83 réponses à ce sujet

[KenLyns]

Sabariel wrote...
Holy crap. Who poured bleach on poor Isabela?

What, no love for the Hungarian porn star look?

[Eternal Phoenix]

She looks better than she did in the game...lol

And yeah, DA:O has better character models, faces, enviroments and atmosphere. I have no idea why Bioware scrapped the old engine in favor of a "new" one when all the old one needed was an upgrade.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 23 septembre 2011 - 03:49 .

[Heather Cline]

goddess who ever did that made her look uglier than sin.

DA:O had better editor at the begining of the game. Every single femhawke face had the same basic structure. there was very little variance when it came to creating nose, jaw, and so on. It's why almost every femhawke i've made looks the same. Because it's hard not to without mods and since I'm on a 360 I can't do mods.

ME face creator is just as bad and has less options than DA:O and DA2. You get a bunch of preset noses, unable to mess around with any of the noses features, the mouths also have no customizability. So yeah... though the face creators are nice they aren't as advanced as they could be.

Modifié par Heather Cline, 23 septembre 2011 - 03:57 .

[Lenimph]

barenas wrote...

KenLyns wrote...

^ Disagree. Nitpick as much as you want, but the face creators in Mass Effect and Dragon Age are among the best in the business. I would be interested to learn what other popular game has a better face creator?

EVE Online

But I do think the DA and ME face creators are better than a lot of people give them credit for it.

Do you even use your character at all in EVE online?

[Romantiq]

lol. ****ty hair too

Modifié par Romantiq, 23 septembre 2011 - 04:09 .

[alex90c]

PresidentCowboy wrote...

KenLyns wrote...

And you people wonder why Bioware aren't supporting the modding community... :sick::sick:

KILL IT

KILL IT NOW

[syllogi]

KenLyns wrote...

Some of the female hairstyles are pretty good, certainly better than Mass Effect 2's.

*snip highly offensive pic*

Why???  Why would anyone do this willingly???

[DarkDragon777]

PresidentCowboy wrote...

KenLyns wrote...

And you people wonder why Bioware aren't supporting the modding community... :sick::sick:

That thing is ugly, but it's not as ugly as the original Isabela.

[Sunnie]

Elton John is dead wrote...
 I have no idea why Bioware scrapped the old engine in favor of a "new" one when all the old one needed was an upgrade.

Hate to break it to you, but DA2 "is" the upgrade, it's not a "new" engine, its the Origins engine that's been heavily modified.

[barenas]

Lenimph wrote...

barenas wrote...

KenLyns wrote...

^ Disagree. Nitpick as much as you want, but the face creators in Mass Effect and Dragon Age are among the best in the business. I would be interested to learn what other popular game has a better face creator?

EVE Online

But I do think the DA and ME face creators are better than a lot of people give them credit for it.

Do you even use your character at all in EVE online?

Not really. That's why it's kind of puzzling why they have such a great character creator in the game. Some think it's just to test it out for some of their upcoming games.

Anyway, I think people are rather harsh on the face creation system that DA2 has. I really can't think of many other single player games that have one better.

[DarkDragon777]

Sunnie22 wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...
 I have no idea why Bioware scrapped the old engine in favor of a "new" one when all the old one needed was an upgrade.

Hate to break it to you, but DA2 "is" the upgrade, it's not a "new" engine, its the Origins engine that's been heavily modified.

Yeah, and somehow the graphics look worse than Origins'.<_<

[LiquidGrape]

http://bit.ly/oIC5xV

Okay, who's responsible for this? Please step forward so that I can give you the most savagely disapproving look I can muster.

Modifié par LiquidGrape, 23 septembre 2011 - 05:12 .

[jlb524]

LiquidGrape wrote...

http://bit.ly/oIC5xV

Okay, who's responsible for this? Please step forward so that I can give you the most savagely disapproving look I can muster.

You're not a fan of extremely heavy purple eye shadow and bright pink lipstick?

[DarkDragon777]

PresidentCowboy wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

Yeah, and somehow the graphics look worse than Origins'.<_<

Except they don't

Yes they do.


Have you ever tried zooming in on anything in Dragon Age 2? It's terrible. Origins had decent graphics, and far superior face detail and armor detail than Dragon Age 2.

[RagingCyclone]

PresidentCowboy wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

Yeah, and somehow the graphics look worse than Origins'.<_<

Except they don't

Actually in some places they do...it's part of the rush job. I have both maxed on my system, and there are more instances in DA2 where walls don't match up leaving white lines, half my Hawke's have teeth clipping issues, textures on many rocky surfaces are laid over the 3d model but not lined right to look more realistic. Given time I think these flaws would have looked better, but there are times DA2 looks better on the lower graphics settings because the flaws are not as noticeable.

[Sunnie]

DarkDragon777 wrote...

PresidentCowboy wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

Yeah, and somehow the graphics look worse than Origins'.<_<

Except they don't

Yes they do.


Have you ever tried zooming in on anything in Dragon Age 2? It's terrible. Origins had decent graphics, and far superior face detail and armor detail than Dragon Age 2.

That is due entirely to the diffuse and normal maps they created for DA2. The meshes actually have a higher face count and have a more detailed skeleton including bones for animating longer hair. They made them fit the more brighter/vibrant settings in DA2.

[LiquidGrape]

I wouldn't trust someone who claims Isabela is ugly with anything relating to visual appraisal anyway.

Modifié par LiquidGrape, 23 septembre 2011 - 05:24 .

[DarkDragon777]

Sunnie22 wrote...


That is due entirely to the diffuse and normal maps they created for DA2. The meshes actually have a higher face count and have a more detailed skeleton including bones for animating longer hair. They made them fit the more brighter/vibrant settings in DA2.

That's true to some extent, but it certainly isn't visually appealing at all because it's so poorly done, which is why I think Origins overall did a better job at detailing efficiently. DA2 was just ugly. I don't think the enviroments are too vibrant either. Thus, DAO is graphically superior, imo.


And I like your avatar.

Modifié par DarkDragon777, 23 septembre 2011 - 05:26 .

[mesmerizedish]

DarkDragon777 wrote...

PresidentCowboy wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

Yeah, and somehow the graphics look worse than Origins'.<_<

Except they don't

Yes they do.


Have you ever tried zooming in on anything in Dragon Age 2? It's terrible. Origins had decent graphics, and far superior face detail and armor detail than Dragon Age 2.

I've spent the past hour of today and countless hours over the past several days staring at DAII's textures until my eyes couldn't focus anymore. Trust me when I say you're very, very wrong.

[rak72]

My Hawks always have some kind of black spots all over their face. I guess it has something to do with shadows. It is very annoying.

I think the CC would have benefited greatly with more freedom with the sliders.  Also a toolset where we could do things like debug the teeth and more slider options.

Modifié par rak72, 23 septembre 2011 - 05:32 .

[Sunnie]

DarkDragon777 wrote...

Sunnie22 wrote...


That is due entirely to the diffuse and normal maps they created for DA2. The meshes actually have a higher face count and have a more detailed skeleton including bones for animating longer hair. They made them fit the more brighter/vibrant settings in DA2.

That's true to some extent, but it certainly isn't visually appealing at all because it's so poorly done, which is why I think Origins overall did a better job at detailing efficiently. DA2 was just ugly. I don't think the enviroments are too vibrant either. Thus, DAO is graphically superior, imo.


And I like your avatar.

They used a much brighter and vibrant color pallet than in Origins, so from an artistic and technical angle, yes it's more vibrant. You also have to consider that the selection of colors in Origins reflects the dark times where war and death loom over everything in the shadow of the darkspawn hoard. Kirkwall is just a city in a milder region with civil unrest, quite a difference in setting.

[RagingCyclone]

Sunnie22 wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

Sunnie22 wrote...


That is due entirely to the diffuse and normal maps they created for DA2. The meshes actually have a higher face count and have a more detailed skeleton including bones for animating longer hair. They made them fit the more brighter/vibrant settings in DA2.

That's true to some extent, but it certainly isn't visually appealing at all because it's so poorly done, which is why I think Origins overall did a better job at detailing efficiently. DA2 was just ugly. I don't think the enviroments are too vibrant either. Thus, DAO is graphically superior, imo.


And I like your avatar.

They used a much brighter and vibrant color pallet than in Origins, so from an artistic and technical angle, yes it's more vibrant. You also have to consider that the selection of colors in Origins reflects the dark times where war and death loom over everything in the shadow of the darkspawn hoard. Kirkwall is just a city in a milder region with civil unrest, quite a difference in setting.

They also used more vibrant lighting in DA2 which in some instances actually made the graphics worse in some areas and better in others. On another thread I posted shots of the warden armor from DA2 and ported to Origins. While both are identical, the lighting in Origins allowed for a shiny look and actually show reflections on the armor, in DA2 that was missing because of the overpowering effect the lighting had in places. It's another sign to me of the rush that was put into the game for release, otherwise I think the same effect could have been seen in DA2 given the time to tweak the details.

Modifié par RagingCyclone, 23 septembre 2011 - 05:37 .

[DarkDragon777]

Sunnie22 wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

Sunnie22 wrote...


That is due entirely to the diffuse and normal maps they created for DA2. The meshes actually have a higher face count and have a more detailed skeleton including bones for animating longer hair. They made them fit the more brighter/vibrant settings in DA2.

That's true to some extent, but it certainly isn't visually appealing at all because it's so poorly done, which is why I think Origins overall did a better job at detailing efficiently. DA2 was just ugly. I don't think the enviroments are too vibrant either. Thus, DAO is graphically superior, imo.


And I like your avatar.

They used a much brighter and vibrant color pallet than in Origins, so from an artistic and technical angle, yes it's more vibrant. You also have to consider that the selection of colors in Origins reflects the dark times where war and death loom over everything in the shadow of the darkspawn hoard. Kirkwall is just a city in a milder region with civil unrest, quite a difference in setting.

More vibrant colors, in a lot of cases, but not all, mean less detail. The darker and more mellowed out color pallet of Origins allowed for a lot more obvious detail. Minute details in DA2 are meaningless if they can't be made into something greater and overall visually appealing. Also, the drastic change in art style made DA2 feel outlandish and like a game in a different series. Having a war doesn't aoutomatically make the enviroment darker, realistically speaking anyway.

Modifié par DarkDragon777, 23 septembre 2011 - 05:42 .