to TV?

Style makes a significant difference. People get bored quickly, and if the style of the media doesn't match the tone or character design, then it's disconcerting.

[quote]Of course, this can be important factor when it comes to a dfiferent issue -- that is, drawing in specific audience. Some people after all like fluffy fun and some like the /wrists doom and gloom. But aiming at specific audience is entirely separate from making something recognizable, which was the subject.
[/quote]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The "Goth" or "Emo" style had to originate somewhere. It began and was copied over and over again because of the attention it drew. Once a style is made it tends to evolve rapidly in the hands of the public.

If you know an audience has been pre-exposed to a certain style, you can use motifs of that style in order to make the IP relatable (ME2 does this a lot). However, overdoing it - making it the definition of generic for the genre - means the style becomes forgettable. That's DA's black hole so far. It's a completely generic setting with completely generic classes and gameplay that hasn't changed in 12 years. You're still controlling a party, you still have a hotbar with abilities, still pause to issue orders, still have circles underneath everyone, and until DA2 - everybody went about accomplishing their pause-issued orders pretty stiffly.

The gameplay probably won't change anytime soon. Not that it's a bad setup, but it's a well-worn setup. Between DA2 and BGII, the biggest difference I've noticed in the gameplay is that the hotbar is frustratingly small in BGII. It's simply stagnated, and will continue to do so.

The setting can't change now. Not without massive retcons or a really spectacular DA3 cataclysm. There will be elves, dwarves, dragons, mages, knights, and zombies in DA3. Unavoidable. They could add some really unique things, but I won't get my hopes too far up (though there is a glimmer with a few of the enemies found in the DA2 deep roads!).

Character design has changed, and they'll probably keep it like it is in DA2. A good step forward.

However, because BW is locked into the setting by their own design, and locked into the gameplay by the fanbase, the only way to break free and make DA more than simply another fantasy IP is to give the game some spectacular writing and unique visual/musical style. DA:O had the former, DA2 had a mediocre mix of both. With DA3, I want to see both excel.

[88mphSlayer]

nicethugbert wrote...

DA:O was The Shiney, everything hab an unearthly glow. It's beautiful, but, it makes me chuckle at it's lack of realism.

DA2 didn't have Teh Shiney all over the place, which is more realistic.

DAO to me had a helluva lot more detail and variety in detail

the problem i had at the end of the day with that game is very little of it was ever interesting to look at, anybody interested in graphic design knows that loading a picture up on detail doesn't make a picture interesting by itself

not to say DA2 does style as well as it should, for the most part the game just looks like boxes as rooms with random objects copy/pasted everywhere

reason i bring up Dark Souls is because it does both the detail and style in tandem, very grimy yet very imposing/interesting stuff

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 30 avril 2011 - 12:31 .

[Alozaps]

The graphics in both games are clearly quite different. I stand firmly in my belief that DAO's visuals were dark, gritty, realistic and believable. Watch the cutscene of the Battle of Ostagar. Out in the forest, a huge body of darkspawn slowly trudges out into the battlefield, weapons and armour clanging. A genlock with bloody, razor sharp teeth comes into view, and despite its height still manages to look menacing. A hurlock alpha steps forward and cracks its neck threateningly. A hurlock lets out a visually and audibly horrifying cry, and one of the king's men backs away in intense fear. The art and this very cutscene is so well done that you feel immersed, like you're right there about to take part in the battle. THIS was the style that defined Dragon Age. DA2's visuals were much different - not necessarily worse - but I think it is safe to say that they were less believable and less menacing. I'll never understand why they felt they needed to radically change the art style - darkspawn, ogres, elves, etc.  To me everything just looks superficial now.  They strayed from the style that contributed to Origins being such a quality game, and for what?  All that time they spent making overhauls didn't even pay off.

Modifié par Alozaps, 30 avril 2011 - 03:36 .

[Jerrybnsn]

the Dragon Age team devs and all the preview articles called the DAII artstyle "stylized". So why some people on here are trying to say that DAII has a more realistic look than Origins makes no sense. Your just attacking the vision the developers had for DAII by calling it something opposite to what they call it. It's stylized like the "300" comics, with the same use of heavy shadowing and the washed-out coloring effect. Hence, it has less detail and texture than the Origins artstyle.