202 réponses à ce sujet

[puppy maclove]

DA2's "art style" cough cough... was terrible. Its one of the many things wrong with the game. The graphics of DA:O while not ground breaking at least worked for the franchise. They had a dark and gritty feel.

The Witcher 1 has better graphics than DA2 & TW2 is just amazing on a decent PC. IMO the more realistic feel or tone of TW2 would be a good direction to take.

If BW persist with the cartoon over the top "style" of DA2 for DA3, then that's a deal breaker for me.

[Plaintiff]

tmp7704 wrote...

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?

Games are not a purely visual medium, they go way beyond what film can accomplish, they are a blending of many artforms so, no, visuals are not the biggest concern. Film is a completely different argument, and the "realism" genre of film, again, has little to do with the visuals, and more to do with actual story content and subject matter.  Realism is far more than simply looking real, which DA:O never acheived in the first place. Not even close.

Also, lololol at using ****ing Gandalf and LOTR as an example of "realism". Yeah, I totally buy the laundry detergent ad riding through a bloody battlefield. He doesn't stick out at all.

Actually, I tell a lie. With all the other ridiculous stuff that happens on screen, he blends right in

Being live-action does not automatically make a film's visuals "realistic". By the same token, it takes more than realisitic visuals to make something "realism" and furthermore, the particular demands of the fantasy genre pretty much ensure that the visuals of films in that genre can never be. The visual art of realism, by its very definition, can only be about real things. 'The Lady of Shalott', painted by John WIlliam Waterhouse looks like a real woman, and she's sitting in a realisitic depitcion of a boat, but the painting is not in the realist style because the Lady of Shalott is a character from Arthurian legend, which makes it an example of fantastic art.

[Plaintiff]

Gibb_Shepard 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.

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".

Way to not read the thread. The battle style came up multiple times before I posted, and it's completely relevant. Nothing that happens in DA:O or DA2 is anything close to realism, so on what basis do you think the art style should be? Are you seriously trying to tell me that you can totally buy everything that happens in DA:O, but only because it looks a particular way? That the only thing that allows you to immerse yourself in a game about fighting demons is the fact that the landscape "looks real" (which it doesn't in DA:O anyway)?

Verisimilitude is not the same thing as realism, by the way.

[Cutlasskiwi]

Since it feels like the games really want to be dark and gritty I would actually like to see if the art style can live up to that. I keep reading that DAO was much more dark and gritty but I'm not seeing it. I think the general themes and storylines in DA2 is an improvement over DAO in that area but I would still like to see the art style reflect that.

If not, then I still prefer the DA2 style over DAO. I like a lot of things, the play with color and most of the new race design being among my favorites, and given the feedback it would be interesting to see how they would improve things. On a side note, I would like them to work with the camera and not have it pointing down so much. Kirkwall had some really nice atmosphere only you had to stop and look for it.

[Plaintiff]

Cutlasskiwi wrote...
On a side note, I would like them to work with the camera and not have it pointing down so much. Kirkwall had some really nice atmosphere only you had to stop and look for it.

This I can get on board with. One big point in DA:O's favour was that it had some awesome views. Redcliffe may have looked like it was made of spit and cardboard, but I loved being able to stand up high and look down at everything going on below and really get a sense of what it must be like to live there.

Sweeping, panoramic views really help to create a sense of grandeur, and they greatly help my personal immersion in a game. I think Sundermount had an okay one, but that was kind of it.

Overall though, DA2 was still an improvement over Origins. In Origins (and Awakening too, come to that), everywhere you went looked pretty much the same. It goes far beyond grainy textures and copy/pasted mooks. I didn't feel like there were any distinct differences between three major races at all. I got very little of the sense that dwarves and elves had their own unique cultures, and locations were all pretty samey. Brecillian Forest was the same as the Korcari WIlds, Redcliffe was just a bigger version of Lothering and Amaranthine is just Denerim with a coast.

[King Cousland]

Plaintiff wrote...

Cutlasskiwi wrote...
On a side note, I would like them to work with the camera and not have it pointing down so much. Kirkwall had some really nice atmosphere only you had to stop and look for it.

This I can get on board with. One big point in DA:O's favour was that it had some awesome views. Redcliffe may have looked like it was made of spit and cardboard, but I loved being able to stand up high and look down at everything going on below and really get a sense of what it must be like to live there.

Sweeping, panoramic views really help to create a sense of grandeur, and they greatly help my personal immersion in a game. I think Sundermount had an okay one, but that was kind of it.

Overall though, DA2 was still an improvement over Origins. In Origins (and Awakening too, come to that), everywhere you went looked pretty much the same. It goes far beyond grainy textures and copy/pasted mooks. I didn't feel like there were any distinct differences between three major races at all. I got very little of the sense that dwarves and elves had their own unique cultures, and locations were all pretty samey. Brecillian Forest was the same as the Korcari WIlds, Redcliffe was just a bigger version of Lothering and Amaranthine is just Denerim with a coast.

Not sure whether you're just trying to provoke people (earlier with your pedanticism), but to claim that DAII had more varied locations is laughable. And would you mind explaining just how you got so much more cultural enrichment from DAII? 

Modifié par harkness72, 02 décembre 2011 - 04:43 .

[Wulfram]

jlmaclachlan wrote...

The Witcher 1 has better graphics than DA2

No it doesn't.

[tmp7704]

Plaintiff wrote...

Games are not a purely visual medium, they go way beyond what film can accomplish, they are a blending of many artforms so, no, visuals are not the biggest concern.

No one said purely visual medium. But they're largely relying on visuals and as such these are important.

The visual art of realism, by its very definition, can only be about real things.

I think you're well aware when people use "realism" in these discussions, they use it in the --common when discussing computer graphics-- sense of "lifelike, naturalistic depiction of a subject" referring to technical fidelity, and not "specific art movement from 19th century". And that makes this angle of discussion very much a dance with strawmen.

[Aaleel]

Ostagar (Hands down the best area and atmosphere in either game (IMHO)



Urn of Sacred Ashes Caverns and Deep Roads



Orzamarr and Vigil's Keep



No distinct cultural differences in the Architecture, the look or the feel?  Really?  All these areas look the same, Really?? 

In DA2 all the areas looked the same, because they WERE the same.  The exact same area over and over again.

Modifié par Aaleel, 02 décembre 2011 - 05:09 .

[Wulfram]

Aaleel wrote...

Ostagar (Hands down the best area and atmosphere in either game (IMHO)

Though the mountains looked rubbish.

[puppy maclove]

Wulfram wrote...

jlmaclachlan wrote...

The Witcher 1 has better graphics than DA2

No it doesn't.

yes...... it does... 

[Aaleel]

Wulfram wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Ostagar (Hands down the best area and atmosphere in either game (IMHO)

Though the mountains looked rubbish.

Yeah, but it was hands down the best designed level and atmosphere in either game.  The music, the ambient sounds.  There were actually guards patrolling, you had the mages practicing, the sisters chanting.  Elves were cleaning up the one area, the captain was talking to his knights, the archery range.  The kennel, with different dogs barking.  The dogs got up, laid down, dug in the ground.  It was all one continuous area. 

Before you went to the tower the sky got dark, there was thunder and lightning flashing and cracking in the background.  Just the best they did.  It's just too bad it was the first common area you ever came to in a DA game.

Modifié par Aaleel, 02 décembre 2011 - 05:14 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

Plaintiff wrote...

Gibb_Shepard 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.

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".

Way to not read the thread. The battle style came up multiple times before I posted, and it's completely relevant. Nothing that happens in DA:O or DA2 is anything close to realism, so on what basis do you think the art style should be? Are you seriously trying to tell me that you can totally buy everything that happens in DA:O, but only because it looks a particular way? That the only thing that allows you to immerse yourself in a game about fighting demons is the fact that the landscape "looks real" (which it doesn't in DA:O anyway)?

Verisimilitude is not the same thing as realism, by the way.

Thats the damn point. Verisimilitude is creating something that can pass off as true or real. When people say they want realism that is moreso what they mean; something that they can identify as being somewhat true to life. Just because the game has magic does not mean it has to suddenly make navels multidimensional or the clouds Lucipher's spies. Realism, or the more apt word, verisimilitude, is still somewhat required in a fantastical setting. In DA, some people want more verisimiltude than others, and telling them that because magic is more important than genetics in DA means everything has to follow that same trend, is completely wrong.

[tmp7704]

Wulfram wrote...

Though the mountains looked rubbish.

Sadly, they didn't get that much better



It's possibly because DA engine doesn't seem to include the skyboxes and so that's regular geometry with textures... which is madness.

[Plaintiff]

harkness72 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Cutlasskiwi wrote...
On a side note, I would like them to work with the camera and not have it pointing down so much. Kirkwall had some really nice atmosphere only you had to stop and look for it.

This I can get on board with. One big point in DA:O's favour was that it had some awesome views. Redcliffe may have looked like it was made of spit and cardboard, but I loved being able to stand up high and look down at everything going on below and really get a sense of what it must be like to live there.

Sweeping, panoramic views really help to create a sense of grandeur, and they greatly help my personal immersion in a game. I think Sundermount had an okay one, but that was kind of it.

Overall though, DA2 was still an improvement over Origins. In Origins (and Awakening too, come to that), everywhere you went looked pretty much the same. It goes far beyond grainy textures and copy/pasted mooks. I didn't feel like there were any distinct differences between three major races at all. I got very little of the sense that dwarves and elves had their own unique cultures, and locations were all pretty samey. Brecillian Forest was the same as the Korcari WIlds, Redcliffe was just a bigger version of Lothering and Amaranthine is just Denerim with a coast.

Not sure whether you're just trying to provoke people (earlier with your pedanticism), but to claim that DAII had more varied locations is laughable. And would you mind explaining just how you got so much more cultural enrichment from DAII? 

I'm sorry if my knowing what words actually mean upsets you.

DA2's locations were more varied, there were just less of them. Copy/pasted maps are irrelevent to the issue as I see it, I'm talking about overall atmosphere. Sundermount has a clearly different feel from the Wounded Coast which has a clearly different feel from Hightown which, in turn, has a completely different feel from Lowtown and Darktown.

By focussing on one central area and how it changes over time, I got a better sense of the politics and lore of Thedas that I didn't get when I was running around Ferelden, even with the Landsmeet.

From my repeat visits to Sundermount I got a clearer impression about how the elves differ from humans culturally, in their beliefs and the way they behave, which I never really paid much attention to before because I don't read the codex. And you can say that's my own fault, but I don't see why I should have to read the codex. Infodumping in text is a poor way to convey information, particularly when I would have to go out of my way to get it. Now that is a sure-fire way to disrupt your precious realism. 

No game looks real, I have yet to see any graphics anywhere that fooled me into thinking I was looking at an actual human being, or wandering through a real forest. You can dirty it up and make it as gloomy as you want, Ferelden is still very obviously a fake place. So no, graphics do not affect my gaming experience in the least. If some people are unable to move past the paint to the meaning underneath, then that's sad for them.

Verisimilitude doesn't come from appearance, appearance merely helps to convey it. It comes from making the effort to create a world with richness and depth, with its own history and distinct cultures. It comes from making characters that respond in a believable and relatable way to the situations you put them in; you create it by drawing from human experience. DAO has verisimilitude, but it does a poor job of conveying it: In DAO, everyone dresses the same and everyone sounds the same, and the only obvious difference is height. The elves and dwarves all wore the same clothing as humans do, except for bared midriffs for the women, and both races have similar accents. I got a better impression of the difference between Orlais, Antiva and Ferelden than I did of the differences between elves and dwarves, which is saying something because I actually go to see the elves and dwarves, where as I only hear about Orlais and Antiva secondhand.

[Wulfram]

@jlmaclachlan

The Witcher does a good job considering it's using NWN's old engine, but it's a long way off either DA.

It does at least populate it's city a better than DA2, though this is countered by all the clones running around, even of major NPCs.

tmp7704 wrote...

Sadly, they didn't get that much better

The DA2 mountains are a hell of a lot better than the Origins mountains

[Plaintiff]

jlmaclachlan wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

jlmaclachlan wrote...

The Witcher 1 has better graphics than DA2

No it doesn't.

yes...... it does... 

Gross, what's up with his brow ridge? His face looks like pulled taffy.

Yeuch. If that's "realism", give me "cartoony" any day of the week. A shaved gorilla in human clothes is far more immersion-breaking than anything you'll find in DA2. I hope to god that's just an unfotunate angle.

At least Hawke and companions actually fit in the world that's been made for them. Art style only disrupts verisimilitude when it lacks constiency within the game itself. Skyrim has the same problem: beautiful scenery, hideous everybody.

[tmp7704]

Plaintiff wrote...

DA2's locations were more varied, there were just less of them.

DA2 had a city, a cave, two (or was it three?) generic interiors, mountain exterior, hilly exterior with a coast, and dark roads.
DA had its own rendition for all of these, plus a few more.

So, no. Not more varied and indeed less of them.

Sundermount has a clearly different feel from the Wounded Coast which has a clearly different feel from Hightown which, in turn, has a completely different feel from Lowtown and Darktown.

Haven had a clearly different feel from the mage tower which in turn had a clearly different feel from Ostagar which, in turn had a completely different feel from Denerim and Orzammar.

By focussing on one central area and how it changes over time, I got a better sense of the politics and lore of Thedas that I didn't get when I was running around Ferelden, even with the Landsmeet.

There's no changes over time, the areas are reused throughout the game.

[Gibb_Shepard]

His brow ridge? Wtf is this Americas next top model? **** dude, you're just pulling crap out of a hat now.

Goodnight, it's my bed time.

[tmp7704]

Wulfram wrote...

The DA2 mountains are a hell of a lot better than the Origins mountains

There's a higher resolution texture put over similarly limited mesh, and in both cases the whole 'range' is literally single mountain deep. The fog is more merficul on the DA2 version, being more thick.

[Plaintiff]

tmp7704 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

DA2's locations were more varied, there were just less of them.

DA2 had a city, a cave, two (or was it three?) generic interiors, mountain exterior, hilly exterior with a coast, and dark roads.
DA had its own rendition for all of these, plus a few more.

So, no. Not more varied and indeed less of them.

Sundermount has a clearly different feel from the Wounded Coast which has a clearly different feel from Hightown which, in turn, has a completely different feel from Lowtown and Darktown.

Haven had a clearly different feel from the mage tower which in turn had a clearly different feel from Ostagar which, in turn had a completely different feel from Denerim and Orzammar.

By focussing on one central area and how it changes over time, I got a better sense of the politics and lore of Thedas that I didn't get when I was running around Ferelden, even with the Landsmeet.

There's no changes over time, the areas are reused throughout the game.

I'm not talking about appearance, the whole point I've been trying to make is that appearance is irrelevent. Way to miss the point.

Read my posts or don't reply to them.

[Wulfram]

@tmp I'm not saying DA2's mountains are great, but they don't make me think "ugh, that looks rubbish" every time I see them.

Plaintiff wrote...

DA2's locations were more varied, there were just less of them. Copy/pasted maps are irrelevent to the issue as I see it, I'm talking about overall atmosphere. Sundermount has a clearly different feel from the Wounded Coast which has a clearly different feel from Hightown which, in turn, has a completely different feel from Lowtown and Darktown.

Darktown just looks like one of the 50,000 warehouses and sewers and the Hanged man all with that generic woody stone texture.  It's not even dark.

The Dalish camp in Origins is far superior


as is the Alienage.

Which in DA2 looks ridiculously nice for what's supposed to be a slum.

And you've got distinctive places like the Ruined Temple

or Orzammar

[Plaintiff]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

His brow ridge? Wtf is this Americas next top model? **** dude, you're just pulling crap out of a hat now.

Goodnight, it's my bed time.

I never said I wasn't vain. I want my character to look good in the context of the world he's in. Hawke looks like he fits in his game, the neanderthal does not.

[King Cousland]

Plaintiff wrote...

harkness72 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Cutlasskiwi wrote...
On a side note, I would like them to work with the camera and not have it pointing down so much. Kirkwall had some really nice atmosphere only you had to stop and look for it.

This I can get on board with. One big point in DA:O's favour was that it had some awesome views. Redcliffe may have looked like it was made of spit and cardboard, but I loved being able to stand up high and look down at everything going on below and really get a sense of what it must be like to live there.

Sweeping, panoramic views really help to create a sense of grandeur, and they greatly help my personal immersion in a game. I think Sundermount had an okay one, but that was kind of it.

Overall though, DA2 was still an improvement over Origins. In Origins (and Awakening too, come to that), everywhere you went looked pretty much the same. It goes far beyond grainy textures and copy/pasted mooks. I didn't feel like there were any distinct differences between three major races at all. I got very little of the sense that dwarves and elves had their own unique cultures, and locations were all pretty samey. Brecillian Forest was the same as the Korcari WIlds, Redcliffe was just a bigger version of Lothering and Amaranthine is just Denerim with a coast.

Not sure whether you're just trying to provoke people (earlier with your pedanticism), but to claim that DAII had more varied locations is laughable. And would you mind explaining just how you got so much more cultural enrichment from DAII? 

I'm sorry if my knowing what words actually mean upsets you.

DA2's locations were more varied, there were just less of them. Copy/pasted maps are irrelevent to the issue as I see it, I'm talking about overall atmosphere. Sundermount has a clearly different feel from the Wounded Coast which has a clearly different feel from Hightown which, in turn, has a completely different feel from Lowtown and Darktown.

By focussing on one central area and how it changes over time, I got a better sense of the politics and lore of Thedas that I didn't get when I was running around Ferelden, even with the Landsmeet.

From my repeat visits to Sundermount I got a clearer impression about how the elves differ from humans culturally, in their beliefs and the way they behave, which I never really paid much attention to before because I don't read the codex. And you can say that's my own fault, but I don't see why I should have to read the codex. Infodumping in text is a poor way to convey information, particularly when I would have to go out of my way to get it. Now that is a sure-fire way to disrupt your precious realism. 

No game looks real, I have yet to see any graphics anywhere that fooled me into thinking I was looking at an actual human being, or wandering through a real forest. You can dirty it up and make it as gloomy as you want, Ferelden is still very obviously a fake place. So no, graphics do not affect my gaming experience in the least. If some people are unable to move past the paint to the meaning underneath, then that's sad for them.

Verisimilitude doesn't come from appearance, appearance merely helps to convey it. It comes from making the effort to create a world with richness and depth, with its own history and distinct cultures. It comes from making characters that respond in a believable and relatable way to the situations you put them in; you create it by drawing from human experience. DAO has verisimilitude, but it does a poor job of conveying it: In DAO, everyone dresses the same and everyone sounds the same, and the only obvious difference is height. The elves and dwarves all wore the same clothing as humans do, except for bared midriffs for the women, and both races have similar accents. I got a better impression of the difference between Orlais, Antiva and Ferelden than I did of the differences between elves and dwarves, which is saying something because I actually go to see the elves and dwarves, where as I only hear about Orlais and Antiva secondhand.

Nobody's saying you have to read the codex, but just by looking at the alienage in Dnerim you could immediately see it was full of pestilence (you could almost see the misery so to speak). In DAII, the Alienage looked pretty much the same as any other area of Lowtown, heck it even seemed a little cleaner (albeit cramped). I agree that appearance isn't the be all and end all when it comes to verisimilitude, but people aren't advocating absolute reality in games (ie, where it seems like games are "live-action"). The point is is that DA:O's art style, while remaining clearly virtual, bore more resemblence to the real world than the rounded, overly bright and cartoonish style of DAII. We can see this in everytrhing from characters:

DA:O

DAII

 to flora:

DA:O

DAII

[Plaintiff]

Wulfram wrote...

@tmp I'm not saying DA2's mountains are great, but they don't make me think "ugh, that looks rubbish" every time I see them.

Plaintiff wrote...

DA2's locations were more varied, there were just less of them. Copy/pasted maps are irrelevent to the issue as I see it, I'm talking about overall atmosphere. Sundermount has a clearly different feel from the Wounded Coast which has a clearly different feel from Hightown which, in turn, has a completely different feel from Lowtown and Darktown.

Darktown just looks like one of the 50,000 warehouses and sewers and the Hanged man all with that generic woody stone texture.  It's not even dark.

The Dalish camp in Origins is far superior


as is the Alienage.

Which in DA2 looks ridiculously nice for what's supposed to be a slum.

And you've got distinctive places like the Ruined Temple

or Orzammar

I can admit that those are some pretty nice pictures, but I never saw anything like that in the game I was playing. Those angles don't look like anything I could acheive in the actual gameplay.

It helps that they're all from a distance, I already said that DA's panoramas are impressive. Up close, everything is still pretty ****ing ugly. And the alienage buildings still look they were made of spit and cardboard, just like Lothering and Redcliffe and... really anywhere with a house at all.

And it doesn't alter my original argument, that DA2's verisimilitude is not affected by its art direction. At least, not for me.