202 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

Plaintiff wrote...



In Origins it was very difficult to make a Warden that I didn't find utterly hideous, so DA2 will always be the clear winner in my eyes. I don't find it "cartoony" at all, and even if I did, I'd prefer cartoony over grotesque.

This is precisely why the Dalish Elf took me the longest to ever finish in terms of my 4 main playthroughs (Human Noble, Human Mage, Dwarf Noble who is my personal favorite, and Dalish Elf).

I could never make a Dalish Elf that I liked because there wasn't an appropriate hairstyle and because I didn't like how the Elves were just shorter versions of LotR Elves.

Granted, I still wouldn't be able to make a Dalish Elf that I liked with their new look because the hairstyle still isn't present. I wanted really long hair, but Bioware made it so that the only long hair style stopped at the bottom of the neck.

I wanted longer hair.

My Dwarf Noble -- who is my avatar on here -- and my Human Noble however are perfect. I am always happy to recreate their looks for new playthroughs.

Xanthos Aeducan and Damaeus Cousland.

[Gibb_Shepard]

I despise DA2's art style, i really do. Change in previously established creatures (Such as Darkspawn and Qunari) is not what i'm referring to. The general artstyle has no place. DAO fell in the the generic LOTR category, but at least it had style. Despite the poor graphics, it's style still gave off a terrific form of realism. DA2 is just....bland. It's nothing. I suppose i could be defined as more "cartoony", and the combat animations really do not help with that. The horridly unshaded and flurescent colours that plague DA2's character design is just crap.

Even the character creator severely limits your characters uniqueness. I just can't fathom why such a step back was taken. Sure, change the creature art, but not the entire ****ing artstyle. Just.....*sigh*

[Aaleel]

Plaintiff wrote...

You realise, I hope, that a lot of the buildings in Kirkwall, in Lowtown and Darktown in particular, are, in fact, made of wood?

Also, stone walls aren't especially attractive in general, and plenty of people IRL prefer wood panelling for the interior of their houses, at least in sections, so I don't see what's particularly immersion-breaking. There are plenty of interior areas with stone walls as well.

First off that's supposed to be stone, so the fact that you think it's wood says all that needs to be said.

And two, a couple of places I can see, BUT....

Darktown.


Ferelden imports


Hanged Man


Vimmark mountains (Which aren't even Kirkwall or in the area of Kirkwall.


Alienage


Warehouse, mine, sewer, or whatever it was being called at the time of the recycle.


I could do this all day.  TOO MUCH and just lazy to copy and paste this ugly stuff everywhere.

Modifié par Aaleel, 02 décembre 2011 - 04:10 .

[Chuvvy]

Aaleel wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

You realise, I hope, that a lot of the buildings in Kirkwall, in Lowtown and Darktown in particular, are, in fact, made of wood?

Also, stone walls aren't especially attractive in general, and plenty of people IRL prefer wood panelling for the interior of their houses, at least in sections, so I don't see what's particularly immersion-breaking. There are plenty of interior areas with stone walls as well.

First off that's supposed to be stone, so the fact that you think it's wood says all that needs to be said.

And two, a couple of places I can see, BUT....

Darktown.

Damn, I'd forgotten how bland DA2 was.

[Plaintiff]

Aaleel wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

You realise, I hope, that a lot of the buildings in Kirkwall, in Lowtown and Darktown in particular, are, in fact, made of wood?

Also, stone walls aren't especially attractive in general, and plenty of people IRL prefer wood panelling for the interior of their houses, at least in sections, so I don't see what's particularly immersion-breaking. There are plenty of interior areas with stone walls as well.

First off that's supposed to be stone, so the fact that you think it's wood says all that needs to be said.

And two, a couple of places I can see, BUT....

*snip*

You can see in that last picture how the wood and stone actually differ from each other. Just sayin'. 

[bandfred]

Besides the qunari and a hybrid of DAO and DA2 elves and genlocks, the entire art direction needs to be thrown out.

[Tommyspa]

I would prefer DA to continue the current direction. The armor style, racial redesigns are much more unique than Origins. And when you are playing a semi-high fantasy type game I do not think there needs to be ultra bland uniform armors/clothes for all NPCs that are all the same for the PC, it makes everything forcibly too bland. The architecture and backdrops for main environments are also aesthetically superior in DA2. Point goes to DA2.

[snfonseka]

I prefer realistic too.

[DeathDragon185]

Gunderic wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Monica83 wrote...

DeathDragon185 wrote...

I hate the gritty realistic style of games. too brown for my tastes, make backgrounds beautiful to look at... not this brown **** in just about every game.

also fenris,sebastion orsino and femhawke are great examples of how a character SHOULD look like. btw Witcher 2 was an ugly game.

troll aptent fail....

I want to say that you calling someone else a troll (for giving their opinion, no less) is ironic. But that's not the proper definition.

I'll use it anyway. It's totally ironic for you to be calling others trolls. 

-- Fenris looks good.
-- The Witcher 2 was an ugly game.


Sounds like trolling to me tbh.

The Witcher 2 was ugly to me. even though it was beautiful in some parts it didn't really look as good as people think it does. I guess my standards are set too high after  FFXIII?.

[DeathDragon185]

If you want realism then look outside the ****ing widow!!!.

I prefer the over-top animations as it makes the battles better to look at and makes the game feel less of a drag. I am still amazed people want realism in a FANTASY game.

[Plaintiff]

DeathDragon185 wrote...

If you want realism then look outside the ****ing widow!!!.

I prefer the over-top animations as it makes the battles better to look at and makes the game feel less of a drag. I am still amazed people want realism in a FANTASY game.

What amazes me is that their idea of "realism" is being able to call wild animals out of thin air and make it rain arrows.

[tmp7704]

DeathDragon185 wrote...

If you want realism then look outside the ****ing widow!!!.

I prefer the over-top animations as it makes the battles better to look at and makes the game feel less of a drag. I am still amazed people want realism in a FANTASY game.

People like being deeply immersed in the experience. Having things look believable helps in that, unsurprisingly. And being immersed helps with "game feeling like a drag", too.

That's why you see people gushing over graphics of Skyrim and the Witcher 2 quite more than they did over DA2, e.g.

[Jerrybnsn]

I just find the wood graining techique (if it's suppose to be wood) that they use in the majority of the buildings to be oppresive on the eyes.

[Jerrybnsn]

Plaintiff wrote...

DeathDragon185 wrote...

If you want realism then look outside the ****ing widow!!!.

I prefer the over-top animations as it makes the battles better to look at and makes the game feel less of a drag. I am still amazed people want realism in a FANTASY game.

What amazes me is that their idea of "realism" is being able to call wild animals out of thin air and make it rain arrows.

The idea of realism is in reference to an art style.  There is no art style called "fantasy".  There is a style called anime which is the same as "cartoony".  There is a genre called fantasy, but there is no genre called realism. If you prefer all your fantasies to be in cartoon art style, that's fine.  I prefer the realism style in my fantasies.

[Plaintiff]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

DeathDragon185 wrote...

If you want realism then look outside the ****ing widow!!!.

I prefer the over-top animations as it makes the battles better to look at and makes the game feel less of a drag. I am still amazed people want realism in a FANTASY game.

What amazes me is that their idea of "realism" is being able to call wild animals out of thin air and make it rain arrows.

The idea of realism is in reference to an art style.  There is no art style called "fantasy".  There is a style called anime which is the same as "cartoony".  There is a genre called fantasy, but there is no genre called realism. If you prefer all your fantasies to be in cartoon art style, that's fine.  I prefer the realism style in my fantasies.

Except that's clearly not the only thing they mean, since the battle system keeps coming up in this thread and others like it.

"Genre" and "style" are synonymous when talking about viusal art, and actually, there is a style of art called "fantastic art", that, as you probably guessed from the name, typically deals with fantasy subjects. "Realism" in the visual arts refers precisely to a style of painting that depicts the actuality of what our eyes see, which means fantasy subjects don't count.

There is also a genre of fiction known as "literary realism", which is about depicting life the way it is, and authors recount mundane events as they are, without stylizing them in the way that fiction often does.

It's pretty obvious that DA:O was never intended to convey any sense of visual realism. It was always stylized. Nothing and nobody in it looks "real" and they never ever will. Gritty =/= real. "Realism" in a fantasy world comes from creating a sense of depth and history, from making characters that behave and react in a believable and relatable way. Visuals aren't important, reading a book can create the same sense of realism that exists in Dragon Age.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 02 décembre 2011 - 01:09 .

[Fox In The Box]

DA2's art is very... stylized and clean, which is not at all a bad thing, but it isn't the sort of look I would normally associate with the whole gritty/dark theme that Dragon Age has going on. So for this particular setting, I would personally prefer the art to be less stylized.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Plaintiff wrote...

DeathDragon185 wrote...

If you want realism then look outside the ****ing widow!!!.

I prefer the over-top animations as it makes the battles better to look at and makes the game feel less of a drag. I am still amazed people want realism in a FANTASY game.

What amazes me is that their idea of "realism" is being able to call wild animals out of thin air and make it rain arrows.

This is about artstyle and you know it, don't go bringing in irrelevant points to prove your opinion.

@ Deathdragon: People like you are honeslty heirs to the derp throne. Look up this word for me: "Versimilitude".

[Jerrybnsn]

Well I'll be darn....there is a genre called realism. Which, as I have been reading, is really hard to define. The best description to call the realism genre in literature seems to be contemporary and mundane. But the subject of the thread was the art style nonetheless, and fantasy art would just be a genre of that. Again, I think the realism artwork of an Edgar Rice Burroughs has a solid place in fantasy.

[tmp7704]

Plaintiff wrote...

Visuals aren't important, reading a book can create the same sense of realism that exists in Dragon Age.

Visuals are the core in visual medium. You might as well say the writing style doesn't matter in a book.

edit: as for the "realism can't be used to portray fantasy" thing...



have fun explaining how fantasy movies work, using this theory -- do their visuals count as "realism" as long as you aren't aware about the exact nature of the subject, or never at all?

Modifié par tmp7704, 02 décembre 2011 - 01:43 .

[Aaleel]

Let's look at these two pics from a similar situation.



You have different genders, body types, weapons, classes etc in the first pic.



Look at the warriors in the second, once again, copied and pasted, it's the same warrior, same exact weapon aside from the one standing way in the back. Look at the faces, the mouths and stuff, they don't even look like real people. 

Modifié par Aaleel, 02 décembre 2011 - 01:37 .

[thats1evildude]

Really? The distinctiveness of enemy mooks? That's a sticking point?

I see little difference between the two images. The nameless mooks in both pictures are all wearing identical suits of armor. The only difference is that some of the guardsmen in the first picture are clearly female.

In both pictures, the important NPCs are clearly distinct from the mooks surrounding them.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 02 décembre 2011 - 02:01 .

[Aaleel]

thats1evildude wrote...

Really? The distinctiveness of enemy mooks? That's a sticking point?

There's little difference between the guardsmen in the first picture and the slavers in the second picture. Yes, the slavers' faces don't look real … because they're wearing masks.

It's the SAME slaver over and over again.  My point was that like the backgrounds in the other pictures it's just copy and pasted over and over and over, as if no effort was even put into these areas.

[thats1evildude]

Aaleel wrote...

It's the SAME slaver over and over again.  My point was that like the backgrounds in the other pictures it's just copy and pasted over and over and over, as if no effort was even put into these areas.

And in the first picture, it's the same guardsman over and over again. The only real distinction is that some are female and some are male. These Tevinter slavers are all male, but I've killed plenty of gender-mixed gangs in DA2.

But really, what does it matter?  They're mooks. Their significance is measured in the time it takes for me to kill them.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 02 décembre 2011 - 02:06 .

[Aaleel]

thats1evildude wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

It's the SAME slaver over and over again.  My point was that like the backgrounds in the other pictures it's just copy and pasted over and over and over, as if no effort was even put into these areas.

And in the first picture, it's the same guardsman over and over again. The only real distinction is that some are female and some are male. These Tevinter slavers are all male, but I've killed plenty of gender-mixed gangs in DA2.

But really, what does it matter?  They're mooks. Their significance is measured in the time it takes for me to kill them.

Well one in the back like I said in the first post has a different weapon, and it's still the exact same knight.

And it matters because like copying and pasting that ugly stone (looks like wood) pattern everywhere just screams laziness and lack of effort.  By themsleves they're small, but after so many instances you just say WTH.