539 réponses à ce sujet

[Alexander1136]

file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/sue/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.pngfile:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/sue/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.png

Why you "fixed" it i'll never know but if you don't unfix it I and many others will look at DA3 and go "that looks like crap" and if they never played origins then why would they buy 3.  I would reconisider the art style and graphics if i was working at BioWare.

Modifié par Alexander1136, 27 août 2011 - 07:23 .

[Hayes1987]

agreed

[Chris Priestly]

And I disagree. While the art for DAO was good, it was not distinctive. DA II had a distinctive style.

To illustrate, think of cosplay. For DAO pretty much the only cosplay we had was Morrigan. The reason being, she was pretty much the only defineable character. The man, unless you happen to look like Alistair or whomever, were just guys in suits of armor. They could have been DAO, they could have been LotR. Hard to say. Now we get Isabelas and Aveines and Flemeths, but we also get Hawkes, Varrics, Fenrises... Fenri... a bunch of Fenris.

YOU may not like it as much, and that always comes down to "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", but the art was changed to make it destinct from other fantasy games, and it accomplished that very well.

[Sir Edric]

Chris Priestly wrote...

And I disagree. While the art for DAO was good, it was not distinctive. DA II had a distinctive style.

To illustrate, think of cosplay. For DAO pretty much the only cosplay we had was Morrigan. The reason being, she was pretty much the only defineable character. The man, unless you happen to look like Alistair or whomever, were just guys in suits of armor. They could have been DAO, they could have been LotR. Hard to say. Now we get Isabelas and Aveines and Flemeths, but we also get Hawkes, Varrics, Fenrises... Fenri... a bunch of Fenris.

YOU may not like it as much, and that always comes down to "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", but the art was changed to make it destinct from other fantasy games, and it accomplished that very well.

And I completely agree with this.

[RagingCyclone]

I have to agree with the OP. Looke closely at the horns of the ogre for instance. They are curved, well detailed, and look organic. Then look at the horns on the ogre in the DA2 shot. Sharp angles, less definition, and definitely not organic. If the art direction is moving towards more the more cartoony look as shown in the DA2 pic they got it. But if they wanted the darkspawn to instill any fear, DAO was the way to go, not the DA2 direction. In this case, it's not a case of beauty in the eye of the beholder, but does the art help or detract from the story you are trying to relay. In the case of these two pics, DA2's art direction detracts.

Modifié par RagingCyclone, 27 août 2011 - 09:04 .

[Rocket_Man77]

I didn't really mind the art style for DA: II, but we didn't really get a good tour of the new style considering all the environments were recycled so much. Show us some snowy areas, and more of the deep roads, and then we can see the power of the new style. DA: II just didn't show off lots of locales as DA: Origins. I definitely think character graphics have improved, but I just can't give an opinion on the environmental graphics.

[highcastle]

You probably should grab a screenshot of DA2 that uses the actual game art and not pictures that were released in development before lighting and models were finalized. You know, in a post about art styles.

That being said, I prefer DA2's style. The armors were more distinctive, and I'm a fan of the unique companion armor, though I wish we'd gotten some more palette swaps or variations. As Chris said, DA2's armors are instantly recognizable and gave DA2 a more distinct feeling beyond Generic Fantasy #42.

[Chris Priestly]

Rocket_Man77 wrote...

I didn't really mind the art style for DA: II, but we didn't really get a good tour of the new style considering all the environments were recycled so much. Show us some snowy areas, and more of the deep roads, and then we can see the power of the new style. DA: II just didn't show off lots of locales as DA: Origins. I definitely think character graphics have improved, but I just can't give an opinion on the environmental graphics.

This I do agree with. We do need to show more art for DAII, especially the areas. We did (I think) a good job in Legacy of showing new art, creatures and areas. This will continue in future story based DLC as well. Hopefully, you'll like what you see.

[alex90c]

Chris Priestly wrote...

And I disagree. While the art for DAO was good, it was not distinctive. DA II had a distinctive style.

To illustrate, think of cosplay. For DAO pretty much the only cosplay we had was Morrigan. The reason being, she was pretty much the only defineable character. The man, unless you happen to look like Alistair or whomever, were just guys in suits of armor. They could have been DAO, they could have been LotR. Hard to say. Now we get Isabelas and Aveines and Flemeths, but we also get Hawkes, Varrics, Fenrises... Fenri... a bunch of Fenris.

YOU may not like it as much, and that always comes down to "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", but the art was changed to make it destinct from other fantasy games, and it accomplished that very well.

That's like me saying I want my house to look more distinctive so I'll drape toilet roll all over it. Yes, it'll be pretty damn distinctive, but it won't look good.

[FieryDove]

Chris Priestly wrote...

And I disagree. While the art for DAO was good, it was not distinctive. DA II had a distinctive style.

To illustrate, think of cosplay. For DAO pretty much the only cosplay we had was Morrigan. The reason being, she was pretty much the only defineable character. The man, unless you happen to look like Alistair or whomever, were just guys in suits of armor. They could have been DAO, they could have been LotR. Hard to say. Now we get Isabelas and Aveines and Flemeths, but we also get Hawkes, Varrics, Fenrises... Fenri... a bunch of Fenris.

YOU may not like it as much, and that always comes down to "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", but the art was changed to make it destinct from other fantasy games, and it accomplished that very well.

I would have to disagree.

DAO darkspawn looked scary and tainted. The dao ogre was my fav and now...not scary or tainted looking or anything. The new Hurlock’s also suffer from this. They look to clean and uniform. The Alpha's/emissaries in DAO looked sort of tribal in the decorations/armor they wore. Similar to the statues they defiled with a certain look.

The new elves are for the most part not an improvement. They still remind me of avatar people not painted blue. The nicer ones look more like DAO elves, human with pointy ears. The S shaped pretzel of some of the new elves female body shape plus some are stick thin do not look healthy or beautiful. The hunchback stance the males have is not good either. (Even Fenris suffers from that)

You don't need iconic looks to make a companion stand out. Morrigan was awesome in her robes as well as massive plate. In fact more awesome.

Imho

[Big_Chief]

I don't disagree that having a more distinctive art style is a good goal, but the art style for DA2 was very much a mixed bag. The Qunari were great. Maybe a third of the elves looked fine. Merril and Fenris, for instance, looked good. Some of the other elves just looked weird or deformed. And the darkspawn...good lord, the darkspawn looked awful. I cannot express how much I dislike the new darkspawn.

[ScotGaymer]

Chris Priestly wrote...

And I disagree. While the art for DAO was good, it was not distinctive. DA II had a distinctive style.

To illustrate, think of cosplay. For DAO pretty much the only cosplay we had was Morrigan. The reason being, she was pretty much the only defineable character. The man, unless you happen to look like Alistair or whomever, were just guys in suits of armor. They could have been DAO, they could have been LotR. Hard to say. Now we get Isabelas and Aveines and Flemeths, but we also get Hawkes, Varrics, Fenrises... Fenri... a bunch of Fenris.

YOU may not like it as much, and that always comes down to "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", but the art was changed to make it destinct from other fantasy games, and it accomplished that very well.

I dont agree Chris.

I know as a BW employee that you feel a certain degree of belonging with the product. Its your guys "baby".

You are right in saying that everyone has their own opinion; I dont think that DA2s art was more distinct at all. For me it felt a LOT more generic and bland and boring.

For me the whole world of Dragon Age Origins was MUCH more immersive and breathtaking. I had more "wow" moments in DAO than I did in DA2.

I very much felt that DAOs art direction was high fantasy stylee twisted side ways. I thought that was the whole point of Dragon Age, a traditional fantasy series thats a bit different.

For DA2, some of the changes art wise make sense and are much better, the new Dwarves and Qunari for example are much more distinctive and diverse, and it just looks "right". But the Elves just look like a cross between Tolkienesque Elves and Harry Potter Elves and the result is something that is not attractive or "right" looking.
The ClownSpawn also just look comical and kinda blocky; they are creatures that are supposed to inspire fear, dread, and have creep factor. In DAO they do, and in DA2 they dont.

Then we have the "world" outside of the creatures and characters. It just looks bland and uniform. Its one of the biggest criticisms of DA2 actually. Its the exact same the whole way through the game.

Its good you like it but honestly I think that your opinion might actually be the minority on this one.

Modifié par FitScotGaymer, 27 août 2011 - 09:15 .

[Chris Priestly]

Big_Chief wrote...
 Maybe a third of the elves looked fine. Merril and Fenris, for instance, looked good. Some of the other elves just looked weird or deformed..

I find this the same in real life people as well.

[csfteeeer]

FieryDove wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

And I disagree. While the art for DAO was good, it was not distinctive. DA II had a distinctive style.

To illustrate, think of cosplay. For DAO pretty much the only cosplay we had was Morrigan. The reason being, she was pretty much the only defineable character. The man, unless you happen to look like Alistair or whomever, were just guys in suits of armor. They could have been DAO, they could have been LotR. Hard to say. Now we get Isabelas and Aveines and Flemeths, but we also get Hawkes, Varrics, Fenrises... Fenri... a bunch of Fenris.

YOU may not like it as much, and that always comes down to "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", but the art was changed to make it destinct from other fantasy games, and it accomplished that very well.

I would have to disagree.

DAO darkspawn looked scary and tainted. The dao ogre was my fav and now...not scary or tainted looking or anything. The new Hurlock’s also suffer from this. They look to clean and uniform. The Alpha's/emissaries in DAO looked sort of tribal in the decorations/armor they wore. Similar to the statues they defiled with a certain look.

The new elves are for the most part not an improvement. They still remind me of avatar people not painted blue. The nicer ones look more like DAO elves, human with pointy ears. The S shaped pretzel of some of the new elves female body shape plus some are stick thin do not look healthy or beautiful. The hunchback stance the males have is not good either. (Even Fenris suffers from that)

You don't need iconic looks to make a companion stand out. Morrigan was awesome in her robes as well as massive plate. In fact more awesome.

Imho

You stole my words.

Although, i would like to Add that i don't see how does the art style have any relationship with unique appearances, the devs could have just as easily create unique appearances for the companions in DAO, but they didn't, with the Exception of Morrigan, the art style is not to blame, they simply didn't gave the companions unique appearances, unlike in DA2.

EDIT: Besides, unique appearances is not my biggest problem, is the overall look of many characters.
Why are they SO CLEAN? i also don't like the palette color at all, it looks very washed out, and what is it with almost every men having some sort of deformed face? like, their faces look like squares, it's really wierd....

Modifié par csfteeeer, 27 août 2011 - 09:23 .

[csfteeeer]

Double Post

[Big_Chief]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Big_Chief wrote...
 Maybe a third of the elves looked fine. Merril and Fenris, for instance, looked good. Some of the other elves just looked weird or deformed..

I find this the same in real life people as well.

...Touche, good sir.

[RagingCyclone]

@Chris Priestly..I can't use the quote function on my phone, sorry, but in the case of the architecture I agree with you. Kirkwall's design was very well done in that regard. It looked like a port city of the time much like Messina during the crusades. But I do hope that the art direction adapts in future games. Say if a dlc goes to Starkhaven, for example, I would expect to see slightly varied architecture from Kirkwall. But should DA ever return to Ferelden, the old art direction should stay giving the world a varied look as you would expect it to.

As for the creatures, that shot for the ogre above is not far from the game. I am running it maxed graphics, high res textures, and it's not much different. It just is not a fearsome creature as I expected saw in DAO. When one of those came out of a tunnel in the Deep Roads I jumped in my seat, but these new designs have the opposite effect.

The clothing direction in DA2 I like and use some of the porting mods for them in DAO. Where there was some more detail in DAO for mage robes, the same robes were not as detailed in DA2. New style robes were very well detailed, but those that carried over appeared to be glossed over. An example that stands out is (and I am butchering the spelling here) Tarohne...the mage who captures Keran in Act 1. But overall it was a good direction in the clothing and armor department.

Modifié par RagingCyclone, 27 août 2011 - 09:25 .

[Satyricon331]

Chris Priestly wrote...

And I disagree. While the art for DAO was good, it was not distinctive. DA II had a distinctive style.

To illustrate, think of cosplay. For DAO pretty much the only cosplay we had was Morrigan. The reason being, she was pretty much the only defineable character. The man, unless you happen to look like Alistair or whomever, were just guys in suits of armor. They could have been DAO, they could have been LotR. Hard to say. Now we get Isabelas and Aveines and Flemeths, but we also get Hawkes, Varrics, Fenrises... Fenri... a bunch of Fenris.

YOU may not like it as much, and that always comes down to "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", but the art was changed to make it destinct from other fantasy games, and it accomplished that very well.

Distinctiveness by itself cannot carry a game's looks.  Saying "well, the rest is subjective" is not a defense since art appreciation always has a subjective element.

Also I think it's unreasonable to assume that someone who's unhappy with the art style is unhappy with the companions' having distinctive looks.  I for one don't mind much either way about whether they're distinctive or not.  What bothers me is what their distinctive looks look like.

[Chris Priestly]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not here to try to convince you DA II is better than DAO. Just like I don't go to Batman fans and say George Perez draws a better Batman than Jim Lee does. Personal taste will always differ. I know some people don't like elements of the DA II art styles (whether the areas are ok, but the darkspawn aren't. Or maybe humans were fine, but elves weren't or whatever).

We changed the art to make it more distinctive, and we did that. Not everything was enjoyed by 100% of the audience, but we did accomplish what we wanted to do. Will that change in upcoming DLC? As I said, we have already learned from teh reused art in the core game and have improved (IMO) in Legacy. What else we change or how much or whatever, you'll have to wait and see.

[vania z]

As someone out here said
"the new art style was supposed to make people say "Hey, it is dragon age!" but instead made them say "Ew, it is dragon age"" (not exact citation).

[Hayes1987]

YOU may not like it as much, and that always comes down to "beauty is in
the eye of the beholder", but the art was changed to make it destinct
from other fantasy games, and it accomplished that very well.


It's pretty tuff to argue that.

[aries1001]

I like DA2's new art style, meaning how it looks. However, some of the art design could be better, I find.
I always have liked a more cartoony feel and look for fantasy games; in fantasy games, I'm not a big fan of photo realism. [It is fine in Mass Effect games because the ME team are going for the movie feel and look in the 1980's sci fi movies...]

I would also like to see snowy areas, swamp areas, forest areas and then some.

[Sith Grey Warden]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Big_Chief wrote...
 Maybe a third of the elves looked fine. Merril and Fenris, for instance, looked good. Some of the other elves just looked weird or deformed..

I find this the same in real life people as well.

The thing is, though, that elves are described in-universe as being more attractive than humans. When we don't see this, it's inconsistent.

[csfteeeer]

vania z wrote...

As someone out here said
"the new art style was supposed to make people say "Hey, it is dragon age!" but instead made them say "Ew, it is dragon age"" (not exact citation).

Haven't laughed so much in months.

[Atakuma]

Sith Grey Warden wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

Big_Chief wrote...
 Maybe a third of the elves looked fine. Merril and Fenris, for instance, looked good. Some of the other elves just looked weird or deformed..

I find this the same in real life people as well.

The thing is, though, that elves are described in-universe as being more attractive than humans. When we don't see this, it's inconsistent.

You didn't see that in origins either. There were plenty of awful looking elves in DAO.