356 réponses à ce sujet

[slimgrin]

Well it's distinct, I'll give it that. Most of my grievances are with character design and a certain sparsity or lack of nuance in the color and environments. Supposedly the game was rushed and it shows. And yes, DA:O was a pretty bland looking game, so they don't need to go back to that. The Mass Effect series has far better art design imo. And as for fantasy games, Skyrim does a pretty good job of it, but TW2 and Dark Souls still top the list for me. I guess they're using the Frostbite 2 engine for DA3, so that could really turn things around for them.

Modifié par slimgrin, 16 septembre 2012 - 05:48 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Mass Effect is far superior in art and graphics. I understand the ME games are made by a different team, but don't they all share the same artists at BioWare?

[slimgrin]

I know they share at least one, Matt Rhodes I think. But I'm guessing the lead designers are different.

[Cimeas]

Mass Effect has terribly low resolution graphics. Perhaps on console they look similar, but on PC, DA2 looks far better. And I say that as someone who owns both games.

[Foolsfolly]

Cimeas wrote...

I think MotA shows that given enough time, Bioware's artists can design exceptional settings.

I agree. And Legacy showed they can make really good dungeons as well.

DA2 cannot ever shake the 'unfinished' feeling. Parts shine and too many parts look rusted and bolted on carelessly. [insert one of those random unfinished elves standing around Kirkwall with their weird unfinished hair/hats here]

[slimgrin]

Cimeas wrote...

Mass Effect has terribly low resolution graphics. Perhaps on console they look similar, but on PC, DA2 looks far better. And I say that as someone who owns both games.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

StElmo wrote...

As an artist myself, I have fallen in love with the DA2 art style. Sure, the assets get WAYYY overused. But the actual aesthetic itself, WOW.

[*]

  That is your opinion and you're welcome to it.

[LolaLei]

I don't dislike the art style, I prefer the look of the environments in The Witcher 2 though.

[Renmiri1]

MotA art was gorgeous but the Basilisk was very cheesy.

[cJohnOne]

Renmiri1 wrote...

MotA art was gorgeous but the Basilisk was very cheesy.

what Basilisk?  you mean the wyvern?

[AbsoluteApril]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I absolutely hated how the Blightlands looked in DAII. They just... didn't feel tainted. Barren yes, but black, sick, and all around a nightmare to traverse or even gaze upon?

that was supposed to be tainted land? I assumed it hadn't had a chance to be tainted yet. Otherwise, yes, I agree, it does not look tainted, just barren. I did like the fire/smoke in the background. It didn't seem like there was enough 'movement' in the backgrounds sometimes. Another touch I liked were the sounds and visuals of the birds in the sky (like near the chantry) course you have to look up to see those as well.

[Terror_K]

If I were to use a single term other than "generic" for DA2's art style, it would be "unnecessary" as in it was unnecessary to have changed the art style in the first place.

Dragon Age as a whole didn't need the near-on total reboot it got, and that applies to the art style as much as anything. DAO wasn't "generic" it was simply very typical of classic fantasy design. It was often compared to Peter Jackson's LotR I know, and in my mind that's more a compliment than an insult.

I know many will say that people who hate the DA2 art design are afraid of change and hate it automatically, but that's not the case at all. Change is fine, so long as its warranted. DA2 suddenly rebooting its visual style was an unnecessary change, just many of the other changes the game went under. And like many of the changes to DA2, it was clearly done for the wrong reasons.

[Mr Fixit]

AbsoluteApril wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I absolutely hated how the Blightlands looked in DAII. They just... didn't feel tainted. Barren yes, but black, sick, and all around a nightmare to traverse or even gaze upon?

that was supposed to be tainted land? I assumed it hadn't had a chance to be tainted yet. Otherwise, yes, I agree, it does not look tainted, just barren. I did like the fire/smoke in the background. It didn't seem like there was enough 'movement' in the backgrounds sometimes. Another touch I liked were the sounds and visuals of the birds in the sky (like near the chantry) course you have to look up to see those as well.

To me it looked like some WW1 Western front battlefield. It even had a trenchlike feel.

[TEWR]

AbsoluteApril wrote...
I did like the fire/smoke in the background.

Yea, that was a nice touch I'll admit. 

It didn't seem like there was enough 'movement' in the backgrounds sometimes. Another touch I liked were the sounds and visuals of the birds in the sky (like near the chantry) course you have to look up to see those as well.

It was nice to see the birds, though the extreme lack of any sort of non-enemy wildlife -- deer, squirrels, rabbits, etc. -- in the environments bugged me.

Though that was more of a complaint towards the Sundermount area and more so MotA.

And by God, I don't know why seeing Orlesians using Mabari hounds bugged the hell out of me. On the one hand, I expect them to be hypocritical.

But for them all to be using Mabari and no basset hounds, or poodles, or any other type of dog bugged me a bit.

Though now I'm going off-topic.

[tishyw]

Sorry OP, but the art style of DA2 was one of the things that made me dislike to game. For me the art style is cartoony and plastic.
I much preferred the gritty, realistic style of DAO.

[TEWR]

I find it hard to call DAO's look realistic or even gritty. One of the things I despised about DAO's look were the trees. In the distance they looked like cardboard cutouts.

Close up, they still looked like cardboard cutouts. Worse, they looked like cardboard cutouts that simply shifted depending on your view.

The only time trees didn't seem like that was in the Brecilian Forest. But then, I also have issues with how the Brecilian Forest looked, though that's another matter.

DAO's art style wasn't bad -- nor would I call it great, or generic, or realistic, or anything. It just... was. Nothing special, but not exactly the best.

At least in DAII, the trees look like trees. Sometimes plastic trees -- which could just be a lighting issue -- but trees nonetheless.

[StElmo]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I find it hard to call DAO's look realistic or even gritty. One of the things I despised about DAO's look were the trees. In the distance they looked like cardboard cutouts.

Close up, they still looked like cardboard cutouts. Worse, they looked like cardboard cutouts that simply shifted depending on your view.

The only time trees didn't seem like that was in the Brecilian Forest. But then, I also have issues with how the Brecilian Forest looked, though that's another matter.

DAO's art style wasn't bad -- nor would I call it great, or generic, or realistic, or anything. It just... was. Nothing special, but not exactly the best.

At least in DAII, the trees look like trees. Sometimes plastic trees -- which could just be a lighting issue -- but trees nonetheless.

I don't get how people say DA2 was too plastic and then they say DA:O was great...

ಠ_ಠ

DA:O looked hella plastic

DA2 at least has skin tones that look real.

[Terror_K]

StElmo wrote...

DA2 at least has skin tones that look real.

On characters that didn't even look the same as they did in DAO. <_<

[Melca36]

StElmo wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I find it hard to call DAO's look realistic or even gritty. One of the things I despised about DAO's look were the trees. In the distance they looked like cardboard cutouts.

Close up, they still looked like cardboard cutouts. Worse, they looked like cardboard cutouts that simply shifted depending on your view.

The only time trees didn't seem like that was in the Brecilian Forest. But then, I also have issues with how the Brecilian Forest looked, though that's another matter.

DAO's art style wasn't bad -- nor would I call it great, or generic, or realistic, or anything. It just... was. Nothing special, but not exactly the best.

At least in DAII, the trees look like trees. Sometimes plastic trees -- which could just be a lighting issue -- but trees nonetheless.

I don't get how people say DA2 was too plastic and then they say DA:O was great...

ಠ_ಠ

DA:O looked hella plastic

DA2 at least has skin tones that look real.

YES! These  certainly looked real........

[SpunkyMonkey]

Sorry but over the weekend I spent a bit of time comparing the two with mates and the more I analyze it the more a detest DA:2 art style. DA:O certainly had it's graphical flaws (the big hands, the cardboard cut-out trees etc.) but it still looked good overall - it's look suited the overall game and sold that era/world to you.

DA:2's had it's moments (Flemeth, the new Qunari look) but overall it just felt so weak - the emo elf screamed "token emo guy designed to appease that audience" and that set the tone for the whole game. The elves themselves looked awful, truly awful, and the fact that nearly every woman in the game had perfect breasts was just off-putting.

[Sabariel]

Too many spikes in DA2. Also, too much brown. Too many clunky-looking armors and weapons. Too many weird, bloated, silly putty faces and bright, radioactive eye colors. Too many weirdly clean locations that looked almost exactly like each other... despite serving different purposes. Too many bleached, squeaky-clean darkspawn wearing strange, spiky bondage gear and silly hats.

Too much blergh...

[Sejborg]

I don't like DA2's art style.
In short it was just too anime/cartoonish. 

Everyone looked too smooth. As if they still carried around their baby fat on their cheeks. The faces where too smooth, and lacked a sense of having lived in a harsh environment. Some should look healthy with round faces - but not all. Also the standard body type, didn't add to the atmosphere. Everyone looked beyond healthy. 

The new elves design was not to my taste. Huge disturbing eyes. Weird noses and bodies. The elves in Origins was not good either though. I want elves to be pretty. I actually just want them to look like humans but with pointy ears. I think elves could be inspired by people who have a mix of asian and white blood. Like Kristen Kreuk
www.imdb.com/media/rm944538880/nm0471036
Just add some pointy ears and that would be great elf. 

The new qunari design looked pretty good. But everyone was copy pasted and that made them look like boring goons. They should look different from eachother. Like elves, humans and dwarfs all have each of their own faces, so should the qunari.

The Darkspawn looked absolutely terrible. Such a bad design choice since they looked great in Origins. 

The weapons look stupid. Huge, clunky and extreme. 

The armors look stupid as well. Clunky, spiked and extreme.

The environments. Kirkwall looked lifeless and boring. And running around in the same environment all the time, made me notice even more, how boring it looked. If I was just a handfull of hours in the place, and then something new, then it would not have felt so boring I think. Perhaps if the city had crumbled and been rebuild during the 10 years, it would have been interesting. 

Modifié par Sejborg, 17 septembre 2012 - 11:37 .

[eroeru]

Having played with and owned lots of action figures in my youth I can confirm the DA2 skin-tones as being "plastic".

[Das Tentakel]

Mr Fixit wrote...

AbsoluteApril wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I absolutely hated how the Blightlands looked in DAII. They just... didn't feel tainted. Barren yes, but black, sick, and all around a nightmare to traverse or even gaze upon?

that was supposed to be tainted land?&nbsp;I&nbsp;assumed it hadn't had a chance to be tainted yet. Otherwise, yes, I&nbsp;agree, it does not look tainted, just barren. I&nbsp;did like the fire/smoke in the background. It didn't seem like there was enough 'movement' in the backgrounds sometimes. Another touch I&nbsp;liked were the sounds and visuals of the birds in the sky (like near the chantry) course you have to look up to see those as well.

To me it looked like&nbsp;some&nbsp;WW1 Western front battlefield. It even had a trenchlike feel.

Well, I couldn’t find a better picture at short notice, but here’s the Blightlands in DA2:



I had something of that same feeling.



It also sort of reminded me of Mordor, the Jackson version:

http://t2.gstatic.co...Kpzv4-UIPC6qFHg

'Walking through Mordor' clip: www.anyclip.com/movies/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-return-of-the-king/5BtLbbum7Yhtmm/

All that was missing was a volcano and a big whoppin’ Tower of Evil.

In itself it is not a bad idea to let the landscape influence the mood, and a devastated landscape certainly does not exactly induce cheerfulness. The problem here is continuity with DA:O and, even worse, inconsistency within the setting itself. Mordor is the Empire of Evil, used and abused by the forces of darkness for a very long time. The land was used up to fuel Sauron’s war machine, and there is also a suggestion that it has sickened under his influence.

In contrast, the Blight (a vaguely defined sort of corruption) has just arrived in Ferelden. There is no reason why it should be more devastating than the German army at Verdun. I always envisaged its initial impact to be somewhat like the Plaguelands in WoW, a sickened land that is slowly dying (if I remember correctly, the Western Plaguelands are clearly sick and dying, in the Eastern Plaguelands the corruption is further along and you also have mutated plants etc.) The end result might be a lifeless desert, but not so fast. Certainly not looking like a mix of Verdun 1916 and 2003 Jackson’s Mordor.


.

Goldman referred to Kurosawa and Bruegel as influences. One of those influences may be the prominent presence of the color red, but another one that was indicated was landscape.
Here’s Bruegel’s ‘Triomf van de Dood’(The Triumph of Death’)



Like Jackson’s Mordor, the landscape itself looks a bit surreal. That’s because Bruegel (and other Netherlandish painters) deliberately painted fantasy landscapes; they are always clearly 16th century Netherlandish (Belgian/Dutch), but they have odd things in them like mountains and rocks. We have a bit of that here in the SE corner of the Netherlands and eastern Belgium, but it’s not exactly common. The lifeless landscape itself here may be inspired by the sandy plains that existed (and still exist) in parts of the Low Countries where the topsoil eroded due to agricultural (overgrazing) and industrial (woodcutting, mining of iron ore-holding soils) activities in medieval times.

(Here’s a picture from (northern Brabant), in the same historical province in which Bruegel lived most of his life - he may have been born not far from here, but it’s not certain)


(And a shameless little plug for the Bruegel movie with Rutger Hauer, ‘ The Mill and the Cross’ :
www.youtube.com/watch Now that is art style…)

Anyway, if Goldman & Co were inspired by Bruegel and Kurosawa, fine. But it may have been wise to take a good look at the totality of their work, and why particular elements work. They never operate in isolation, and that's why I think you have to be careful how you use those elements. Always keep an eye on the total context.
I think that art style, in the sense of ‘visual presentation’, is more than just a place on a sliding scale indicating degree of stylization or realism, and things like color choice and perspective. It’s also the totality of the composition. Wulfram mentioned that the game’s design should have taken things like the camera into consideration, and I agree completely. DA2 does a bad job of providing 'picture opportunities' (there are a few, but they are not very common, you have to look for them and even then they are not that outstanding), as Goldman himself put it. And this is unlike Skyrim, The Witcher II, and quite a few other RPG's and MMORPG's (Final Fantasy XII, WoW, Age of Conan, The Witcher I and II, Skyrim, Oblivion-with-mods etc. etc.
It is sometimes asserted that the absence of people is not ‘part of the art style’. Like heck it is, especially from the point of view of us, the consumers. we look at the totality of it, for anything between 20 and 40 hours or more, if we take our time or do one or more replays.

To illustrate this, here’s some more Bruegel. A couple of years back, Dutch artist and art historian Michel van Dam did an experiment. Bruegel’s paintings are famous for the large numbers of people in it, with lots of detail. Van Dam digitally removed the people and the end result was this:

Before:


After:


Before:


After:


There may be a lesson here but I can't put a finger on it...

The visual presentation of a game should be more than just borrowing Stalinist Gothic architecture left, Art deco stuff right and using the color red. And you really, really should look at the evolving total picture.
In the case of Kirkwall, I think the relative absence of people (and their clutter) actually drew more attention to the bland, lifeless, repetitive nature of the architecture of the city. Bruegel's paintings without people are much diminished, but there is still some interesting stuff to see.
Kirkwall? Not so much:(.

The more you can't put enough people (and their clutter) into the city because of technical limitations, the more interesting your city has to look...more, not less.



(...and if this looks melancholy, that's because it is meant to be. This is a city which was in serious decline at the time of the painting. But people carried on regardless...This is the weight of history)

Oh, and that's completely ignoring the issue of style as cultural style, as in architecture, dress, arms, armour etc.
Oooh boy . But that's for another post.

Modifié par Das Tentakel, 17 septembre 2012 - 01:24 .