539 réponses à ce sujet

[Yrkoon]

They do NOT have insect mandables.  They have sharp pointed teeth, as Darkspawn have in the books. 

Modifié par Yrkoon, 28 août 2011 - 08:04 .

[Yrkoon]

And their bodies are at least of a similar size to elves.  Imagine that. 

DA2's Genlocks are what... twice as big as Varric... at least?

Modifié par Yrkoon, 28 août 2011 - 08:26 .

[Yrkoon]

Filament wrote...

Those things are totally mandibles. Insectoid, Predator, whatever you want to call it.

I'd love to see the insects in your neck of the woods.  How many people do they devour per day?

DA2's regular genlocks aren't that big.

 They're at least twice as big as  any of the carta dwarves  you fight five minutes earlier.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 28 août 2011 - 08:31 .

[Yrkoon]

Filament wrote...

Don't try to sidestep it. They're insectoid mandibles you liar.

Grow up.



How many times do we have to post this very clear picture of a Shriek, with  its 2 rows of teeth, a fully defined jaw, and even hints of a tongue inside the mouth?

Again,  is that what insects look like that where YOU live?

Modifié par Yrkoon, 28 août 2011 - 08:46 .

[Yrkoon]

Filament wrote...

Look at more than just one picture of a shriek. It will become pretty clear what you are missing.

I don't have to look at pictures.  I've been playing the friggin game itself for almost 2 years now.  There's nothing "insectoid" about Shrieks in the slightest.  If anything, they verge on Reptilian.  But that's to be expected.  The Arch Demon itself is the epitome of a reptile.

[Rixxencaxx]

Well i think that people who liked the new style are a minority....if you continue in your "special view" of what da2 did better than dao...i suppose that da3 will be the last game of the serie with no  more than 100.000 copies sold.....

Modifié par Rixxencaxx, 28 août 2011 - 09:04 .

[NedPepper]

Big_Chief wrote...

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.

The genlocks looked fine.  It's the Hurlocks that need a little retouching here and there.  Just something to give them creepier look.

And I can see that the Ogres actually look like Qunari now, which I believe is the goal.

And I do agree, some of the elves look bad, but for the most part I like that they have a distinct look and not just humans with pointy ears.

[Hel]

[double post]

Modifié par Helekanalaith, 28 août 2011 - 10:33 .

[Hel]

Yrkoon wrote...

They do NOT have insect mandables.  They have sharp pointed teeth, as Darkspawn have in the books. 

See? There are in fact mandibles on the original shriek design. 

Here's a screenshot of a darkspawn pack.



The only darkspawn that didn't make it in time for the photograph was the ogre, which I think is a shame as its necessary to make my point. At any rate, compared to DA I think the darkspawn fit together a lot better in DAII right now. Their overall style doesn't conflict any longer, it's more coherent; we don't have green genlocks teaming up with muddy hurlocks and purple ogres. Neither do they look like zombies or gremlins  anymore (in before skeletor and gorilla references), which I can only cheer on.

My own critique with the new art style isn't so much the style itself, but I think they should work on adding some more details here and there. The hurlocks in particular look like they could use some love, especially when you put one besides a genlock or sharlock (refr. picture above).

And, of course, the style of weapons is something I think they should revise. Make human crafting look different from dwarven and elven, because at the moment aside from one or two weapons I wouldn't be able to distinguish a human-made sword from a dwarven. It'd also be appreciated if the weapons looked more practical than they currently do. Don't get me wrong, I like stylized weapons with flair as much as the next person, but I always thought Dragon Age was supposed to be a "grounded" fantasy game with less over-the-top elements.



I simply can't get over how painful it must be to carry around a staves like these; they look extremely heavy, despite their awesome looking designs. While I know this is a fantasy franchise at heart, I had thought that the original weaponry defined the base on which the art direction would continue forward. Staves such as the Staff of Parthalan or Malcom's Honor look significantly more useable than Freedom's Promise or Hawke's Key. And that's just my comments on the staves... out of the two-handed swords I can currently (from the top of my head) only express my appreciation for the designs of Asala and Yusaris (ignoring their disproportionate appearances).

In general I'd say that I like the path the art team has chosen for Dragon Age and hope they continue to surprise us as they did with Legacy.

Modifié par Helekanalaith, 28 août 2011 - 11:03 .

[Sabariel]

Helekanalaith wrote...

...Are those.... dead cats tied to that staff?

[Hel]

Sabariel wrote...

...Are those.... dead cats tied to that staff?

I had assumed those were long-tailed dogs -- being of Ferelden make and all.

[bEVEsthda]

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 while you were all sitting there together, nodding 'he seems to think it's good idea.. and he too... yea it must be a good idea... distinctive Yeay...' Did anyone raise the voice to ask: "What is the actual cost that we will pay for this?" or "Yes, this may be according to EA marketing religion, but... What exactly are we trying to achieve here? Like in real benefits for the gamer?" or "Wouldn't it  risk backfiring, to completely change something that already has such a great mindshare? From Origins?"

Did anyone say: "...But this looks butt-ugly!"
And if anyone did, what did the rest of you say then? "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? Or "You know, butt-ugly may not be such a bad thing..." Group nodding around the room. '...yea... butt-ugly good...' Or: "We'll just make the colours more vibrant."?

And did anyone question why a disjointed missmatch of rippoffs from Japanese styling elements would suddenly be distinctive? Instead of just a bland, uncohesive clash of obvious rippoffs? (That is distinctive, I suppose, but why would you want it?)


My opinion is that DA:Origins owned its look. You can call it 'generic' until you get blue in the face, but there's no other game looking quite like it. There is fantasy illustration  art looking like that, but no games. And there would really be a point to owning that particular 'generic' look for games. Much like BG did.

You may call DA2's look 'distinctive' until you get blue in the face, but it will still be a butt-ugly clash of elements that only will make peoples' minds go off on: 'yea, right, they got that from... must be lots of jrpg-fans in Bioware these days'.

The really big question here is: What were you trying to achieve? In real tangible benefits for the players. "Distinctive looks" doesn't answer that. It only leads to: What were you trying to achieve with distinctive looks?

Don't give me any more of that cos-play because it has nothing to do with this.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 28 août 2011 - 01:25 .

[DragonRageGT]

Helekanalaith wrote...

Sabariel wrote...

...Are those.... dead cats tied to that staff?

I had assumed those were long-tailed dogs -- being of Ferelden make and all.

That looks like Schmooples! What did they do to him?!

[alex90c]

Sabariel wrote...

Helekanalaith wrote...

...Are those.... dead cats tied to that staff?

I don't even know what the hell that is.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Helekanalaith wrote...

At any rate, compared to DA I think the darkspawn fit together a lot better in DAII right now. Their overall style doesn't conflict any longer; we don't have green genlocks teaming up with muddy hurlocks and purple ogres. Neither do they look like gremlins or zombies anymore (in before skeletor and gorilla references), which I can only cheer on.

They might fit together artistically, but for taint-ridden monsters I don't understand why we have to be so concerned with uniform and oddly clean-looking designs.

My own critique with the new art style isn't so much the style itself, but I think they should work on adding some more details here and there. The hurlocks in particular look like they could use some love, especially when you put one besides a genlock or sharlock (refr. picture above).

There definitely needs to be some variety. I was looking at the hurlocks in Awakening the other day, and the differences between tattoo designs alone between monsters gave them more personality than the ones in DA2. And to argue your first comment at the beginning, I think they look more like zombies in DA2 than DA:O. XD Hooray for differences in opinion!

[Tommy6860]

Helekanalaith wrote...


Here's a screenshot of a darkspawn pack.

They look like the king's mutated leftover army from Braveheart. The only thing left out, is the Donkeyspawn on the right not having a barrel to throw down at someone .

In general I'd say that I like the path the art team has chosen for Dragon Age and hope they continue to surprise us as they did with Legacy.

In general, I have to disagree. I want dark terrifying creatures, not a mutated Disney cast with horned frog armors.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 28 août 2011 - 11:12 .

[Tommy6860]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Helekanalaith wrote...

At any rate, compared to DA I think the darkspawn fit together a lot better in DAII right now. Their overall style doesn't conflict any longer; we don't have green genlocks teaming up with muddy hurlocks and purple ogres. Neither do they look like gremlins or zombies anymore (in before skeletor and gorilla references), which I can only cheer on.

They might fit together artistically, but for taint-ridden monsters I don't understand why we have to be so concerned with uniform and oddly clean-looking designs.

My own critique with the new art style isn't so much the style itself, but I think they should work on adding some more details here and there. The hurlocks in particular look like they could use some love, especially when you put one besides a genlock or sharlock (refr. picture above).

There definitely needs to be some variety. I was looking at the hurlocks in Awakening the other day, and the differences between tattoo designs alone between monsters gave them more personality than the ones in DA2. And to argue your first comment at the beginning, I think they look more like zombies in DA2 than DA:O. XD Hooray for differences in opinion!

What Shadow said^ completely.

[bEVEsthda]

alex90c wrote...

I don't even know what the hell that is.

I think it might be the root of Mandragora officinarum.