539 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tommy6860 wrote...

While that is striking, I keep in mind that DA2 is a console port to PC, while TW2 was developed specifically for PC.

Assassin's Creed 2 was the same. Why does it have much more detail?

[Tommy6860]

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.

Character comaparisons are subjective. But the overall art direction that DA:O took was much more dark and inlfuencing on the theme of the game than was the direction in DA2, which sometimes looked cartoony. I like the characters models OK in DA2, but the darkspawn were just to silly looking to be scary, unlike those in Origins. Origins DS were also more vaired and not cookie cutter copies attacking in synchronized movements. If that is "distinctive", it fails,IMO. I also consider placing ghost characters in and around Kirkwall (you know, the ones that look like N64 graphical placeholders) that you can walk through, not distinctive.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 28 août 2011 - 03:16 .

[Tommy6860]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

While that is striking, I keep in mind that DA2 is a console port to PC, while TW2 was developed specifically for PC.

Assassin's Creed 2 was the same. Why does it have much more detail?

I never played any of the AC games, not my style. But I don't think there's much of a difference form their over all looks to be honest from the many images I have seen. IF going ny console comaprisons between Dumar and AC2, I couildn't say, but I seriously doubt there'd be much difference in the PC versions sicne theya re ports anyway.

Dumar from the 360:



Your Medici: 

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
I think Chris is more concerned with characters and monsters that are visually recognisable and iconic as 'Bioware: Dragon Age' where art style is concerned, not the fine stitching detail of the art itself. Characters can easily be iconic without the art being amazing. They can also be incredibly generic-looking even with amazing cosmetic detail.

That's something I personally disagree with. Obviously rich detail is not the only factor, but when so little effort is put into it, the only thing iconic to me is how bland it is. Being visually recognizable, imo, should not be set as an instrinsic goal, because one can be recognizably bad. It means little on its own.

I agree whole-heartedly with the bolded bit in particular. I also agree there should be some effort put into the details rather an settling with rush-job creations (horrifically low-res ambient city denizens, for instance). You can really tell the NPCs that have been given loving attention-to-detail, even a small amount, and the ones that have just been slapped in as filler material in Dragon Age 2.

One should aspire for it to be recognizably *good*, and effort on details helps in that regard, imo.

I don't disagree with this. I do think one should aspire to be good across the board, and not half-assed in the corners that aren't considered important and where consumers might not look too closely.

But that said, I can put up with a lot of crappy art for a good story. Both would be nice though.

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ Tommy
Medici's robe is more detailed. Dumar is just wearing bland black.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 28 août 2011 - 03:06 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
I agree whole-heartedly with the bolded bit in particular. I also agree there should be some effort put into the details rather an settling with rush-job creations (horrifically low-res ambient city denizens, for instance). You can really tell the NPCs that have been given loving attention-to-detail, even a small amount, and the ones that have just been slapped in as filler material in Dragon Age 2.

TW2 had NPC clones, but at least they were good looking clones

But that said, I can put up with a lot of crappy art for a good story. Both would be nice though.

Same, sadly I did not think the story was good in almost any way.

[Tommy6860]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

@ Tommy
Medici's robe is more detailed. Dumar is just wearing bland black.

I guess, I am not that anal about looks on console, unless they are really far off. But Dumar on the PC looks pretty good. Did you play AC2 on console or PC?

[Tommy6860]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
I think Chris is more concerned with characters and monsters that are visually recognisable and iconic as 'Bioware: Dragon Age' where art style is concerned, not the fine stitching detail of the art itself. Characters can easily be iconic without the art being amazing. They can also be incredibly generic-looking even with amazing cosmetic detail.

That's something I personally disagree with. Obviously rich detail is not the only factor, but when so little effort is put into it, the only thing iconic to me is how bland it is. Being visually recognizable, imo, should not be set as an instrinsic goal, because one can be recognizably bad. It means little on its own.

One should aspire for it to be recognizably *good*, and effort on details helps in that regard, imo. 

I agree with this, especially when playing games on PC. The images I've seen on TW2 are stunning for the most part. Even though DA2 is a port, there should be effort put into the overall looks .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tommy6860 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

@ Tommy
Medici's robe is more detailed. Dumar is just wearing bland black.

I guess, I am not that anal about looks on console, unless they are really far off. But Dumar on the PC looks pretty good. Did you play AC2 on console or PC?

Console, and he looked better to me than Dumar on PC. Not a question of graphics, but of blandness. Dumar looks utterly bland to me and at first glance, I'd think he is a drug lord or something, or a bandit king.

I lack the technical terms to explain, though I am guessing this is part of art style. Its blandness is one of my major gripes with it.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 28 août 2011 - 03:19 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Tommy6860 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

@ Tommy
Medici's robe is more detailed. Dumar is just wearing bland black.

I guess, I am not that anal about looks on console, unless they are really far off. But Dumar on the PC looks pretty good. Did you play AC2 on console or PC?

KoP likes pieces of flair on characters. Utilitarian-looking rulers aren't his thing.

[RagingCyclone]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

@ Tommy
Medici's robe is more detailed. Dumar is just wearing bland black.

KoP, where normally I would agree the bland black is less, in this case I think it's the opposite. Medici's may be more colorful, it's also on a model that is very generic and plain. While Dumar's may be plain black/grays the straps and shoulder pouldrons give more detail in the model. It's a matter of taste here, but I have to say Dumar is the better of the two stylistically. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

KoP likes pieces of flair on characters. Utilitarian-looking rulers aren't his thing.

Yes, because it doesn't seem to fit the lore. Even Ferelden, which is considered barbaric, had nobles try (badly) to have a flair. Kirkwall is supposed to be a cosmopolitan commercial hub. One would think its ruler would look more impressive than a thug.

It's not necessarily vain decorations I am looking for. It's a character like the Viscoun to attract attention with his clothes (yes, stuff like that were politically calculated). He just looks utterly bland to me.

[Elhanan]

Yrkoon wrote...

This one's a mixed bag for me.  Mainly because Flemeth is such an enigmatic character.  Is she supposed  to be a sexy milf with a near perfect body, and hair so thick and flowing that she  puts half of it up in horn-ponytails??  Because if so, then yes.    Her art style for DA2 fit her perfectly, and much better than it was for DA:O.

But the problem I have,  is that everywhere else in the series, she's portrayed as an old woman,  a crone.  a wise, serious, and venerated ancient figure.  Even her voice projects that  vibe.  And that fits with her old art style.

That was before she went thru a possible transformation and rebirth. And as is somewhat mentioned, there seem to be varied aspects of Flemeth.

Plus, Flemeth is all about deception, illusion, and the like. The old woman motif fit the the desired appearance of the Witch of the Wilds. Now she is showing her majestic side; the one that the Dalish somewhat revere.

[KnightofPhoenix]

RagingCyclone wrote...
KoP, where normally I would agree the bland black is less, in this case I think it's the opposite. Medici's may be more colorful, it's also on a model that is very generic and plain. While Dumar's may be plain black/grays the straps and shoulder pouldrons give more detail in the model. It's a matter of taste here, but I have to say Dumar is the better of the two stylistically. 

Like I said, not sure how to describe my issue with this.

Yes, Dumar's model may be more detailed, but it looks bland to me. Perhaps lacking in color and decorations.
Nobles in Kirkwall had more colorful clothes, and yet Dumar looks like a bandit to me. Whereas if I look at Medici, I can have an idea of what he is.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 28 août 2011 - 03:29 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yes, because it doesn't seem to fit the lore. Even Ferelden, which is considered barbaric, had nobles try (badly) to have a flair. Kirkwall is supposed to be a cosmopolitan commercial hub. One would think its ruler would look more impressive than a thug.

It's not necessarily vain decorations I am looking for. It's a character like the Viscoun to attract attention with his clothes (yes, stuff like that were politically calculated). He just looks utterly bland to me.

Maybe Dumar was trying to be Terry Pratchett's Lord Vetinari with his flairless black deal.



If only he'd had the personality to offset the nondescript garb.

(Well, if he had a personality the templars probably would have ousted him.)

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 28 août 2011 - 03:30 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

I don't even care if they have NPC clones, after all, ambient NPCs are just that: ambience. It's the fact they couldn't even be bothered to actually put FACES on all these no-names. I just started another DAO game, and every no name, even the ones who you can't click on, do have faces, even if they are shared and not spectacular or pretty (it is ferelden, lol). But running around Kirkwall and passing up close, a bunch of street people whose faces are even less detailed than the NWN1 faces was just... fail. I backed up a few times because I thought it was a glitch. Nope.

[Yuqi]

I think the point of that skinny elf,is to show that she is poor and has a hard life.(But  that is no excuse; for making her skin plastic looking.)

I'm not fond of the new darkspawn. They remind me of poor-quality, imitatiation,cheapo, and fakes of a well designed action figure.<_<

Modifié par Yuqi, 28 août 2011 - 03:38 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Maybe Dumar was trying to be Terry Pratchett's Lord Vetinari with his flairless black deal.



If only he'd had the personality to offset the nondescript garb.

(Well, if he had a personality the templars probably would have ousted him.)

I do not know of Discworld's general art style, but frrom little I know, Vetinari's bland dress is deliberate and at least partially due to his perosnality / tastes.

We don't really know of Viscount Dumar as a person, and even his son looks more colorful than him (he looked bad too btw, imo). I don't mind deliberate blandness if it has a reason. Dumar is not the only one who suffers from this imo. DA2's entire art style looks bland to me, even on characters. The only memorable thing to me vis-a-vis clothes is Isabela's necklace thingy. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 28 août 2011 - 03:35 .

[Monica21]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Yes, because it doesn't seem to fit the lore. Even Ferelden, which is considered barbaric, had nobles try (badly) to have a flair. Kirkwall is supposed to be a cosmopolitan commercial hub. One would think its ruler would look more impressive than a thug.

It's not necessarily vain decorations I am looking for. It's a character like the Viscoun to attract attention with his clothes (yes, stuff like that were politically calculated). He just looks utterly bland to me.

I never got the impression from lore or from the city itself that it was cosmopolitan. A trading center yes, but only because of its location. Beyond places like the walkway leading to the Keep or the Chantry courtyard I don't see much influence beyond utilitarian. I think that fits the lore as the City of Chains better than the brief time it was occupied by Orlais.

As for his attire, I don't think much is said about his personal wealth but he is in his position because Meredith killed the previous Viscount after he attempted to evict the Templar order. He pretty much answers to the Templars. I don't think his position requires fancy clothes and I think it would be far too showy for Meredith's liking.

[RagingCyclone]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

RagingCyclone wrote...
KoP, where normally I would agree the bland black is less, in this case I think it's the opposite. Medici's may be more colorful, it's also on a model that is very generic and plain. While Dumar's may be plain black/grays the straps and shoulder pouldrons give more detail in the model. It's a matter of taste here, but I have to say Dumar is the better of the two stylistically. 

Like I said, not sure how to describe my issue with this.

Yes, Dumar's model may be more detailed, but it looks bland to me. Perhaps lacking in color and decorations.
Nobles in Kirkwall had more colorful clothes, and yet Dumar looks like a bandit to me. Whereas if I look at Medici, I can have an idea of what he is.

See, I took him as he appeared to be...a businessman and elected official, not a noble or royalty. 

[Sabariel]

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.

Don't know which cons you've been attending but I've seen plenty of distinctive Alistairs, Stens, Lelianas, a lot of Zevrans, a couple of Wynnes, a few DAO Teagans, quite a few Wardens (mostly of Dalish origin), DAA Anderseseses,and even a Shale once, in addition to a bunch of Morrigans. They certainly didn't look like "dudes in armor" to me.

Is DA2's art more distinct? Yes, but not really in a good way (IMO). Everything looked too clean and pristine, especially the darkspawn (Lowtown and Darktown are other culprits). The companions "distinct looks" also became bland and boring quite quickly as there was very little change over the seven years that my Hawke apparently knew them.

[Elhanan]

Personally, I hold that the Viscount was well illustrated for the character being potrayed; a weaker leader, and not a noble worthy of rule. If the image had been vibrant and full of color, it may have distracted from the character. Plus Kirkwall is supposed to be a drab area overall, I believe.

And if Flemeth had dark hair pre-Morrigan, this alone is reason enough for shock white locks from here on in....

[hoorayforicecream]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

KoP likes pieces of flair on characters. Utilitarian-looking rulers aren't his thing.

Yes, because it doesn't seem to fit the lore. Even Ferelden, which is considered barbaric, had nobles try (badly) to have a flair. Kirkwall is supposed to be a cosmopolitan commercial hub. One would think its ruler would look more impressive than a thug.

It's not necessarily vain decorations I am looking for. It's a character like the Viscoun to attract attention with his clothes (yes, stuff like that were politically calculated). He just looks utterly bland to me.

I understand your perspective, but I don't personally think that rulers should look like incredibly rich jesters. Loghain as regent didn't wear 37 pieces of flair. Maric and Alistair had gold-tinted armor. I viewed Dumar's dress similar to the king (whose name escapes me, bearded guy) on Game of Thrones. He wore totally utilitarian clothes, despite the finery of his nobles, because his personality was incredibly utilitarian. He went through the whole game juggling factions (and probably dodging assassins), I think that well-made utilitarian clothing suits his personality.