157 réponses à ce sujet

[Heimdall]

Frankly I thought both were plenty 'generic fantasy' but DA2 was a bit more stylized with less grit. They can keep the style, but I'd like them to add more grit.

[Ariella]

Pygmali0n wrote...

We must remind ourselves that if people don't know, you often can't tell them, you have to show:


Now DA:O wasn't perfect, it was watered-down, but this could say to typify the mindset:




Whereas the following typifies the DA2 mindset (except cleaned-up a little, a little more simplified still, and still not as hard-ass as Conan in general, actually the He-man pic is closer):

I don't see much difference between the two except for the medium, in fact, if I were to judge it was the same subject in different mediums ie painting vs. comic book.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Frankly I thought both were plenty 'generic fantasy' but DA2 was a bit more stylized with less grit. They can keep the style, but I'd like them to add more grit.

DAO was often marketed as "Dark and Gritty".  And to some degree, that did actually describe DAO.

DA2 was not, as far as I know, marketed as dark and gritty.  It was instead marketed as "Awesome", and their implementation of that appears to preclude Dark and Gritty.  I'd be more willing to describe DA2 as flamboyant rather than dark.

[Heimdall]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Frankly I thought both were plenty 'generic fantasy' but DA2 was a bit more stylized with less grit. They can keep the style, but I'd like them to add more grit.

DAO was often marketed as "Dark and Gritty".  And to some degree, that did actually describe DAO.

DA2 was not, as far as I know, marketed as dark and gritty.  It was instead marketed as "Awesome", and their implementation of that appears to preclude Dark and Gritty.  I'd be more willing to describe DA2 as flamboyant rather than dark.

In terms of aesthetics (And some of the combat), 'flamboyant' seems just the word.  If they mix in some grit, I'd like it better.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 07 octobre 2011 - 08:51 .

[tmp7704]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Could you please actually read what I type? Cos I am actually getting really frustrated with trying to communicate with you.

I said basically "there is a perception in the west that animation = cartoon = unrealistic = for kids".

I am reading what you type. Perhaps this is a problem, because it seems i also pay attention to sentences you seem to ignore.

What you actually said, was: "there is a perception in the west that animation = cartoon = unrealistic = for kids, and that's not true because most animation has highly adult themes and is not at all suitable for children."

so, by pointing out that the article you provide has only few examples of such actual 'highly adult' animations, i point out that it contradicts rather than confirm your claim about most animations having adult themes, and that renders your entire argument wrong. Because it's based on this theory that most animation has adult themes etc.

I hope it's clear now, and rather than snap and get frustrated you pay closer attention to what you write yourself, and how it actually reads.

Modifié par tmp7704, 07 octobre 2011 - 08:56 .

[Wulfram]

DA2 was darker than Origins.

Origins is mostly about how the awesome Warden fixes pretty much everything - the exception mostly being the Origins themselves.

DA2 has Hawke failing throughout the game.

[tmp7704]

Ariella wrote...

I don't see much difference between the two except for the medium

The colour palette, the amount of background detail (and the nature of these details) as well as overall theme are quite different. The first picture feels much more 'down to earth' and threatening as a result.

To put it differently, the aesthetics of the second picture as such, you could likely paste a genie from Disney's Aladdin somewhere on the side there, and it'd fit pretty seamlessly. In contrast, the same genie pasted on the first picture would stick out like a sore thumb.

Modifié par tmp7704, 07 octobre 2011 - 09:09 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wulfram wrote...

DA2 was darker than Origins.

Origins is mostly about how the awesome Warden fixes pretty much everything - the exception mostly being the Origins themselves.

DA2 has Hawke failing throughout the game.

It has a darker story, yes.  It does not have a darker mood.  It does not have a darker overall aesthetic.

[Wulfram]

I don't think DA2 it has a lighter mood, or a lighter overall aesthetic.

Kirkwall is all forbidding statues, metal spikes and poverty. Not my idea of fun.

[Heimdall]

Wulfram wrote...

I don't think DA2 it has a lighter mood, or a lighter overall aesthetic.

Kirkwall is all forbidding statues, metal spikes and poverty. Not my idea of fun.

Yes, but it all had an oddly sterile clean feeling...

[Sutekh]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

I don't think DA2 it has a lighter mood, or a lighter overall aesthetic.

Kirkwall is all forbidding statues, metal spikes and poverty. Not my idea of fun.

Yes, but it all had an oddly sterile clean feeling...

Exactly.

It has a stalinist architecture / art feel to it. Clean, with pure lines and neutral colors such as beige and off-white. Quite depressing and desperately lacking grit where it's needed. The statues in particular, while beautiful, are a screaming example of that.



And outdoors have a desert feel to it (since it's mostly coastal), which adds to the whole thing (more beige, pale yellow and grey).

In fact, to me, it's the exact opposite of cartoonish.

[Ariella]

tmp7704 wrote...

Ariella wrote...

I don't see much difference between the two except for the medium

The colour palette, the amount of background detail (and the nature of these details) as well as overall theme are quite different. The first picture feels much more 'down to earth' and threatening as a result.

To put it differently, the aesthetics of the second picture as such, you could likely paste a genie from Disney's Aladdin somewhere on the side there, and it'd fit pretty seamlessly. In contrast, the same genie pasted on the first picture would stick out like a sore thumb.

Thing is they're two completely different mediums which depict the same subject.  You're going to have difference in color pallete etc due to the medium itself. I'm talking about subject matter.

[Heather Cline]

About the OP's post. I liked the graphics just fine. No problem with them an improvement over DA:O's graphic engine. I disliked the fact that almost every Hawke I created looked the same because the face creation system was simplified from DA:O's face creation system. That said I liked the combat and not everyone is like you and plays on Nightmare difficulty. Not everyone can play a game on said difficulty and actually beat it without feeling they are getting their butts handed to them.

I'm sick and tired of the Nightmare playing crowd complaining that the game is too easy. I found the difficulty so damned hard that I had to switch back to casual just to get through the game.

Seriously, stop with the complaining already and enjoy the game for what it is. If you want a difficult game go and buy one that when you get hit once 3/4 of your life gauge is gone.

End of Line.

[tmp7704]

Ariella wrote...

Thing is they're two completely different mediums which depict the same subject.  You're going to have difference in color pallete etc due to the medium itself. I'm talking about subject matter.

The medium doesn't dictate colour palette, subject nor the amount of detail you put in the picture. These are artist's choices. That first painting could be done just as well in the style of the second image, and vice versa. They aren't, and this difference is what i think Pygmali0n is trying to get across.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wulfram wrote...

I don't think DA2 it has a lighter mood, or a lighter overall aesthetic.

The art and animations are so fanciful.

As for the poverty, the peasants of DA2 are better dressed than the peasants of DAO.

[Ponendus]

I actually think the lighting had an enormous effect. For me DA2 simply looked brighter than the original. It lessened the dark, adult mood in my eyes.

[Bryy_Miller]

Teddie Sage wrote...

You mean, more mature. Adult and Mature are two different stuff. I don't really want to play a rated R game, if you see what I mean.

This.

And people often forget that DA2 had some pretty dark stuff: the entire Serial Killer quest, the Templar that uses his powers to get sexual favors from Tranquil. Hell, even The Event which triggers the war in the first place.

[Maria Caliban]

'Darkness' in a game* is as much about presentation as actual content. Amnesia: The Dark Descent is one of the best examples of how relatively benign content can be manipulated to feel foreboding, dangerous, and dark. You don't actually meet the first 'monster' until about 1/3 of the way through the game, but the atmosphere will have you scared throughout.

Atmosphere is difficult to quantify and the average person doesn't know enough about visual and auto aesthetics to easily talk about it, but it has a strong impact on the play experience.

*Which is not the same as maturity.

[ScotGaymer]

tmp7704 wrote...

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Could you please actually read what I type? Cos I am actually getting really frustrated with trying to communicate with you.

I said basically "there is a perception in the west that animation = cartoon = unrealistic = for kids".

I am reading what you type. Perhaps this is a problem, because it seems i also pay attention to sentences you seem to ignore.

What you actually said, was: "there is a perception in the west that animation = cartoon = unrealistic = for kids, and that's not true because most animation has highly adult themes and is not at all suitable for children."

so, by pointing out that the article you provide has only few examples of such actual 'highly adult' animations, i point out that it contradicts rather than confirm your claim about most animations having adult themes, and that renders your entire argument wrong. Because it's based on this theory that most animation has adult themes etc.

I hope it's clear now, and rather than snap and get frustrated you pay closer attention to what you write yourself, and how it actually reads.

See saying "most animation" doesnt actually change the main thrust of what I was saying, nor does the fact that TVTropes only has some examples (they only ever have some examples because thats what an example is for) up of it mean that what I said is in any way "untrue".

When you make an arguement do you list out every single example you can think of that supports your point of view? Or do you list out the most relevant and hope the other person gets the idea?

It doesnt contradict my claim at all. Though perhaps "most" was a poor choice of word, perhaps I should have said "a lot of" just to make things that bit clearer since we now seem to be arguing over semantics and minutae rather than the actual point now.

Also I wasnt snapping at you. i was informing you that I was finding it difficult to communicate with you as you dont seem to be getting my main point (I wasnt blaming you either) and I didnt know how to make myself any clearer since I thought I had been as clear as crystal.

Oh well.

It hardly matters anyway. And if I keep trying to clear up my point the thread is probably going to get massively off topic because I dont seem able to get my point across alas.

Modifié par FitScotGaymer, 08 octobre 2011 - 11:46 .

[Pygmali0n]

Ariella wrote...

Thing is they're two completely different mediums which depict the same subject.  You're going to have difference in color pallete etc due to the medium itself. I'm talking about subject matter.

It's not what you say but how you say it.

(Forgive the not great examples coming up, but I have the fault where I don't have the patience to keep on repeating the same point in a way to guarantee you'd understand)

'Daddy fought bravely but now he's gone to heaven.'

'Jim stormed the beach head in a hail of bullets. Despite being shot in the arm, shattering his radius, and a grenade explosion forcing one of his eyes out of the socket, he disabled a machine gun post, gutting two of the enemy with his bayonet and fatally shooting three more, before being brutally disintegrated by friendly fire from a PIAT.'

Modifié par Pygmali0n, 08 octobre 2011 - 04:28 .

[tmp7704]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

See saying "most animation" doesnt actually change the main thrust of what I was saying, nor does the fact that TVTropes only has some examples (they only ever have some examples because thats what an example is for) up of it mean that what I said is in any way "untrue".

It doesn't change the thrust of what you're saying, indeed -- it's the base of said thrust. That's why pointing out this base is incorrect renders the argument false.

To put it another way, our exchange is similar to:

"there is this impression that cars are product for adults but that's false because a lot of cars is being bought by kids"
"there's actually just few known examples of kids buying cars."

(meaning the rest i.e. bulk of the production gets bought by non-kids, i.e. adults)

as long as you can't prove the foundation of the argument (or that foundation gets disproven) the conclusion you build from it is unfounded at best, or wrong at worst.

When you make an arguement do you list out every single example you can think of that supports your point of view? Or do you list out the most relevant and hope the other person gets the idea?

If the argument i'm trying to make is that large percentage of product X has trait Y, then i sure as heck try to list as many examples which support this view as i can muster (well, technically that's what samples and tables and statistics are for rather than 'examples', but that's another story) Because this way the other person doesn't get the opposite idea, that my argument may be unfounded.

In other words, if my argument is "a lot of people world-wide eat hamburgers" and then under "examples of people who eat hamburgers" i have listed "Jim and Ted", then that is, at best, meaningless. It does nothing to prove that many people in fact eat hamburgers. A normal person who reads that is likely to wonder why, if a lot of people world-wide do indeed eat hamburgers, there's only couple examples provided when it should be trivial to list many, many more.

Note, this is different from argument that "people eat hamburgers (at all)" for which few examples can be indeed sufficient.

It hardly matters anyway. And if I keep trying to clear up my point the thread is probably going to get massively off topic because I dont seem able to get my point across alas.

I think it's not as much you can't get your point across, but rather i don't really agree with the method used to arrive to that point (and consequently not really buying it) and i have difficulty explaining why it is.

[Flashing Steel]

Marionetten wrote...

I feel the same. I'd like for dungeons to actually feel foreboding and dangerous much like they do in Dark Souls and its predecessor. Dragon Age II completely failed at this. Having lighthearted moments is fine but when it is more or less incessant it completely ruins the atmosphere. Sign me up for more grit.

I'd also like to see the difficulty improved but with instantly regenerating health and mana I feel as if the franchise is kind of doomed as a dungeon crawler. Remove those cheap elements and bring back proper resource management and I think it would provide for a far more intense experience. Also, it'd make health regenerating and the like far more useful statistically speaking. But yeah, I think the automatic replenishment needs to go.

Couldn't agree more. Upping the difficulty in DA2 seem to result in things taking longer to kill rather than the enemy doing anything different. throughout the game i never really felt like each fight dangerous, they weren't really exciting, just long. As for the dungeons, i suppose seeing the same thing over and over didn't help, but again there wasn't any sense of danger, i never thought once, hmm what could be lurking around this corner? 

[Dormiglione]

@OP
I dont really care about the combat in a rpg game. The story, the revelation,  my possible choices and interactions are what im looking for in a RPG.
More "Adult" can be interpreted in many different ways. So my personal interpretation of more adult are the choices in the storyline and the storyline itself. I dont need more or higher difficulty combat, nor do i need more sex in the romance scenes.
What im looking for is a game that gives me really different personalities to play.

Example:
On my first playthrough (male warrior), lost Carver during escape from lothering,   Bethany died in the deep roads, Hawkes mother died by the hand of a blood mage. Act 3, Meredith claims that Hawke is not even able to protect his own family.
So a protagonist who lost the whole family is offended by meredith and what are the story options? None. A PC who lost everything, that loved his sister, his mother is offended and has options?

A Role Playing Game (RPG) should give several options how to react and it should be reflected in the game, otherwise just make cutscene where i have only to watch what happens to connect on little quest to the next.

[Alyka]

Or....another analogy would be:
DA:O is Batman: The Animated Series
DA2 is Batman Beyond
Yeah, I like that better.It suits.
- Both are set in the Batman/Gotham City universe.
- One is Batman with the original villains.
- The other has a kid dressing up as Batman and villains are altered.
- Both have the same amount of violence.
- One has a calm yet darker feel to it while the other has a faster pace.

Modifié par Alyka, 09 octobre 2011 - 09:00 .