44 réponses à ce sujet

[EpicBoot2daFace]

PinkShoes wrote...

 For those who didn't like the graphics in DA2 would you have minded so much if the game was better?

Personally didnt like them and i hope they change the graphics in DA3 but if the game is better than DA2 was (and honestly how could you make it worse) i don;t think the graphics will bother me just as much. 

Hmm. I suppose if the game were better I woulnd't have thought about it as much. But it is difficult to ignore when the graphics and art look so bad. But I don't think great graphics automatically = great game, despite what the reviewers like to claim.

Example: DOOM3. <-------- horrible, repetetive gameplay with amazing graphics back in 2004. Still manages an 87 overall score. Just goes to show that if it has amazing visuals at the time of release, at least critics are less critical and more willing to overlook obvious design flaws.

So, I suppose great graphics serve their purpose. As for me, the answer is no. I simply cannot overlook the immense amount of flaws in DA2 no matter how the game looks. It would be nice to look at, like a still painting, but it's not something I want to spend a lot of time with.

[Disastersaurus]

No, it's what -you- think is cheap and bad. I think it's cinematic and more exciting than the dull 'realism' that was Origin's combat.

Origins was a flat, boring slog of a game all the way through. II finally injected the adrenaline that the series needed to keep from being another eurotrash tolkien clone. If you want realism, more power to you, but Bioware doesn't, and I support their choice.

Modifié par Disastersaurus, 26 juillet 2012 - 05:49 .

[devSin]

I'm not seeing a lot of the issues that are being suggested here.

There were some problems with the heads and some of the textures for the darkspawn (and I'm not satisfied with the animation for the hurlocks and the models for that emissary thing), but I think most of the other creatures and characters were generally fine. The elf models need to be refined, but I wasn't bothered by the concepts.

The low-polygon nobodies was kind of dumb, but it's to be expected when you're supporting both consoles. Hopefully they go a different route in the next game, but there will be some tradeoffs somewhere else then.

The lighting system needs more work. The static lighting is gorgeous, but it's too restrictive these days. Things like dynamic weather and day/night transitions are missed, and the inability to really effect the environment lighting is starting to show. It's time for more and better supplemental lighting systems (as long as the static lighting remains the primary system—the scene lighting is still too amazing to give up for things like weather and better spell visuals).

[Disastersaurus]

And? I'm still failing to see what the problem is.

Flash isn't always bad. Sometimes, a little spice is necessary. I disagree that DAII's combat animations lacked substance, if that's what you're saying. Rogue's backstab being a teleport wasn't laziness. It was -awesome-. It made the rogue feel like he was everywhere at once, impossible to hit. It suited the aesthetic.

In the same way, the warrior's attacks cleaving enemies in half and splattering them into gore isn't "cheap". It's an artistic style that implies the sheer power behind his blows.


I get that you don't like it. That's your prerogative. But I sure as hell love it, and I'll defend it to the grave. "Cheap" or not, it's a hell of a lot more interesting to look at than watching my DA:O warrior shuffle like a moron into place, then do the same idiotic whirling blade animation for every attack.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

The animations were a bit too fast. But the animations, while mostly realistic in Origins, were kind of boring.

[King Cousland]

Disastersaurus wrote...

Not to mention two entire races of sentient beings get irrevocably wiped out, magic is almost completely ripped from the world with such force it throws off the balance of the entire ecosystem -

Art style does not darkness make. Even played for laughs, Overlord was a darker setting than Dragon Age by sheer virtue of death toll and ruined world.

Death toll does not darkness make - quite the opposite in fact. Elements like the death toll exactly what makes it so corny and well, not light, but certainly not dark. It was done in a cliched manner that was intended as the sterotypical "evil takes over the world" trope. If anything it was almost parodying and poking fun at established fantasy.

I'll admit that some parts of Overlord II were dark as a raw theme, but even those parts (in both games) had an intended element of tragi-comedy to them.

I agree that art style does not create darkness in and of itself, that's the job of the writing staff, but art style certainly makes a significant contribution to how that darkness is presented. If your standard for darkness is simply death toll, then surely you'd consider Origins extremely dark due to the masacre caused by the Blight? Come to think of it, both elves and dwarves are extremely thin in Thedas, and unless the darkspawn are utterly eradicated, it's only a matter of time for the dwarves, is that not dark enough for you?

What made Origins so dark was that it explored how far people were willing to go to achieve their aims, to do what they saw as right, it showed the simple, unexplained sadism that can be present in man, it showed how inevitably cruel nature can be. DAII tried to do some of this, but it tried so hard it became cheesy, and this combined with the art style just made it seem - as I wrote in another thread- that Stephen King was writing for Scooby Doo. 

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Nizaris1 wrote...

Even Oblivion have better combat animation graphic in it, when you block an attack it shown the character blocking an attack, when swing a sword, it shown swinging a sword, not just flash here and flash there...Oblivion is an old game.

does anyone ever see shield blocking in DA2? it is none

there is shield blocking in DA:O, but none in DA2, i never see it because there is no blocking animation in DA2, everything just flash here and flash there...so cheap

It's just too fast for it's own good. If they slowed it down, they could put that animation back in the game.

[Disastersaurus]

harkness72 wrote...

Disastersaurus wrote...

Not to mention two entire races of sentient beings get irrevocably wiped out, magic is almost completely ripped from the world with such force it throws off the balance of the entire ecosystem -

Art style does not darkness make. Even played for laughs, Overlord was a darker setting than Dragon Age by sheer virtue of death toll and ruined world.

Death toll does not darkness make - quite the opposite in fact. Elements like the death toll exactly what makes it so corny and well, not light, but certainly not dark. It was done in a cliched manner that was intended as the sterotypical "evil takes over the world" trope. If anything it was almost parodying and poking fun at established fantasy.

I'll admit that some parts of Overlord II were dark as a raw theme, but even those parts (in both games) had an intended element of tragi-comedy to them.

I agree that art style does not create darkness in and of itself, that's the job of the writing staff, but art style certainly makes a significant contribution to how that darkness is presented. If your standard for darkness is simply death toll, then surely you'd consider Origins extremely dark due to the masacre caused by the Blight? Come to think of it, both elves and dwarves are extremely thin in Thedas, and unless the darkspawn are utterly eradicated, it's only a matter of time for the dwarves, is that not dark enough for you?

What made Origins so dark was that it explored how far people were willing to go to achieve their aims, to do what they saw as right, it showed the simple, unexplained sadism that can be present in man, it showed how inevitably cruel nature can be. DAII tried to do some of this, but it tried so hard it became cheesy, and this combined with the art style just made it seem - as I wrote in another thread- that Stephen King was writing for Scooby Doo. 

Alright, that's fair. Admittedly, Overlord may have been something of a mocking example, an example using hyperbole to try and exemplify my point. That was a bad idea, and I apologize for it.

That said, I -really- don't see where the 'corniness' of Dragon Age II comes off. The whole reason I like II better than Origins is because, barring aside the improvements to combat, I thought the story was a lot better.

Origins just reeked of generic to me. II's story, while not necessarily groundbreaking, did surprise me. Breaking each down into base elements:

Origins: An ancient evil resurfaces and threatens an entire nation, eventually the world. A legendary order of grim-faced heroes arise to combat the resurgent threat until betrayal from an ally reduces their ranks to a small party of ragtag adventurers. Together, they gather an army to fight the evil horde, triumphing at last at a heavy cost.

II: Fleeing for his life from his destroyed home, a refugee escapes to a massive city, full of both opportunity and corruption. Through strength of arm and the cleverness of influential friends, this newcomer gradually rises through the city, his ambition matched only by his ill fortune. Beset repeatedly by tragedy and thrust into the center of conflicts far beyond his station, he is forced to rise to the challenge again and again, not to save the day - but just to try to hold on to the life he has built and protect his new home from homesick invaders, religious zealots, and the stirrings of a groundshaking war.



I don't know. Origins just...didn't grip me, while DA II did. I understand it's a matter of taste, I just don't know why DAII is so widely hated. I figured it'd at least be a bit more even, you know?

Modifié par Disastersaurus, 26 juillet 2012 - 06:13 .

[Fauxnormal]

Wah wah, QQ.

That's all this thread is; a giant QQ thread under the disguise of being a conversation.

[shadow-warlord]

DAO graphics fit the dark fantasy epic goal of the game,were more "realistic",the faces looked great and there was variation in the enviroments.

But on technical terms they lagged, Denerim for example looked like a ghetto not capital of Ferelden...
I would also prefer higher res textures and less reuse of assets (caves,ruins,estates etc)

DA2 tried to improve things and it succeeded in technical terms but there was no variety and it was generally too cartoony, characters looked and didn't much the "dark fantasy epic" feel...

So what they should do with the next DA is use a better engine that can bring the artists ideas to life and immerse us in the experience. And they're definitely going to need a new engine if the game takes place in Orlais, Val Royaux ( Frostbite anyone?)

[DiegoRaphael]

For me i just hope they get rid of this engine and start using Frostbite 2.

If the game is (what i belive it is) set to release in 2014, the new consoles will be already out and im sure the game will be released to them. 

And we will finaly get some nice graphics in PC.

I think i'm kinda strange in my preferences. I liked both DA:O and DA2 art styles.The only problem for me in the graphics/art style of DA2 was that is was too simple, bland, didn't have refinement, and made things that wasn't suppose to, look cartoonish (like the darkspawns, i prefer the DA:O ones).
I liked the new Qunaris, can't say the same about the Elfs, but i do recognize they needed to be more different from the humans.

They just need to maintain dark what is supposed to be dark (the darkspawn, demons, skills like blood magic and reavers) and give much more details on scenarios, armors, weapons and characters. I think a very detailed armour would beautiful in DA2 art style.

PS: Star Wars is not science fiction. It's fantasy in space, nothing more. It's not just because you have space, or a futuristic setting that makes something scifi.

[Chiramu]

I wouldn't care about the graphics if the gameplay and story were good . Like when you play an emulated game from the PS1 or SNES, you play it cause it's fun!

[PaulSX]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

Origins graphics got criticized because it came out after Mass Effect which was using the Unreal3 engine. Unfortunately, Bioware still didn't give DA2 the Unreal3 engine and just tweaked the infinity engine. So now you have graphics that don't transfer well over from Origins to DA2 and you still are criticized for not being on par with Mass Effect graphics. Who's making these decisions?

I think the reason is the devs spent more time with DA engine. Given such a tight development schedule, it's easier to just use the tool they are familiar with. I hope they can change the engine for next DA game though.

[deuce985]

Meh

I prefer a game with better gameplay but I'd be lying if I said graphics didn't help. Not so much gameplay but atmosphere. Skyrim and Witcher 2's world wouldn't be half as amazing without the engines...

Engines do create bottlenecks in certain areas and that can hurt creative direction. So while gameplay is more important, good engines are still needed.

I'm not really sure what Bioware focuses their resources into when it comes to their engine but they need to make their world more vibrant. Especially running around hubs.

Modifié par deuce985, 27 juillet 2012 - 04:00 .

[Chipaway111]

Meh, graphics are graphics, when there beautiful it's great, when there just average then it's not exactly a deal breaker or a big concern to me.

Art style however... I know Dragon Age is meant to be dark fantasy, but I didn't buy it with DA2's overly clean play-dough like environments/NPC's. I'm not asking everything be in various shades of brown or black either. Look at Alice: Madness Returns, that game could be called depressing at best, yet it still had an array of colours, chances are I'll bring that game up a lot, really enjoyed the graphical style. Something like that, perhaps?

[jbrand2002uk]

Nizaris1 wrote...

Still it is so cheap, because there is no art in it

back stab? Vanish then appear behind target...what is that?

Sword fighting? flash flash flash....then dead...you don't see a thing, even samurai movies showing what happen, not just flash here and flash there...oh, that samurai is good! I don't see what he's doing and enemy head chopped off!

what makes an anime a cheap cartoon? Because the artists are too lazy giving a detail...you ever see how anime samurai fighting? Just like DA2...flash flash and flash...enemy lost....

Actually Batman Arkham City's combat animation makes DAO look ridiculous and that is done using the current iteration of the Unreal 3 engine whereas Mass effect 1 was done using the 1st iteration of Unreal 3 back in 2007 the engine has been redone massively since then and it used im alot off AAA titles in many genres actually here's a link to all games that have used the Unreal Engine 
http://en.wikipedia....al_Engine_games .

In anycase the Unreal 4 engine is in development as we speak 

[Amycus89]

Disastersaurus wrote...

And? I'm still failing to see what the problem is.

Flash isn't always bad. Sometimes, a little spice is necessary. I disagree that DAII's combat animations lacked substance, if that's what you're saying. Rogue's backstab being a teleport wasn't laziness. It was -awesome-. It made the rogue feel like he was everywhere at once, impossible to hit. It suited the aesthetic.

In the same way, the warrior's attacks cleaving enemies in half and splattering them into gore isn't "cheap". It's an artistic style that implies the sheer power behind his blows.


I get that you don't like it. That's your prerogative. But I sure as hell love it, and I'll defend it to the grave. "Cheap" or not, it's a hell of a lot more interesting to look at than watching my DA:O warrior shuffle like a moron into place, then do the same idiotic whirling blade animation for every attack.

I too feel like the animations felt "cheap", but they were still more well-made than in DA:O. That might seem contradictory to you, but let me explain:

DA:O animations were slow, dull, and it looked like you had a pike up your ass when you were walking. The swinging of swords looked unnatural. HOWEVER, they still animated everything so you could see anything move from point A to point B. Look at the animations for removing traps for example. DA:O shows the whole animation of disarming every type of trap. DA2 however, has no animation for this at all - the rogue just says "Done", and that's that. THAT feels cheap if anything.

DA2's animation did the complete opposite. The animations had a "flow" in them, and I do think that they spent more time on amking each single motion that we see look good. Unfortunately though, here you DON'T see all the movements that should take place from point A to point B. If you want to take the rogue backstab-teleport ability for example. Personally at least, I think it would have looked much better if we actually saw an animation of the rogue either quickly sidestepping behind the enemy, or jumping over him. Last time I checked rogues don't have teleportation magic.

Same can be said with a lot of the animations in DA2, where you instantly can teleport from one position to the other, with no real animation at all (though, once again, the ones we do see look better than in DA:O, just a tad bit over the top)

Modifié par Amycus89, 29 juillet 2012 - 12:46 .