Dragoonlordz wrote...
Did so in the manner I chose to use already. Just because you cannot grasp the meaning behind it is not my problem.
It is your problem, if you actually want to have a discussion about any of this. Language is used to communicate, and if the words you are using are not communicating what you actually mean effectively you need to pick different words.
But of course, you're not interested in a discussion. You're interested in validation, which you think you'll get by repeating other people's arguments.
seraphymon wrote...
Which is why we or shoulda i say I dont use the word cartoon but cartoony. Because its not fully there. But its certainly went that direction. Your right that cartoony is not the only kind or only used stylization. But its the one that pops out most for me. And evidentally it is the eye of beholder or to each their own sorta thing, because we are on a disagreement on this.
Sometimes when people disagree one of them is wrong.
Which is you, in this case. Seriously, I'm still waiting for
anyone to describe to me how DA2's art style relates to cartoon aesthetics in any way. "It just reminds me of cartoons" is not actually a descriptive comparison. If you can't answer the question of "why" you are probably making a fallacious comparison that has no basis in anything other than whatever negative associations you have with cartoon and comic art.
I disagree with that statement completely. DAO to me was almost real to me at certain points. Particulary the battel of Ostagar. Others of course not so much. Was it dated graphics, maybe. Im not spoiled by graphics as much as other people seem to be nowadays. Some areas was improvements, but i wont say a huge step forward. And in other areas a huge step backwards. The body and face to me were siginifically more unnaturalistic and less real than DAO, mainly because of the unrealistic body models. DAO shared this mainly cause of the generic bodies from character to character, but for some it look more realistic.
Are you kidding? Have you
looked at the DAO body models?
DAO's body models are so anatomically atrocious it's frightening. DA2 was completely, unambiguously a massive improvement in that respect. DAO's body models were not people, they were a dog's breakfast of deformed clavicles and missing armpits.
Anyone who seriously argues that DAO's models are more anatomically accurate than DA2's has either never seen a human being before or is so blinded by nostalgia goggles that they cannot acknowledge anything that was wrong with DAO.
Popular comic books. Nothing really. But really it wouldnt be far off to make one as seen in Facebook games and prolly the anime movie coming up.
What specific parts of its art assets resemble facebook games in any way?
FitScotGaymer wrote...
@ipgd.
It is obvious you dont want to listen because someone is disagreeing with you because if you had actually read what I said you wouldnt have said that.
Oh well.
Whatever.
The DA2 Elves suck.
I did read what you said. What you said made no sense. Elves cannot be "realistic" because they do not actually exist. Elves cannot be held to the standard of "realisitic" human proportions because elves as defined by the Dragon Age artists have proportion standards that are different from humans.
Artists designing a fantasy world can set a different standard of proportion for their fantasy races that are different from humans, because fantasy races don't actually exist. When this differing standard of proportion has been set, the realistic standard ceases to be the human. Elves in DA are only realistic in comparison to the proportion standards as defined by the artists.
You know, you can just not like something without having to call it "unrealistic". Realism is not an inherently positive quality that absolves something of all its issues.
Modifié par ipgd, 17 septembre 2011 - 05:20 .
Retour en haut
