539 réponses à ce sujet

[Elhanan]

harkness72 wrote...

Indeed, memorable enough to recall their names...

Guilty of being a poor speller, and with no spell checker here makes for some errors. I'm a bad boy....

But this does not negate the POV that DA2 art craft is highly identifiable to many. heh! Even the pics being shown to oppose DA2 require little to no identification.



Did I spell that right?

[Willybot]

SparkleWaffle wrote...

Who knows? Maybe somewhere in the Deep Roads, there's a ghoulified version of Wade complaining bitterly about the Archdemon's unwillingness to donate some scales for his work and having his creative genius suppressed by being forced to mass-mass-mass produce darkspawn armor.

They should make this a sitcom in the vein of The Odd Couple. I know I'd watch.

[miraclemight]

Filament wrote...

You can still see the eyes.

They're not very clear. I only got a glimpse of them in the initial cutscene.

Actually, I was trying to say that in games in which camera is being constantly moved by the players during combat, the designs should be 'distinctive' enough so they can tell what is what in the middle of a battle.

It's not necessary, but still.

[erynnar]

Elhanan wrote...

erynnar wrote...

What makes me laugh, is that in an effort to be more "distinctive" (from what? DAO? LoTR? Guild Wars? WoW?) the style resembles WoW more. The Elves look more like the LoTR goblins (not exactly alike, but similar enough that it caught my eye). The Genlock alphas look even more like LoTR's troll, Hurlock Alpha looks like the mouth of Sauron and Hurlocks look like Skeletor.

And I'm not disgusted by them. They don't creep me out, they make me laugh. They look like stupid monsters not tainted creatures born from tainted broodmothers. Slaughtering them now doesn't leave me with the feeling of needing my character to have a shower. Now they are just beasts like the bronto. Not worried that these guys are going to taint everything in their path, their just creatures.

And yet many of us have played (or seen) most (or all) of them, and most are still widely popular. I found DAO's similarities to LotR to be fairly obvious, and I adore both. My guess is that most do, too. IMO.

But you argue that DA2 is not distinctive from these other projects. I would say that if one single  project provided memories from all these seperate and successful franchises that it is distinctive on it's face. But I hold that Hawke, Isabelle, Fenris, etc are memorable enough on their own to be linked as DA2 seperately from any other.

And what makes me laugh? The dialogue; another Bioware signature that seperates itself from the dross.

They are not any more distinctive from LoTR than DAO was if we are going from that argument. And again, DAO's art style was not one of the flaws that needed fixing in my opinion, it just needed tweaking. The change just for change and the retconning and the 180 from a very popular and well loved games ruffles my feathers. It wasn't necessary. Trying new things sure, but fixing what wasn't broken wasn't.

[Range Rover]

DA2 is the best thing that happened to the franchise, could only imagine DA3. Good work as always Bioware.

[bEVEsthda]

Range Rover wrote...

DA2 is the best thing that happened to the franchise, could only imagine DA3. Good work as always Bioware.

For your very own personal enjoyment maybe.

In more general terms though, DA2 cannot be said to have been good for the franchise. In fact it must be said to have been bad for the franchise. It may even have killed off the franchise, though this is still in the future.

[Willybot]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Range Rover wrote...

DA2 is the best thing that happened to the franchise, could only imagine DA3. Good work as always Bioware.

For your very own personal enjoyment maybe.

In more general terms though, DA2 cannot be said to have been good for the franchise. In fact it must be said to have been bad for the franchise. It may even have killed off the franchise, though this is still in the future.

I doubt very much that it will kill off the franchise if for no other factor than it didn't *lose* money. They made mistakes with DA2; many, many mistakes in my opinion. That being said the measure isn't whether a mistake was made, but how/whether they learn from them.

We're a long way off the point where any of this is anything but speculation. Here's to hoping for positive things in the months to come.

[In Exile]

erynnar wrote...
They are not any more distinctive from LoTR than DAO was if we are going from that argument. And again, DAO's art style was not one of the flaws that needed fixing in my opinion, it just needed tweaking. The change just for change and the retconning and the 180 from a very popular and well loved games ruffles my feathers. It wasn't necessary. Trying new things sure, but fixing what wasn't broken wasn't.

I thought DA:O had a bad art style. If it was going to have real medieval, it should have gone the TW route. IMO.

[TEWR]

Zanallen wrote...

SparkleWaffle wrote...

Who knows? Maybe somewhere in the Deep Roads, there's a ghoulified version of Wade complaining bitterly about the Archdemon's unwillingness to donate some scales for his work and having his creative genius suppressed by being forced to mass-mass-mass produce darkspawn armor.

There should be a whole expansion based around this.

Psh, it needs to be 3 games with DLC and expansions, a movie, a web series, and a book at least

[Sidney]

erynnar wrote...
They are not any more distinctive from LoTR than DAO was if we are going from that argument. And again, DAO's art style was not one of the flaws that needed fixing in my opinion, it just needed tweaking. The change just for change and the retconning and the 180 from a very popular and well loved games ruffles my feathers. It wasn't necessary. Trying new things sure, but fixing what wasn't broken wasn't.

The art style was badly broken and managed to combine the grossly generic and boring (Ye Olde England setting, elves that are just pretty humans and so on) with the bizarrely stupid (weapon and armor designs). DAO was hands down one of the worst looking games because of those elements. It overcame because of story and character but art-wise it was terrible.

DA2 didn't solve all of even most of those problems. Weapons and armor got even more over the top stupid in design. The setting wasn't upgraded because there wasn't enough of Kirkwall to really see. The only thing that got worked over properly were having non-humans that *gasp* looked non-human but of course everyone caterwauls about wanting their pretty elves back.

[Elhanan]

erynnar wrote...

They are not any more distinctive from LoTR than DAO was if we are going from that argument. And again, DAO's art style was not one of the flaws that needed fixing in my opinion, it just needed tweaking. The change just for change and the retconning and the 180 from a very popular and well loved games ruffles my feathers. It wasn't necessary. Trying new things sure, but fixing what wasn't broken wasn't.

I agree that change for that sake alone is not my thing. However, I see change in DA2 that I do like, and may not have expected going into this new purchase (eg; full VO), as I was content, but now am glad to see included. The new Ability trees are improved, linked Skills work rather well, and Crafting is less tedious.

As far as the art, while I prefer other versions of Elves and Darkspawn, the newer versions of Flemeth and the Qunari were outstanding and should be kept for future works.

I liked most of the new costumes; esp the option to remove hats and helms from view (does anyone really miss DAO hats?). I heartily admit to not being a fashion consultant, and am more into not looking too bizarre (see DAO hats) than looking dapper. What little irritation I have with DA2 costuming is that the best Mage robes are identical to Chantry robes worn by the villain, and the latest Item DLC helps this somewhat.

For future art changes? Less cumbersome Greatswords and 2H weaponry, and rethinking any more possible Legacy Key items. I had no idea in my first DLC session that I was finding a new item on the body of a Dwarf; thought it looked like his spine had been corrupted by Lyrium. And while I have not seen the dagger or longsword models, the longbow, staff, and greatsword were less than expected.

But this is all my opinion, too; OMMV.

[erynnar]

Elhanan wrote...

erynnar wrote...

They are not any more distinctive from LoTR than DAO was if we are going from that argument. And again, DAO's art style was not one of the flaws that needed fixing in my opinion, it just needed tweaking. The change just for change and the retconning and the 180 from a very popular and well loved games ruffles my feathers. It wasn't necessary. Trying new things sure, but fixing what wasn't broken wasn't.

I agree that change for that sake alone is not my thing. However, I see change in DA2 that I do like, and may not have expected going into this new purchase (eg; full VO), as I was content, but now am glad to see included. The new Ability trees are improved, linked Skills work rather well, and Crafting is less tedious.

As far as the art, while I prefer other versions of Elves and Darkspawn, the newer versions of Flemeth and the Qunari were outstanding and should be kept for future works.

I liked most of the new costumes; esp the option to remove hats and helms from view (does anyone really miss DAO hats?). I heartily admit to not being a fashion consultant, and am more into not looking too bizarre (see DAO hats) than looking dapper. What little irritation I have with DA2 costuming is that the best Mage robes are identical to Chantry robes worn by the villain, and the latest Item DLC helps this somewhat.

For future art changes? Less cumbersome Greatswords and 2H weaponry, and rethinking any more possible Legacy Key items. I had no idea in my first DLC session that I was finding a new item on the body of a Dwarf; thought it looked like his spine had been corrupted by Lyrium. And while I have not seen the dagger or longsword models, the longbow, staff, and greatsword were less than expected.

But this is all my opinion, too; OMMV.

I value your opinion! *HUGGLES* and yeah the 2h weaponry needs to be less...well less. ROFL! And I would love for some fashionable cool clothes for my mage. I'm no fashinista either, but it would be nice to have something more snazzy and less, robe like. How about some cool pants? or to dress like Varric or similar ( I covet his duster jacket). The early outfit for mage Hawke was nice that it wasn't a robe, but it looked too much like an army outfit for a shooter game.

[erynnar]

Sidney wrote...

erynnar wrote...
They are not any more distinctive from LoTR than DAO was if we are going from that argument. And again, DAO's art style was not one of the flaws that needed fixing in my opinion, it just needed tweaking. The change just for change and the retconning and the 180 from a very popular and well loved games ruffles my feathers. It wasn't necessary. Trying new things sure, but fixing what wasn't broken wasn't.

The art style was badly broken and managed to combine the grossly generic and boring (Ye Olde England setting, elves that are just pretty humans and so on) with the bizarrely stupid (weapon and armor designs). DAO was hands down one of the worst looking games because of those elements. It overcame because of story and character but art-wise it was terrible.

DA2 didn't solve all of even most of those problems. Weapons and armor got even more over the top stupid in design. The setting wasn't upgraded because there wasn't enough of Kirkwall to really see. The only thing that got worked over properly were having non-humans that *gasp* looked non-human but of course everyone caterwauls about wanting their pretty elves back.

Well the elves should be pretty, and Fenris and Merrill looked good. The NPCs were a nightmare (for the most part, this is in deference to you, Eth). So yeah, they could look like Fen or Merrill then sure they'd be fine. And according to their own lore and such elves are supposed be beautiful and alluring to humans. DA2 elves on the whole were so ugly they were two baggers.

Modifié par erynnar, 01 septembre 2011 - 03:19 .

[erynnar]

In Exile wrote...

erynnar wrote...
They are not any more distinctive from LoTR than DAO was if we are going from that argument. And again, DAO's art style was not one of the flaws that needed fixing in my opinion, it just needed tweaking. The change just for change and the retconning and the 180 from a very popular and well loved games ruffles my feathers. It wasn't necessary. Trying new things sure, but fixing what wasn't broken wasn't.

I thought DA:O had a bad art style. If it was going to have real medieval, it should have gone the TW route. IMO.

Now that I could get behind, anything but the cartoony WoW look. I said of all it's flaws DAO's art style didnt' need a ret con, it needed tweaking. It could have easily been tweaked to the TW look instead.

[Reidbynature]

Both games have flaws in their art styles. Origins being a bit bland, DA2 a bit too cartoony at times. Though I think DA2 barely wins out overall, but I think there should be a compromise between the two for DA3 (hopefully having the Darkspawn at least like their original selves).

[csfteeeer]

Range Rover wrote...

DA2 is the best thing that happened to the franchise, could only imagine DA3. Good work as always Bioware.

You were living in mars this last few months haven't you? Welcome back

[fightright2]

erynnar wrote...

Sidney wrote...

erynnar wrote...
They are not any more distinctive from LoTR than DAO was if we are going from that argument. And again, DAO's art style was not one of the flaws that needed fixing in my opinion, it just needed tweaking. The change just for change and the retconning and the 180 from a very popular and well loved games ruffles my feathers. It wasn't necessary. Trying new things sure, but fixing what wasn't broken wasn't.

The art style was badly broken and managed to combine the grossly generic and boring (Ye Olde England setting, elves that are just pretty humans and so on) with the bizarrely stupid (weapon and armor designs). DAO was hands down one of the worst looking games because of those elements. It overcame because of story and character but art-wise it was terrible.

DA2 didn't solve all of even most of those problems. Weapons and armor got even more over the top stupid in design. The setting wasn't upgraded because there wasn't enough of Kirkwall to really see. The only thing that got worked over properly were having non-humans that *gasp* looked non-human but of course everyone caterwauls about wanting their pretty elves back.

Well the elves should be pretty, and Fenris and Merrill looked good. The NPCs were a nightmare (for the most part, this is in deference to you, Eth). So yeah, they could look like Fen or Merrill then sure they'd be fine. And according to their own lore and such elves are supposed be beautiful and alluring to humans. DA2 elves on the whole were so ugly they were two baggers.

I always thought that since elves were supposed to be beautiful and alluring, according to their own lore, it would mean that they would age very well. That while an elf may very well be old, that elf would retain some alluring, gracefulness and comliness to them that even humans would be in awe of their beauty. 

Sadly, Zevran didn't fit that because obviously, time wasn't graceful to him. His ears grew much longer and pointier as protruded out more.

[BroBear Berbil]

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 think the lack of diversity in cosplay would be attributed more to the fact that Morrigan was the only character I can easily recall, besides Duncan, who had unique armor. I've heard the LOTR thing before to explain the new art style when it was announced and I still don't get it. I mean, if we're just talking outfits here, nothing in Origins even came close to resembling the material from the LOTR movies and the EA games based from them. Was this a notion that came up in a focus group or something?

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.

This. So much. I'm not an artist but this sums up my feelings pretty well.

The Deep Roads is by far my favorite setting in the DA series. I loved it in the books, I loved it in Origins, but not so much in DA2. DA2's version didn't create any sense of foreboding or tension that Origins did with Bownammar in particular. It was all so...clean. The art style seems to favor bright environments with sparse details.

When I think of the Deep Roads I picture something dark and gruesome. I thik of like Dead Space. DA2's Deep Roads was more like Blackrock Spire...if that makes any sense.

Modifié par OnionXI, 01 septembre 2011 - 06:30 .

[Killer3000ad]

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 also must voice my disagreement with you Chris. I found the new DA2 art style utterly horrid for certain races, elves namely, and the darkspawn. DA2's darkspawn look like amateur clown who got dunked in ice water. I also prefered DA:O darker style. Also appearance is just that appearance. Morrigan was definable mainly for her personality rather than her outfit. It didn't matter if I made her into an Arcane Warrior and put her in heavy armor, or covered Leliana and Zevran in leather armor and put Oghren and Sten in armor as well. I still knew who they were from their personality, conversations and their quests.
 
THis is where I think DA2 failed badly. They wanted to make the character visually distinctive but sacrificed character writing and depth. I found Anders and Merill terribly shallow compared to the DA:O characters. But lets not go off topic. We are mainly dicussing the art style. To sum things up, in the eyes of this beholder DA:O style > DA2 style.

[Nerevar-as]

I don´t think DA2 sacrificed writing for looks, just that the writing failed to make most characters interesting. I find worrying that the devs think an iconic look improves a character by itself however.

There´s also the redesign. I think anyone shown a Batman drawn by Lee or Perez would recognize the character as long as they have some familiarity with it. I don´t think anyone who isn´t a fan would look at DS from Origins and DA and think it´s the same creature (excepting ogres).

[miraclemight]

Nerevar-as wrote...

I don´t think anyone who isn´t a fan would look at DS from Origins and DA and think it´s the same creature (excepting ogres).

I'm a fan of DA, and the first time I watched the Rise to Power trailer I thought "oh, a new race of enemies" when the darkspawn came to view. It was after I delved a bit into some spoiler forums that I realised what they really were.

[Ianamus]

"Distinctive" Does not have to mean "ugly" . I have no problem with making companions look iconic, but surely it's possible to make the elves look iconic without making them ridiculously thin, and more often than not fairly ugly. 
Same with the Darkspawn. Before they looked both iconic and threatening, afterward they just looked ugly.

When I see an Origins ogre I think Dragon Age. When I see I DA2 ogre I think what were they doing?

Drawves didn't fare much better, but I don't mind them, other than the lack of females. I think that our companions look very good, It's just a shame that other races and such didn't benefit from the art style change as well. 

Bethesda has recently shown us the new looks of the different races in Skyrim, and I think that they have done a very good job of making their races look unique, while going in a more "Gritty and realistic" direction. I think that I prefer it to DA2's art direction, from what I've seen so far. 

Modifié par EJ107, 01 septembre 2011 - 12:28 .

[Hel]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Range Rover wrote...

DA2 is the best thing that happened to the franchise, could only imagine DA3. Good work as always Bioware.

For your very own personal enjoyment maybe.

In more general terms though, DA2 cannot be said to have been good for the franchise. In fact it must be said to have been bad for the franchise. It may even have killed off the franchise, though this is still in the future.

Yet the art-style wasn't the cause of that.

DAII featured some great ideas, alas their implementation was lacking in some areas here and there. If anything, that's what hurt the product in the long run. However, there's no denying that DAII did some things that are a good foundation for future products. If anything hurt the product (aside from limited resources and recycling) it's the players' expectations. You can't always get what you want, even if you're the number one fanbase in the world.