539 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Yrkoon wrote...
I agree, But I'd Still give DA:O points for at least the "brown" theme.  

I wouldn't. It only counts as a theme if it's deliberate and isolated to particular areas.

Especially in "ruined" areas like the Deep roads. or the circle tower.  When you were in an old "dead" place, it looked that way.

It did? I just remember boring caves (the deep roads, which, as a funny aside, we never really got to be in, what with all the walking through caves) and brown rock. What really made the Circle's atmosphere for me was having rolled a mage first and seen the Circle alive. 

DA2 had all of 3 seconds of good deep road, as you walked on one... and then promptly got sucked into more caves. What is this thing Bioware has with caves?

it wasn't  Orange, like in DA2.  It didn't have bright green vegetation growing around it, like in DA2.

I don't recall the orange at all. 

On a semi-related topic, People criticize Awakening for all sorts of reasons, but that little 20 hour expansion did  environment themes   brilliantly; far better than all the other DA titles.

Absolutely. It had by far the best areas of the DA series, bar none. The cities, as always, sucked...but the dungeons were phenomenal. 

[In Exile]

Yrkoon wrote...
 If anything, they verge on Reptilian.  But that's to be expected.  The Arch Demon itself is the epitome of a reptile.

What? No, it really isn't. They're supposed to look like the species they corrupted. Which is why the darkspawn fail utterly as a design. The hurlocks are the only things that come close to looking like their respective counterpart. 

Not that the DA2 chalkspawn are better. 

[TEWR]

Bioware, what hast thou done to Bann Teagan?!

Bann Teagan disapproves -100.

Granted, it just seems to be the stubble thickness and the hair color that are the problems as far as I can tell.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 29 août 2011 - 07:26 .

[In Exile]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I will say though that they had good facial animations. I watched my brother replaying Origins, and the improvement is quite significant.

On their own, facial animations do not do much for me however.

That's cinematics, though. Bioware's invested very heavily in that... but they're FF:Spirits Within level risky here. There's just a cut-off where no one cares about cinematics anymore, because at the end of the day we're playing a game and not watching a movie, and the cinematic details (like animations) are only a kind of last touch for most gamers.

DX:HR is a good example of this - their character model animations are pure ****. Even the character models suck. But the art direction is coherent, and everything else is generally good - great, so the game as a whole comes out very welll. 

[Sabariel]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...





Bioware, what hast thou done to Bann Teagan?!

Bann Teagan disapproves -100.

Granted, it just seems to be the stubble thickness and the hair color that are the problems as far as I can tell.

And the DA2 nose. Good lord, have you seen that sucker from the side? Terrifying!

[Spell Singer]

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.

Let me start by saying I like the art in both games but I am somewhat confused by this statement.

Morrigan was the "poster girl" and she had a distinct outfit that was different then anyone elses, but you could equally easily make a Lelianna, or a Templar, or a Knight Commander, or a Mage with bearpaw shoulders.  Armour and shield with a griffon surcoat and griffon on the shield would invoke the wardens.  I mean the main reason you could no easily cosplay a warden mainly was because there was no warden specific armour in the game (outside of the warden commander armour).

In DA2 each companion had a distinctive outfit (outside of avaline sharing hers with the Kirkwall guard force) so you could easily "cosplay" them and the "champion armour" well that is distinctive if not largely impractical but that is personal taste.  But it is only distinctive as such because the artists went out of their way to make them so, or at least that is what my un-artist feeling is.

Where I'm confused is mainly why it was necessary to change the art style to make outfits distinctive?  Wasn't that possible using the DA:O toolset? 

[WidowMaker9394]

Why would the amount of cosplay (lol) be any indication of how good your art-style is?

[KnightofPhoenix]

In Exile wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I will say though that they had good facial animations. I watched my brother replaying Origins, and the improvement is quite significant.

On their own, facial animations do not do much for me however.

That's cinematics, though. Bioware's invested very heavily in that... but they're FF:Spirits Within level risky here. There's just a cut-off where no one cares about cinematics anymore, because at the end of the day we're playing a game and not watching a movie, and the cinematic details (like animations) are only a kind of last touch for most gamers.

DX:HR is a good example of this - their character model animations are pure ****. Even the character models suck. But the art direction is coherent, and everything else is generally good - great, so the game as a whole comes out very welll. 

Yea I agree. DA2's animations did not save it in my eyes.

[RagingCyclone]

WidowMaker9394 wrote...

Why would the amount of cosplay (lol) be any indication of how good your art-style is?

I imagine it has more to do with bragging rights between dev teams at conventions than actually game appearance.

[KnightofPhoenix]

RagingCyclone wrote...

WidowMaker9394 wrote...

Why would the amount of cosplay (lol) be any indication of how good your art-style is?

I imagine it has more to do with bragging rights between dev teams at conventions than actually game appearance.

How sad is it, that bragging rights revolve around cosplay and not say, the most intellectually stimulating story.

But that's society in general for you.

[RagingCyclone]

Very true, KoP. I can hear the convo's around the bar. Reminds me of college. Instead of the "my game is better because it outsold your 3 to 1 due to the story" it's now "did you see how many Morrigan's are out there compared to your character?"

Modifié par RagingCyclone, 29 août 2011 - 03:09 .

[rak72]

RagingCyclone wrote...

Very true, KoP. I can hear the convo's around the bar. Reminds me of college. Instead of the "my game is better because it outsold your 3 to 1 due to the story" it's now "did you see how many Morrigan's are out there compared to your character?"

People had those conversations at you colege bar????

[RagingCyclone]

rak72 wrote...

RagingCyclone wrote...

Very true, KoP. I can hear the convo's around the bar. Reminds me of college. Instead of the "my game is better because it outsold your 3 to 1 due to the story" it's now "did you see how many Morrigan's are out there compared to your character?"

People had those conversations at you colege bar????

Not exactly. More like "my team is better because we beat so and so" instead of "my team is better because they wear red uniforms." 

[rak72]

RagingCyclone wrote...

rak72 wrote...

RagingCyclone wrote...

Very true, KoP. I can hear the convo's around the bar. Reminds me of college. Instead of the "my game is better because it outsold your 3 to 1 due to the story" it's now "did you see how many Morrigan's are out there compared to your character?"

People had those conversations at you colege bar????

Not exactly. More like "my team is better because we beat so and so" instead of "my team is better because they wear red uniforms." 

Suuuuure, talikng about football ...not youe all night D&D session;).

Modifié par rak72, 29 août 2011 - 03:15 .

[Maconbar]

rak72 wrote...

RagingCyclone wrote...

rak72 wrote...

RagingCyclone wrote...

Very true, KoP. I can hear the convo's around the bar. Reminds me of college. Instead of the "my game is better because it outsold your 3 to 1 due to the story" it's now "did you see how many Morrigan's are out there compared to your character?"

People had those conversations at you colege bar????

Not exactly. More like "my team is better because we beat so and so" instead of "my team is better because they wear red uniforms." 

Suuuuure, talikng about football ...not youe all night D&D session;).

haha

[Spell Singer]

WidowMaker9394 wrote...

Why would the amount of cosplay (lol) be any indication of how good your art-style is?

I think what Chris Priestly meant was that the amount of cosplay possibilities are an indication of how distinctive your art style is...good or bad is subjective.

As a non-artist though the need to change the art style (whatever exactly that means) as opposed to just giving more distinctive looks to each NPC via the existing tool set is what I don't understand.  I do understand the point of wanting a distinctive look.

[Cruehitman]

All I know... is the characters, especially the NPC's in DA:O looked like real people. Just look at Bann from the picture above for an example! And the creatures, especially the darkspawn looked horrifying! Extremely well done... the ones in DA2 looked like characters straight out of Scooby Doo... cue music:

"Scooby scooby doo, where are you, we've got darkspawn to kill now...."

[TEWR]

Sabariel wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...





Bioware, what hast thou done to Bann Teagan?!

Bann Teagan disapproves -100.

Granted, it just seems to be the stubble thickness and the hair color that are the problems as far as I can tell.

And the DA2 nose. Good lord, have you seen that sucker from the side? Terrifying!

It looked the same to me, but I'll take your word on the horrific schnoz of his. He also needs more of a tan. In Origins he was a fairly tan person, while in DAII he's gone pale.



Looks like somebody made an Alistair mod?

[erynnar]

Dariuszp 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.

You know. I'm a webdeveloper. I'm working for a guy who want a social website that have some his ideas included. Few days ago he decided that he will make a "facebook wall". You know. List of ours and your friends activities.
But then he decide that yours activities will not display on that "wall". He decided to put it into user profile. Only from user profile you can post activity.

I asked him "WHY ?". Now it's harder for user. NOONE who was testing this site (common folks, no real tester) did find where they can post activity. If they are talking under activity, they must move from one page to another to track discussions that are his or someone else. Everything is worst for user and have no point.
So I ask - WHY you want it like this ? What is the reason for this ?

He answered - because NOW it not look like Facebook or Google+. I asked - that the only reason ? He answered YES.

So Chris, what I think is that when you make ANY changes in art, game-play, mechanics etc. Ask yourself - how this is better ? And is it better than previous version of this thing ? It's nice to have your own unique art style as long as it is better.
For me and other folks that I read here, that unique character styles is bad. It's bad because I think that Fenris look silly for example.
And I can't change that. Isabella from the start is wearing sailor uniform. Problem is - when I run in full plate - she still is using sailor uniform. That look silly. You literally send people to fight with bunch of enemies and they wear only clothes etc.

Darkspawns were dark, ugly, evil and scary. When I first met big one in the tower I was thinking - WOW!. Thast one tough son of the... Problem is that in DA II this feeling disappear. More to that - it disappear in awakening. Darskawns in DA II look just like clowns in they eye of the color-blind.

And there is huge problem with art design. In DA:O everything was dark. Loot of shadows, lights etc. Also there was loot of details. Graphic was old but it did look very nice. Even now when I replay DA:O - I think that art design was nice. I love armors for example. They have so much detail that it's pleasure to look at them. I would buy crate of beer to whoever made them.
In DA II everything is bright and "shiny" and "cartoonish". And because of that - poor quality graphic just show. Especially textures. It's just look bad in every way.
It didn't improve at all. More to that - it got worst. Loot of details that we saw in DA:O are missing. That tiny stuff here and there. In the city, in the village etc.

In my opinion. You made a changes just to make changes. It was just to get "unique style" while it's not better any bit. It's worst.

This^.  And Mr. Priestly, we are going to have to agree to disagree. The art design now looks more cartoony, like WoW.  If you want art direction that is distinctive (artist here, so I know about "eye of the beholder" and all that rot) than Guild Wars has a distinctive style, it is beautiful, detailed and original. LoTR has a distinctive beautiful artstyle (which I think resembles DAO but more colorful and with it's own armor designs, buildings, etc from the movies, books and illustrations yet still looks realistic and gritty in the places that are supposed to  be 'dark').

I don't like WoW's style. I never did, never will. Beautiful I can live with, even ugly can be beautiful in being visceral, if it's done right. But again, seems that DAO was somehow thought of as not good enough, and needed things to be fixed on it that didn't need it. The darkspawn didn't need fixing. The artstyle didn't either. It didnt' need a retcon. It needed tweaking.

One of my biggest complaints isnt' the change, but that you seemed to thing DAO and everything about it needed to be tossed out. If you wanted a new game, make one. It's one thing to improve, it's another to take something and completely tear it down to re make it in an image more suited to what? Not sure, and that is what confuses the hell out me.

I think it's that DAO was crap so we need a 180 on things that didn't need it that ruffles my feathers the most (since there are some things I like, particularly in Legacy).

Edited to say, and please, for the love of Andraste's flaming knickers, stop with the huge anime weapons. Even in Legacy you disapponted me with the "Key" being some huge unweildy and ugy staff that my mage would have never been able to lug around much less wave in the air.

Modifié par erynnar, 29 août 2011 - 04:50 .

[Elhanan]

"We"?

I like the DA2 artwork; just wish the DAA Darkspawn and Elves would return. And I hope that any lighting proablems can be fixed to help prevent further 'useful' debates.

Modifié par Elhanan, 29 août 2011 - 05:10 .

[miraclemight]

I'm one of those who isn't satisfied with DA II's art style, or more accurately, how it is implemented.

As an artist, I always considered 'art' to be something capable of conveying a (desired) message to its viewer. What do you want to tell to the players? You want to tell them a dark fantasy story, filled with death, misery and conflictions. What are you showing? Bright environments, monsters that are not revolting, character equipment and designs that can't be taken seriously (fighting in a corset comes to mind)...

It might be distinctive, but doesn't have the necessary 'wow' factor. There are interesting designs in DA II. The Arishok, the Champion armour, Flemeth, Merrill's second armour. And you know why I think they stand out? Good amount of detail, and the correct use of artistic elements.

You can't show a clean darkspawn with a ":D" expression, which explodes into pieces of gore like a grenade, and tell your audience to 'fear it'. That's close to impossible. Especially when the sun is shinning brightly overhead, and there's ocean to my right with soothing waves (yes, this is exactly where you go to attain Ironbark).

Looking back at the concept arts, I'm going to say the quality we have in DA II is either caused by the engine or the level designers not staying close to the what was initially drawn.

I admire the idea of introducing a new style of art in a game, but let's keep this in mind that your players are humans, and humans have unconscious physiological reactions to what they hear or see in a work of art. The fairly-well lit expanses of the Bone Pit is more than likely going to remind them of a cloudy day on a serene seashore, instead of the ominous resting place of a thousand dead slaves.

Modifié par miraclemight, 29 août 2011 - 06:24 .

[sevalaricgirl]

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.

Chris, the characters were ugly.  There are a bunch of modders out there fixing it so it isn't just a few who don't like the artwork, there are many who don't like the artwork.  Alistair looked really bad in DA2, so did Anders and Fenris and Sebastian (alright, so I'm female and I look at the guys).  The only one who looked really good to me was Cullen and of course Varric (why do I always want to spell his name with a k.)

[Atakuma]

miraclemight wrote...

I'm one of those who isn't satisfied with DA II's art style, or more accurately, how it is implemented.

As an artist, I always considered 'art' to be something capable of conveying a (desired) message to its viewer. What do you want to tell to the players? You want to tell them a dark fantasy story, filled with death, misery and conflictions. What are you showing? Bright environments, monsters that are not revolting, character equipment and designs that can't be taken seriously (fighting in a corset comes to mind)...

It might be distinctive, but doesn't have the necessary 'wow' factor. There are interesting designs in DA II. The Arishok, the Champion armour, Flemeth, Merrill's second armour. And you know why I think they stand out? Good amount of detail, and the correct use of artistic elements.

You can't show a clean darkspawn with a ":D" expression, which explodes into pieces of gore like a grenade, and tell your audience to 'fear it'. That's close to impossible. Especially when the sun is shinning brightly overhead, and there's ocean to my right with soothing waves (yes, this is exactly where you go to attain Ironbark).

Looking back at the concept arts, I'm going to say the quality we have in DA II is either caused by the engine or the level designers not staying close to the what was initially drawn.

I admire the idea of introducing a new style of art in a game, but let's keep this in mind that your players are humans, and humans have unconscious physiological reactions to what they hear or see in a work of art. The fairly-well lit expanses of the Bone Pit is more than likely going to remind them of a cloudy day on a serene seashore, instead of the ominous resting place of a thousand dead slaves.

That's exactly how I feel. The art direction betrays the tone of the narrative/setting, like if Speilberg had made Shindler's list with sock puppets.

[Jestina]

If they were basing the art on cosplay then DA is headed down the toilet. It will just be a western rpg trying to become a jrpg. If I want freaky(unique), then i'll just go wipe the dust off my SNES.

[Elhanan]

Atakuma wrote...

That's exactly how I feel. The art direction betrays the tone of the narrative/setting, like if Speilberg had made Shindler's list with sock puppets.

That I might actually enjoy; not a fan of SL, and much prefer Band of Brothers.

Just a reminder that while one may have an opinion on the art, does not equate it to being factual, or even the majority POV. Thinking art is ugly or beautiful is simply an opinion; no better or worse than any other.