131 réponses à ce sujet

[force192]

I liked the new look for the elves and the Qunari they looked unique unlike the ones in DA:O but I hated the look for the darkspawn they just looked so dumb. As for the combat I think DA2 was too fast and some of the animations were cheesy while DA:O combat was too slow and boring, I think there has to be a middle ground.

[Dabrikishaw]

I found Dragon Age: Origins to have better looking enviroments and Dragon Age II to have better looking or more unique character renders.

Combat was awful for me in Origins on a first play through, only to need to finish it for the sake of saying I did kept me going. When I found out about tome-duping, I do it on every subsequent play through so I could kill trash mobs in one sword swing, arrow shot, or fireball. I vastly prefer 2's combat and speed.

[eroeru]

StElmo wrote...

Vicious wrote...

The problem with DA:O's art style was it was extremely generic. All the armors were a palette swap. You could not look like the Warden in the trailer. Darkspawn looked like orks, the Ogres and the Genlocks being the main offenders to this. It looked like generic kinda-tolkien-but-not fantasy.


But The art style is moving along, and eventually Bioware will figure out that zombified monster DA:O Darkspawn = cooler, Orks = not cool,  and nobody really likes Mages wearing robes anymore.



That said, I think the only thing that they guaranteed would return in DA3 would be the voiced protagonist.

But I highly doubt they'll go back to the DA:O days of art style. Hopefully they just keep progressing.

DA:O looks droll. I hate it;s look and the gameplay is slow.

If people want old DA:O graphics, I think they are being unecessarily traditionalist.

Unnecessarily?? You do know how much resources it takes to make a game with latest graphics? A lot. That could easily go to the content of the game, and I'd much prefer that way.

I've never understood what the hell do you people get out of "the-more-flashy-the-better" graphics, really. It's got nothing to do with (artistic) quality.

[StElmo]

eroeru wrote...

StElmo wrote...

Vicious wrote...

The problem with DA:O's art style was it was extremely generic. All the armors were a palette swap. You could not look like the Warden in the trailer. Darkspawn looked like orks, the Ogres and the Genlocks being the main offenders to this. It looked like generic kinda-tolkien-but-not fantasy.


But The art style is moving along, and eventually Bioware will figure out that zombified monster DA:O Darkspawn = cooler, Orks = not cool,  and nobody really likes Mages wearing robes anymore.



That said, I think the only thing that they guaranteed would return in DA3 would be the voiced protagonist.

But I highly doubt they'll go back to the DA:O days of art style. Hopefully they just keep progressing.

DA:O looks droll. I hate it;s look and the gameplay is slow.

If people want old DA:O graphics, I think they are being unecessarily traditionalist.

Unnecessarily?? You do know how much resources it takes to make a game with latest graphics? A lot. That could easily go to the content of the game, and I'd much prefer that way.

I've never understood what the hell do you people get out of "the-more-flashy-the-better" graphics, really. It's got nothing to do with (artistic) quality.

Not talking about flashy, I think the art style serves the game well. My gripe is with people who want their game to look like every other fantasy game - Origin's looks so generic it's not funny, but some people get theuir knickers in a knot about how DA2's artistic differences.

Flashy graphics are irrelevant, the point is, the art style looks aesthetically different and unique and also it is pleasing. If you don't like it, there are hundreds of other games that look like Origin's.

If graphics don't matter, then why do you even care?

[eroeru]

Graphics are one thing, art another, as is quite distinct in my posts.

About "hundreds of other games that look like Origin's" - may I have an example (as I have asked, and never received an answer).

[GodWood]

StElmo wrote...
1) art style, SO MUCH BETTER - by this I mean the STYLE, not the overuse of assets or copy paste level design, JUST the style.

2) combat speed, SO MUCH SNAPPIER - Now, I'm not talking about camera view, tactical options or anything like that, simply the speed of the animation. MUCH better. It's way more satisfying to see yoiur tactics play out at a fast pace. What's a pause button for if your game is going to run as slow as age of empires 1? Snappy action is great.

If Bioware keeps the incohesive art style and the over-the-top 'ButtonAwesome' animations they'll be lucky to have me even pick it up from the bargain bin.

[StElmo]

eroeru wrote...

Graphics are one thing, art another, as is quite distinct in my posts.

About "hundreds of other games that look like Origin's" - may I have an example (as I have asked, and never received an answer).

1. - Read my post, I clearly state the art style, you were the one who brought up graphics.

2. Oblivion, Lord of the Rings, Gothic, Ruisen, Diablo III, Divinity, Warhammer...

I could go on, it all washes into the same style, it's gross. People who like DA:O artstyle are being traditionalists, who don't like change. Sorry, but I prefer my game's to feel unique, not generic as all hell.

DA2 has an excellent, clean and interesting art style and looks very different from any other RPG. This is a bonus.

Sure, they needed more enciroments and assets, but that is irrelevant, the art STYLE was very very good.

[StElmo]

GodWood wrote...

StElmo wrote...
1) art style, SO MUCH BETTER - by this I mean the STYLE, not the overuse of assets or copy paste level design, JUST the style.

2) combat speed, SO MUCH SNAPPIER - Now, I'm not talking about camera view, tactical options or anything like that, simply the speed of the animation. MUCH better. It's way more satisfying to see yoiur tactics play out at a fast pace. What's a pause button for if your game is going to run as slow as age of empires 1? Snappy action is great.

If Bioware keeps the incohesive art style and the over-the-top 'ButtonAwesome' animations they'll be lucky to have me even pick it up from the bargain bin.

So you would prefer slow plooding animations that do nothing but bore the player to tears waitin for their commands to play out?

I never said DA2's tactics were better, or the combat mechanics, simply the speed in which attacks are initiated, making encounters far more useful to PAUSE and PLAY tactically.

[GodWood]

StElmo wrote...
Sure, they needed more enciroments and assets, but that is irrelevant, the art STYLE was very very good.

And a lot of people disagree with that opinion you're passing off as fact.

I personally found DA2's art style to be a complete mess. Most companions were designed in such a way that made the character look like they didn't belong in the world around them and nor did their outfits seem to follow any logical design. Instead they were just a mish-mash of **** that I imagine the art team thought 'looked cool'. Also, the over the top weapons and armour really didn't fit the grounded universe Dragon Age was trying to portray itself as.

The environments were a travesty and looked far too gamey. Kirkwall was empty and lifeless and its scenery followed no logical visual progression.

Now before you whip out your "I must be a traditionalist old fart" label, I will inform you no I'm not. I can appreciate a variety of art styles be they more grounded or 'stylistic' (e.g. Viewtiful Joe). The problem was DA2's artstyle was simply bad. It was an inconhesive mess of unrelated things that failed to portray the world around them.

StElmo wrote...
So you would prefer slow plooding animations that do nothing but bore the player to tears waitin for their commands to play out?

In a game that tries to take itself seriously I'd like death and violence to have the full grunt and impact of what has in real life rather then having characters do backflips and karate kick jars that make their enemies explode like a piñata.

Modifié par GodWood, 06 mai 2012 - 11:47 .

[Great_Horn]

Keep the art style and combat animation from DA:2? Serious?

I fear we will never reach any agreement on this.

1.       Combat: It’s a bit like talking about quantity or quality.

DA:O combat system may feel slowly to some – not to me – it defiantly has a more realistic feeling. Personally DA:O finishing moves are so gratifying and rewarding, nothing DA:2 could ever offer to me.
The DA:2 combat approach is simple sending one wave after another. On normal game setting you doesn’t need any cross-class combos, and with the removal of friendly fire (expect on nightmare) you don’t have to worry about strategy at all. More Hack&Slash style, especially with the exploding bodies.
When I see Isabella wearing only hot pants and a top jumping around like a ninja on speed and killing more raiders than Fallout 1&2 had all together, I sadly can’t enjoy this.
 
2.       Art style. To quote Angry Joe: How come the game (DA:2)  is set in one single city the environment looks so basic and dull. This is as basic as it gets …

IMO the graphic change in DA:2 was a huge let down. A lot of this atmosphere DA:O had created was lost. The original Deep Roads turned into a red-light district, the Darkspawn into some wired gorilla-ghoul -zombie thingies, most guards or raiders wear armor sets which remind me to much from Battelstar Galactica. And while most faces looked good, they are simply to clean. There are even a lot of helmets or masks which I feel they are way too small and thigh so that a normal breathing person could actually wear those.

Personally there were only a few character models I really could watch, like the Arishok, Nathaniel Howe, Meeran, Stroud or  Athenril.

Modifié par Great_Horn, 05 mai 2012 - 01:23 .

[Joy Divison]

StElmo wrote...

So you would prefer slow plooding animations that do nothing but bore the player to tears waitin for their commands to play out?

I never said DA2's tactics were better, or the combat mechanics, simply the speed in which attacks are initiated, making encounters far more useful to PAUSE and PLAY tactically.

To answer your first question, yep.  Because:

1) The enemies are not "snappy" and look stupid in comparison to the PCs.
2) Tactical is not a word that accurately describes DA2's combat.
3) DA2 did not get rid of "shuffling" contrary to what their promotional videos say.  Because of the ridiculous speed in which combar goes, if you try to play tacitically and move, its so slllloooooooooooooooooooow that it is not only incredibly jarring but pointless because your DPS just went down the toilet.
4) The "snappy" mechanic you describe still made the Arishok duel suck.
5) Etc, et al., ad infinitum....

[Mmw04014]

My main gripe is that I don't feel like their is cohesiveness between the Origins style and the DA2 style. They look like two completely different games.

Origin's did have a very generic and traditional feel, and that was exactly why I loved it. I like traditional fantasy and I thought it fit very well with what Dragon Age was trying to accomplish. Colors were dark, yet they popped. Buildings and people had a gritty and almost dirty feel, which I think went well with this medievalish world that was set up.

However, DA2 just completely abandoned this traditional feel for something more distinctive. They could have found a way to maintain what made Origins feel like Origins and still try to make DA2 more distinctive. They didn't do that. Now everything looks washed out and.. clean. There was also a lot less attention to detail in DA2. That isn't a problem with the art style but it does lend to a less visually appealing game, which I think DA2 was.

I also hate the spikes and feathers everyone. They felt out of place and ugly.

[jbrand2002uk]

Mmw04014 wrote...

My main gripe is that I don't feel like their is cohesiveness between the Origins style and the DA2 style. They look like two completely different games.

Origin's did have a very generic and traditional feel, and that was exactly why I loved it. I like traditional fantasy and I thought it fit very well with what Dragon Age was trying to accomplish. Colors were dark, yet they popped. Buildings and people had a gritty and almost dirty feel, which I think went well with this medievalish world that was set up.

However, DA2 just completely abandoned this traditional feel for something more distinctive. They could have found a way to maintain what made Origins feel like Origins and still try to make DA2 more distinctive. They didn't do that. Now everything looks washed out and.. clean. There was also a lot less attention to detail in DA2. That isn't a problem with the art style but it does lend to a less visually appealing game, which I think DA2 was.

I also hate the spikes and feathers everyone. They felt out of place and ugly.

All I can say is thank goodness BW didnt follow the desires of yourself and others that wear rose tinted shades filled with "nostalgia" lenses because then the DA franchise would turn into Tiger Woods where players like myself say "oh gee look they used the same engine making the new game look just like the old one how unimaginative" and then players like you get into an orgasm saying "hey look he's got a new t-shirt".

Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery however lack of inovation purely for the sake of fan worship is just plain bad full stop the end.

[Joy Divison]

So by keeping the DA franchise as it was it would be equivalent to perhaps the greatest golfer who ever walked the planet?

That sounds like to me that it should not have changed...

[eroeru]

StElmo wrote...

eroeru wrote...

Graphics are one thing, art another, as is quite distinct in my posts.

About "hundreds of other games that look like Origin's" - may I have an example (as I have asked, and never received an answer).

:ph34r:1. - Read my post, I clearly state the art style, you were the one who brought up graphics.

:bandit:2. Oblivion, Lord of the Rings, Gothic, Ruisen, Diablo III, Divinity, Warhammer...

I could go on, it all washes into the same style, it's gross. People who like DA:O artstyle are being traditionalists, who don't like change. Sorry, but I prefer my game's to feel unique, not generic as all hell.

DA2 has an excellent, clean and interesting art style and looks very different from any other RPG. This is a bonus.

Sure, they needed more enciroments and assets, but that is irrelevant, the art STYLE was very very good.

:ph34r:1. Ok, I'll quote you once again:

StElmo wrote...


DA:O looks droll. I hate it;s look and the gameplay is slow.

If people want old DA:O graphics, I think they are being unecessarily traditionalist.

:bandit:2. You can get distinctive differences in art between all of them and DA:O (though some are indeed very similar - the Gothic series, Divinity 2 and Risen the most)

Divinity 2 - bloomy. Unlike DA.


Risen - bloom, bloom and more bloom. Not like DA:O more dark and neat lines.


Oblivion - VERY distinctive


LOTRO - just as similar to DA:O as to DA2 (edit: no, I think this actually reminds me of DA2 more - the colors more than anything)


Diablo 3 - notice how the colors and contours are very similar to DA2's saturation


Warhammer - ninja flying skeletors ('-babies) - check; oversized weapons - check; stalinistic architecture - check. DA2 all over.



And now for DA:O


Notice the overall darkness, unlike any of the above bloomy games - and very majestic, Giger-reminding stylizations (the ogre).
No other game you listed is similar to Giger or any other profound artist. They're all bloomy messes without much personality. DA:O had personality. Hence it is not generic. (maybe the witcher is the only example I can find that DA:O nears)

edit: ok, maybe DA:O is also similar to the oldies in a way - BG had similar colors and monsters, in concept - also if you meant the original Divinity, that can go here as well. But for today's standard, the looks are not generic.

DA2 can remind of any cartoony game. (and by the way, cartoony often amounts to unartistic)
Shank or SWTOR maybe. Besides the ones you already mentioned.

Modifié par eroeru, 05 mai 2012 - 06:37 .

[Arppis]

I have to agree.

Speed and style are awesome.

[Sutekh]

eroeru wrote...

Notice the overall darkness, unlike any of the above bloomy games - and very majestic, Giger-reminding stylizations (the ogre).

Argue about DAO art-style all you want, but leave Giger alone. Apart, maybe, from the ogre, DAO has nothing to do with Giger. And even the ogre has a classical demon look.

If anything, the spikiness and metallic look of DA2 armors puts it far closer to Giger than DAO:



And this is coming from someone who prefers DAO visuals to DA2's by a long mile.

As for the "bloomy messes", some people like them. Variety is a good thing. Opinion and tastes differing from yours are not wrong. I know, boggles the mind.

DA2 can remind of any cartoony game.

DA2 is not cartoony. You can't blame the "stalinistic" visuals of DA2 (to which, btw, I agree) and deem it cartoony in the same breath. Those are opposite visual concepts. Compare Amalur, which is deliberately cartoony, to DA2. They don't have the same feel, same palette, same style, same lighting, same anything.

(and by the way, cartoony often amounts to unartistic)

Seriously? Unless you're arguing that DA2 characters look like stickmen and decors are drawn by two-year old, DA2 art-style is artistic. Heck, even stickmen are artistic. Your not liking it doesn't mean it's not art.

[bEVEsthda]

DA2 is maybe not cartoony. But it can remind of any cartoony game? I think that is still true. We have a considerable amount of forum posters here, who for instance call DA2 cartoonish, so you could say this is already a proven thing. Just consider for yourself some of the concept art and how that was carried over into DA2. DA2 is a mix of many things (too many), DA:O included. I think it's fair to call some things about DA2 cartoonish.

Cartoons are art. We need no debate about that. But there's not much points to be gained there, either side, because being art is no quality stamp. Lots of things are art, it doesn't automatically mean it's any good.

I don't remember Matt Goldman's exact words, but I got a strong feeling that he, consciously or subconsciously, figured DA:O looked oldfashioned, because it lacked 'fresh', 'hot' or 'exiting' design elements shared by other recent fantasy aestethics. "Things have moved on", he said. I'm sure he said that. But to me, that somehow makes a joke out of calling DA:O "generic" and DA2 "distinctive". Also, I'm tempted to suggest that it's DA2 that has become outdated. I think there's a strong trend towards realistic and serious. It's simply just more interesting. Particularly if that "18" isn't just a perverted marketing joke.

It was a stated goal that they wanted anything Dragon Age to be well recognizable as such. I think they had just that, in DA:O. I do see a big problem though, in that the characteristic style of DA:O doesn't survive well, when moved to other media.
In the end though, I still think they both, failed with DA2, and also paid a horribly dear price in what was essential (the game itself), for a transferable property which isn't worth anything on its own, but relies entirely on just that game.

[n0na90]

I think it's a shame that Dragon Age's immersive, dark storylines, characters and lore got represented the way it did in DA 2. I'm no expert on Art Styles, but for me it was way too bright, light and empty. Detail, grit, darkness.. Looks great. DA 2 didn't have that. And DA 2 didn't look very good from a technicall view either, textures and what not. All in all I think DA 2, for the most part, looked unimpressive and forgettable. Only parts I really remember well are the parts that got recycled over and over.

As for combat animations, they pushed the speed too far. DA O was too slow. DA 2 is hyperactive. Some middle ground would be nice. I also hate the unrealistic, completely over-the-top animations. They make great stories and characters, an awesome world with tons of great lore, and then they ruin the immersion completely every time I enter combat. Makes me very much feel like I'm playing a video game. Like I said in some other thread, can't the developers make combat feel responsive and fast, and look cool, while still keeping it real? Bioware's getting their butts kicked by their competitors here, imo.

I hope I'm not the only one that feels that a fantasy world filled with dragons and magic can't be rooted in realism and real-world physics. I love Final Fantasy, I love anime, but imo the Dragon Age universe is different, and should be portrayed that way. At least I want it to be dark & real. 

Modifié par n0na90, 06 mai 2012 - 12:43 .

[eroeru]

Yeah, I was a bit too ambitious in my post - but that was how I felt at the time.

The reference to Giger was arbitrary. I simply wanted to say DA:O had lines that worked better (for me). A mistake.

About cartoony - yes, it's the wrong word. I need to think this one over a bit, but I do have a distinctive idea going on about it.

[Sutekh]

bEVEsthda wrote...

DA2 is maybe not cartoony. But it can remind of any cartoony game? I think that is still true. We have a considerable amount of forum posters here, who for instance call DA2 cartoonish, so you could say this is already a proven thing.

All this proves is that someone used the "DA2 is cartoonish" phrase at some point, people found it vitriolic and ridiculing enough, and now repeat it without a slightest idea of what it really means. And no offense, but "Lots of people say it, therefore it's true" is the poorest possible argument. Lots of people love Justin Bieber, Twilight and believe the Coriolis effect can happen in a bathtub. That doesn't prove the formers are objectively good, and that the latter is true.

Just consider for yourself some of the concept art and how that was carried over into DA2. DA2 is a mix of many things (too many), DA:O included. I think it's fair to call some things about DA2 cartoonish.

Some things, maybe. The exaggerated design of some weapons. Those terrible pointy neckguards (wait, they're not cartoonish. They're just ugly). But overall, DA2 is all but cartoonish. Austerity and neutral colors are the very opposite of your average cartoon.

Cartoons are art. We need no debate about that. But there's not much points to be gained there, either side, because being art is no quality stamp. Lots of things are art, it doesn't automatically mean it's any good.

"Good" is in the eye of the beholder. That's all there is to say on the matter of art. You can judge the technical aspects, the execution, but the core artistic value is never objective.

Case in point:



You posted this shot as incriminating evidence against DA2 visuals. I happen to like it a lot. To me, this drawing on the wall has a story to tell. It's not classic art, but it's poignant, and beautiful in its own way. I like it. You don't. Objectively it's neither good nor bad.

I don't remember Matt Goldman's exact words, but I got a strong feeling that he, consciously or subconsciously, figured DA:O looked oldfashioned, because it lacked 'fresh', 'hot' or 'exiting' design elements shared by other recent fantasy aestethics.
<snip>

Look, I'm not arguing that DAO is outdated, because, to be blunt, that's BS, and I love DAO style. Simply qualifying an art-style as outdated is ridiculous in its own right (Michealangelo's David? So outdated) .

I'm not very fond of DA2 visuals, but it's because I think that it's very hit and miss. Some things are gorgeous, some are ugly. Also the overall stalinian / neutral style they've chosen don't appeal to me much. If what you say is true, then Goldman chose a direction that's not what I prefer, but I wouldn't pour on it the amount of vitriol I've seen in this thread and each and every time "art" is debated; it's certainly not deserved, and so over the top (cartoonish, even) that it will never convince anyone who's not already convinced. Especially when there's a lot of confusion between technical (furniture elves, Alistair, Zevran etc...) and design. In any case, I would never say their artistic vision is "wrong".

[TrooperTethras]

Personally, I don't think they should chuck the DA2 art style out the
window but rather refine it somewhat (preferably closer to Origins while
keeping its unique look).

I am also noticing that many of the comparisons between the two game's
art styles have been focusing on the elves. While I do agree that the
elves appearances can be improved somewhat there are already some great
examples of elves in the current art style:

Athenril portrays the rugged elven smuggler well enough.
Lia is first encountered as a girl, but by Act 3 has grown into a young woman.
I believe Marethari portrays the wizened Dalish Keeper finely.
And despite being markedly different to the rest of the Elves, Fenris is also presented well.

I believe this may have to do with the bulging eyes some other elves possess, e.g. Merrill and Orana, but not those above. I believe that if the character artists lean more towards those shown above the audience will find the elves respond more to the world.

Thanks for reading.

Modifié par TrooperOnasi, 06 mai 2012 - 05:59 .

[Rawgrim]

Sutekh wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

The DA2 elves looked like some creatueres from some anime, copied and pasted into a western rpg. I cringed everytime I ran into one, and cringed even more when 2 of them were basically forced down my throat as "companions".

Then all you had to do was not recruit Fenris and leave Merrill home. They weren't forced down your throat, basically or otherwise.

And yet Merill shows up at the final battle, both her and Hawke behaves as if they have been best friends for years...

[TEWR]

I've seen in the past people call Fenris anime because he has white hair, citing that's why he doesn't fit in the world. Well, that and the fact that he wields a greatsword. That they're oversized -- and in some cases, extremely absurd in design -- is an issue completely irrelevant to Fenris being labeled "anime".

While his character I feel is rather one-sided -- I think we should've seen more of the stuff that wasn't "Templars good, Mages bad". Which isn't to say it wasn't there. just not in enough detail -- you can't call him anime because of his hair color.

For one reason really: He has black eyebrows. More then likely Bioware decided to play off of the false belief that extreme trauma can turn your hair white. Considering what he actually went through, that's definitely got to be it.

I may hate DAII with a passion, but I won't ignore details like that.



I've also seen people say that having tattoos made him look anime. The lore of Dragon age justifies the tattoos completely, both from an Elven perspective and a lyrium one.

Now, I consider DAII's look to be... well... selectively important to me. In that there are only a few things that I can really confidently say that I hate, due to my lack of understanding what an art style is.

The majority of the Darkspawn designs, definitely. The Darkspawn armor, assuredly.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 06 mai 2012 - 05:48 .