539 réponses à ce sujet

[Ramus Quaritch]

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.

So we're using cosplaying as a reason for Dragon Age 2's art style?  Really?  You can have unique outfits without making the game look like a JRPG (i'm looking at you, Fenris and 2-handed swords).  I'm not buying it.  

Not only that, but the different art style violated the lore established in DA2, especially with the darkspawn. Just look at the Genlocks.  They're supposed to come from broodmothers who were dwarves, and you could easily see the dwarven influence.  Not in DA2.  

[Masako52]

I agree completely with Chris Priestly. I like how everything looks more distinctive in DA2.

And having recognizable characters is good - the cosplay point just illustrates how well or not a character can be recognized. How much of an icon s/he is.

Plus, I'm a cosplayer, so.

[Monica21]

Anarya wrote...
My main point of contention was that visuals matter in both Maus and DA. You are far from the only person being dismissive about it but every time I see that claim I die a little inside.

And I see the entire shift in art direction as an improvement, including the darkspawn but I wasn't talking about them specifically. In fact my favorite part of the art in 2 is the load screens and tapestry animations.

Just specifically referring to Maus, you're right. The graphic novel look and cartoonish look is a heavy contrast to the story and the writing and the writing wouldn't have the impact it does without the art style.

I can't say the same for DA2, and I honestly think it's a poor comparison. 

[In Exile]

Monica21 wrote...
It's not the visual of Maus that gets you though, it's the writing. That's what DA2 failed to produce. If the story had simply been better I don't think people people would be arguing about mud colors or jagged edges on armor.

The juxtaposition of elements is what makes it haunting, in my opinion.

But that wasn't my point. My point was that you can use ostensibly childish or 'immature' fare to convey something as serious as the Holocaust. 

I agree with you the writing wasn't there, but that has nothing to do with the art-style itself. It has to do with the writing failing. 

[In Exile]

Monica21 wrote...
Just specifically referring to Maus, you're right. The graphic novel look and cartoonish look is a heavy contrast to the story and the writing and the writing wouldn't have the impact it does without the art style.

I can't say the same for DA2, and I honestly think it's a poor comparison. 

Of course it's a poor comparison. It wasn't meant to be a comparison to begin with. 

Someone said it would be absurd to portray Schindler's List with sock puppets. I pointed out that something similar had been done with cartoon mice, and the whole point is that it isl, but it works. The absurdism of Maus is a powerful response to the absurdism of the Holocaust and the genocide itself. 

[Demon Velsper]

Chris Priestly wrote...

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.

And this has what to do with art style? Morrigan was the only one in DA:O with a unique set of clothes, right and in DA2 you can't change anyone's clothes so obviously it's easier to dress as Isabela rather than Leliana, but that has zero relevance to the art style. If you had locked down clothing for all character in DA:O you would have more cosplay there as well.

Having kept the original art style but still not allowing custom gear would have accomplished the exact same in cospaly.

But you're right, it is distinctive. Unfortunatly it's distinctively stupid looking.

And it really says something when the guys doing the official animation ignore your elf re-design.

Modifié par Demon Velsper, 30 août 2011 - 03:07 .

[csfteeeer]

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.

This is precisely one of the main reasons i don't like this Art Style(apart from not liking it at all).

It Doesn't look like a dark and dirty setting like it should.

DAO wasn't the best at this, but it was better.

[Wulfram]

The player wearable armour was an improvement on Origins. I particularly appreciate the lack of huge shoulders, though I gather that was more because of convenience for cinematics than a conscious style shift. Though I'd have preferred more choice in end game armour, rather than everyone ending up in the "iconic" champion gear.

"Iconic" companion appearances? Meh, they weren't awful. But I think the DA:O system would have looked quite a bit better if we'd had the same variety of light and mage armour that we do in DA2.

The outside stuff probably looks better in DA2 by and large, though Dave of Canada has noted a lot of the cooler stuff is seen by looking up when you'll naturally play the game looking down on your characters. The Alienage was a big failure in DA2 though - it looks quite nice, which it really shouldn't. Also Kirkwall is much too empty, but I think that's an engine limitation rather than style choice.

The inside areas I'd give the edge to Origins. Places like the ruined temple and elven ruins are striking in a way which I don't think is really matched in DA2.

edit: Also, I think the faces of the less important characters - particularly the men and the elves - look worse in DA2 - I guess this is a consequence of a changed face making system since the party members and major NPCs still look pretty good.

Modifié par Wulfram, 30 août 2011 - 03:28 .

[RussianSpy27]

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.

Distinctive style is a great idea. But does a distinctive style that happens not to necessarily be popular with the public mean it's good for the franchise, sales, marketing and ultimately the product's success? I don't get it.

[errant_knight]

Distinctive and pleasant/attractive/engaging aren't synonymous. For example, I can think of any number of things that look/smell incredibly distinctive that one generally choses to stay as far away from as possible.

[Elhanan]

For costumes, the ones I personally did not like were for Merrill, Anders, and Aveline. But Aveline's look improves a lot with a non-Orleasian shield.

The rest of the main cast looked great; were memorable, distinctive, and aesthetically pleasing. IMO.

[In Exile]

Wulfram wrote...

The inside areas I'd give the edge to Origins. Places like the ruined temple and elven ruins are striking in a way which I don't think is really matched in DA2.

I think the visual effect only works if you are imprissed by ruins. I personally hate them, but I can still see that they're more detailed than anything DA2 offers. 

[Wulfram]

In Exile wrote...

I think the visual effect only works if you are imprissed by ruins. I personally hate them, but I can still see that they're more detailed than anything DA2 offers. 

OK, I do like ruins. 

But Orzammar looks pretty good - and certainly distinctive - too.  Though I guess the DA2 team thought the same, since they seem to have retained the style for many of the dwarfy bits.

[Ramus Quaritch]

Masako52 wrote...

I agree completely with Chris Priestly. I like how everything looks more distinctive in DA2.

And having recognizable characters is good - the cosplay point just illustrates how well or not a character can be recognized. How much of an icon s/he is.

Plus, I'm a cosplayer, so.

I see your point about cosplay illustrating the iconity (is that a word?) of the character.  But Morrigan was iconic for cosplaying because that was the outfit she wore for marketing and trailers.  She had that unique outfit in game (two versions of it, actually), but I could take it off of her and put on something else if I wanted to.  She became iconic even though that outfit was not restricted to her.  I would prefer doing for other companions what they did with Morrigan: give them a set outfit in the marketing of the game and have that unique outfit in the game, but give the players the ability to equip the companions with a different outfits over the course of the game.  You can make them iconic without restricting the outfits and cosplay 'till your heart's content.  

By the way, I was just ticked off by Chris' response.  I have nothing against cosplaying.  Who have you dressed up as?  

Oh, and

[In Exile]

Wulfram wrote...
OK, I do like ruins. 

But Orzammar looks pretty good - and certainly distinctive - too.  Though I guess the DA2 team thought the same, since they seem to have retained the style for many of the dwarfy bits.

I thought Orzammar was incredible. And I liked how it looked in the Deep Roads. The only shame (IMO) is that we weren't in the Deep Roads, but the Deep Caves. 

[Sidney]

In Exile wrote...

I thought Orzammar was incredible. And I liked how it looked in the Deep Roads. The only shame (IMO) is that we weren't in the Deep Roads, but the Deep Caves. 

Orzammar was awful. Tell me where you ever felt like it was a vast underground metropolis? It was all of 3 streets and it didn't feel like anything different about it than an above ground city.

[In Exile]

Sidney wrote...
Orzammar was awful. Tell me where you ever felt like it was a vast underground metropolis? It was all of 3 streets and it didn't feel like anything different about it than an above ground city.

The actual city was ****. It looked like an underground temple. But Bioware can't design cities. I was talking only about the art style.

[Fallstar]

In Exile wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
OK, I do like ruins. 

But Orzammar looks pretty good - and certainly distinctive - too.  Though I guess the DA2 team thought the same, since they seem to have retained the style for many of the dwarfy bits.

I thought Orzammar was incredible. And I liked how it looked in the Deep Roads. The only shame (IMO) is that we weren't in the Deep Roads, but the Deep Caves. 

+1

If we'd spent more time exploring the actual roads, and less time rediscovering lost thaigs that were supposedly too full of darkspawn (yeah right) for the dwarves to retake, it would have made the deep roads a more enjoyable experience. Although the Deep Roads still are my second favourite part of Origins.

[erynnar]

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.

Artist here too, and I agree with you. It needs to fit the story being told. The darkspawn might make me fall down laughing and hurt myself, but I don't fear them. The old ones digusted me and I didn't want my Warden to touch them or get their blood on her. The new one...just beasts for the slaughter.

[Zanallen]

I didn't find the DA:O darkspawn scary either. I think it has to do with their mook status. If my PC, Hawke or Warden, can mow down whole legions, then there is nothing to fear.

[Masako52]

The problem with DAO darkspawn is that they looked just like Tolkien orcs. I know some criticism of DAO is that it felt too Lord of the Rings-ish - DA2 redesigned a lot to make it more unique. I don't mind the DA2 genlocks, I just think the hurlocks look a little strange.

Frankly, I think some people will be mad no matter what Bioware does. They can't please everyone. Hopefully DA3 will have a mix of both styles. Keep the new qunari and elf design, alter the darkspawn a little.

[KnightofPhoenix]

In Exile wrote...

Sidney wrote...
Orzammar was awful. Tell me where you ever felt like it was a vast underground metropolis? It was all of 3 streets and it didn't feel like anything different about it than an above ground city.

The actual city was ****. It looked like an underground temple. But Bioware can't design cities. I was talking only about the art style.

And the ambience was good too imo. With the lighting and whatnot, it did feel I was in a mountain. Just not in an actual city.

And Dwarven art and architecture were very nice. I especially liked the interior of their buildings, like the Royal palace.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 30 août 2011 - 08:24 .

[King Cousland]

Masako52 wrote...

The problem with DAO darkspawn is that they looked just like Tolkien orcs. I know some criticism of DAO is that it felt too Lord of the Rings-ish - DA2 redesigned a lot to make it more unique. I don't mind the DA2 genlocks, I just think the hurlocks look a little strange.

Frankly, I think some people will be mad no matter what Bioware does. They can't please everyone. Hopefully DA3 will have a mix of both styles. Keep the new qunari and elf design, alter the darkspawn a little.

DAII was not unique. It's art "style" was robbed from cartoons and looked like a polished and more detailed version of Jackie Chan Adventures: www.google.co.uk/imgres 
As a poster at the beginning said, just because something's distinctive doesn't make it good. DA:O was distinctive IMHO, in that I could look at a random screenshot and think, "Hey, that's Dragon Age Origins!" An art style is more than just how the game looks. It often changes and cements a game's atmosphere, as it does in DA.

In Origins, the style went towards making the game feel dark, gritty, like there's always something sinister round the corner, always a shadow on the horizon (this is how the frnachise should feel, being a dark fantasy). In DAII, it made the game feel light-hearted, comical, like Looney Tunes with blood.

As for the spawn, it's off topic and has been discussed multiple times, but I much prefer the rotting flesh, vicious DA:O look to DAII's ectasy-fuelled chalkspawn and gorilla-like genlocks.   

Modifié par harkness72, 30 août 2011 - 08:38 .