356 réponses à ce sujet

[tehturian]

Still looks fairly bland in that picture.

[Wulfram]

Skyrim benefits from its setting fitting its limitations. The pseudo-dark age setting makes small settlements surrounded by dangerous wilderness easier to accept than in a game like Oblivion where we're supposed to be looking at the capital of a great empire.

While DA2 struggled in part because it was supposed to be set in an overcrowded port city, but couldn't do crowds.

[StElmo]

Skyrim only looks good in certain parts, like most games. The aesthetic is good, just like DA2. DA:O rarely has impressive or compelling styles.

[Sylvianus]

Since everyone uses that word, bland, ( and generic too ) for each topic and every game discussed, about artstyle, I don't know what that means actually. I rarely read opinions that are just saying it's bland. DAO, bland. DAII, bland. Skyrim, bland. The witcher 2 , bland. Darksoul, bland.  I see it everywhere.

If there are explanations, I try to understand in this case, otherwise I do not bother.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 15 septembre 2012 - 11:16 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I agree that generic is no longer a useful word.

It's pretty much synonymous with "poor" in that it's a qualitative pejorative that people use to describe an art style that they don't like.

[Sylvianus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I agree that generic is no longer a useful word.

It's pretty much synonymous with "poor" in that it's a qualitative pejorative that people use to describe an art style that they don't like.

Pretty much. I can't take this word seriously any more.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 15 septembre 2012 - 11:25 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Wulfram wrote...

Skyrim benefits from its setting fitting its limitations. The pseudo-dark age setting makes small settlements surrounded by dangerous wilderness easier to accept than in a game like Oblivion where we're supposed to be looking at the capital of a great empire.

While DA2 struggled in part because it was supposed to be set in an overcrowded port city, but couldn't do crowds.

I never understood why that concept was approved if they couldn't do crowds. The first time you arrive in Kirkwall the guard tells you the place is full and they aren't letting anymore people in. But when you look around it's almost completely empty. Then when you finally gain entrance to the city, you find that it is still almost completely empty with the exception of a few vendors selling their wares.

As soon as you arrive in Kirkwall the game starts contradicting itself. It would be like starting Skyrim and being told that a dragon is attacking the village, but you never actually see it. How can you start a game like that? Right away the player's intelligence is insulted and the player no longer feels engaged as a result.

I don't think you have to be a game designer to understand these basic concepts.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 15 septembre 2012 - 11:40 .

[Uccio]

SomniariKess1124 wrote...

 And i hated the caves. they were all the same cave. and they didn't even look like caves. they all looked like mines, and the point of caves is that you are supposed to get lost.

For me they felt more like cracks in the ground because of their vertical shape and in many cases sunlight coming in from the ceiling. Also, it was a bit ridiculous to claim that Hawke &Co were "weeks deep in the Deep Roads" when sunlight cold light their way at times.

[StElmo]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I agree that generic is no longer a useful word.

It's pretty much synonymous with "poor" in that it's a qualitative pejorative that people use to describe an art style that they don't like.

Maybe it would be better to simply say DA:2 looks painterly AND unique

[Das Tentakel]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

And it suffers from being a scaled-down settlement, it would have profited in terms of immersion by being significantly larger and more populous. Maybe console hardware limitations have something to do with this?

I suspect it's more of an active design choice. If you look at say, Fallout 3 and especially Fallout New Vegas, they are open world games that necessarily downgrade the total square footage of settlements just to keep the scale manageable.

I live in Edmonton, with a decent amount of urban sprawl, and it'd probably take me several hours to walk from the Eastern tip to the Western tip. While the idea might sound cool and awesome, I don't think Skyrim would be a better game if the settlements would require players to take 30-60 minutes just to get around.

A bit of suspension of disbelief is needed for a game like Skyrim and other open worlds that don't just take place in a city.

That it's a design choice I don't doubt, but when I said 'scaled-down', I meant scaled down too much.
In-settlement travel times are certainly an issue, but I think Skyrim's towns did this a little too much, it went at the expense of giving an 'urban feeling'.
(Apart from hardware limitations, one reason I can imagine why Skyrim's towns are the way they are, is the design decision to have all the buildings accessible and inhabited by NPC's with stories, quests and daily routines attached.)

I live in IJsselstein, whose late medieval centre survived fairly intact. It had the whole lot - lord's castle, monastery, big church, town hall, market square, fortifications. You walk along the 'long' axis of the old city, from one (partly demolished) gate to the location where another gate used to be on the opposite side, in about 5 minutes. Travel times can be reduced even further by carefully designing a city's layout. So does the ability to run, or ride a horse.



IJsselstein, map in an atlas from 1649



The museum fortress-village of Bourtange, still 3-4 times the size of Whiterun, in terms of residential homes

There is, I think, certainly a 'maximum size' suitable for videogames, it would be very unwise to design a city the same size as late medieval Gent, Florence or Cairo, let alone Imperial Rome, 6th or 12th century Constantinople or Ming dynasty Beijing. Even my birthplace, Deventer, or York, with late medieval populations of around 10,000, might be too much. In those cases, it may be best to simply select and put into the game a few locations within that city, a la Kirkwall, Athkatla or Vizima.

The reverse is often done when designers, deliberately or accidentally, give settlements a convoluted, nonsensical streetplan, lacking logically placed main streets and squares for instance. That just about makes sense for an organically-grown, rural settlement without a local authority that regulates (some) building activities, but becomes implausible in the case of planned cities, administrative centres and self-governing cities on the classical or medieval model.
The advantage, of course, is that the convoluted streetplan in a videogame can give the town an impression of being much larger and complex than it actually is. One of the best examples are the twin cities of Hatmandor and Cheznaddar in Two Worlds 2, which aren't all that large but can be very confusing to navigate. The Witcher I's Vizima has something of that also, as do many of the settlements in Age of Conan.
That was also one of things that felt very unnatural in Kirkwall; with the possible exception of Lowtown, it's indicated that it is very much a 'planned' city, Hightown in particular being a legacy of the Tevinter era. What sort of made sense in Lowtown felt very inappropriate in Hightown. But maybe that's just me.

Modifié par Das Tentakel, 15 septembre 2012 - 12:10 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

That second village is just pretentious. lol.

[Das Tentakel]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

That second village is just pretentious. lol.

*sniff*

Well, it was a fortress-village from the start, and never got city rights. Ceased being even a municipality in 1821.
But at least it's larger than Monteriggioni, which is the model for the town held by the Auditore family in Assassin's Creed.



Okay, that's a model, I admit it:innocent:.
Here's the actual place:



Monteriggioni was actually enlarged for Assassin's Creed, by the way.

Well, back to topic I guess:whistle:

[upsettingshorts]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I agree that generic is no longer a useful word.

It's pretty much synonymous with "poor" in that it's a qualitative pejorative that people use to describe an art style that they don't like.

Tell that to Matt Goldman, who explicitly described the art direction for DA: Origins as "generic:" 

According to Matt Goldman, art director for BioWare's Dragon Age II, being generic was an actual design principle for the Dragon Age: Origins art team. While Goldman didn't direct the art department that worked on Origins, he's familiar with the instructions the former team was given: "Actually, the design creative was 'it's generic,' which isn't the most inspirational direction that you could give a team." 

[source]  

Generic is a useful term, I believe, but 'round these parts plenty of useful terms are used to convey so many different ideas that their purpose and meaning are lost.  See epic, immersion, choice, etc.

Personally, I would label DA:O's art style as generic in the sense that it was derivative of very broad genre conventions and tropes.  It didn't really do much of anything, intentionally, to assert its own visual style.  Plus, if "generic" is what you tell your art team to go with, it pretty much amounts to an instruction not to take any risks and restrain creativity.

That isn't to say DA2's distinctive art style was good and everyone should like it - and for the life of me every single conversation about it on these boards involves posters mixing aesthetics and graphics with reckless abandon to the point it becomes a frustrating exercise - only to assert that it, in fact, had one.  

As such, people can argue over the subjective merits of DA2's aesthetic, but it remains unquestionably DA2's aesthetic.  As to whether or not having a certain recognizable style is the kind of advantage that ought to be placed firmly in the objectively good category, I'll leave that argument to people with a more thorough grounding in art and art theory.  

Here's what Matt had to say:

After some prodding, he comes around: "The art is important, especially for an RPG, because the art helps draw the player in and make it a more immersive story-telling experience ... If the art is aligned with the design intent ... then it makes the design much stronger." 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 15 septembre 2012 - 03:15 .

[Cultist]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
 As to whether or not having a certain recognizable style is the kind of advantage that ought to be placed firmly in the objectively good category, I'll leave that argument to people with a more thorough grounding in art and art theory.

Nope. It's like "only professional cooks can judge is food tasty or not".

[upsettingshorts]

Cultist wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
 As to whether or not having a certain recognizable style is the kind of advantage that ought to be placed firmly in the objectively good category, I'll leave that argument to people with a more thorough grounding in art and art theory.

Nope. It's like "only professional cooks can judge is food tasty or not".

Not what I'm talking about.

There's a difference between an argument over whether or not the art style is something any given person enjoys and an argument over whether or not having a distinctive art style over a less distinctive one is an objectively good thing.   I do not feel qualified to argue on the latter point.  Anyone who can't follow along with that distinction probably isn't qualified either.

Furthermore, such a discussion could not possibly limit itself to Dragon Age, it would have to be in Off-Topic. 

As to the former point, there are some things about it I like, and some things about it I don't like.  But make no mistake, the style confidently and consistently asserts itself throughout Dragon Age 2 in ways DA:O's never attempted to because it didn't exist.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 15 septembre 2012 - 03:28 .

[Wulfram]

If DA2 had a distinctive art style, what was it?

[ianvillan]

Wulfram wrote...

If DA2 had a distinctive art style, what was it?

80s saturday morning cartoon.

Sorry Bioware already classified it as Hot Rod Samurai.

Modifié par ianvillan, 15 septembre 2012 - 03:34 .

[King Cousland]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I agree that generic is no longer a useful word.

It's pretty much synonymous with "poor" in that it's a qualitative pejorative that people use to describe an art style that they don't like.

Generic may have become synonymous with poor, but BioWare should remember that distinctive is not synonymous with good. 

Modifié par King Cousland, 15 septembre 2012 - 03:37 .

[upsettingshorts]

Wulfram wrote...

If DA2 had a distinctive art style, what was it?

This is a loaded question.  

However, for the sake of argument, I'll respond with the relevant quotations from the article I linked above:

When speaking about improvements on Dragon Age: Origins, lead writer David Gaider takes a more measured stance: "The graphics in Origins were dated. They were functional, but they weren't pretty, and you could tell that the game had been cooking for five years." That's a technical assessment, to be sure, but it could also point to the game's dated, archetypal fantasy look as a whole.

Goldman agrees: "And, you know, to be honest you're going up against Lord of the Rings and Conan and other established [intellectual properties] that have nailed that 'generic' fantasy way harder than we're ever gonna nail it. "I totally think that the art style needed to change."

In a recent Q and A session at BioWare's Edmonton studios, lead designer Mike Laidlaw explained that, for his team, "style is measurable." After picking a slew of visual inspirations -- other games, art, film, wood cuts -- the art team studied the color palettes and saturation levels that most appealed to them. Their first task was to set out to replicate those styles in Dragon Age II.

The second step of Dragon Age II's visual overhaul was to create what Goldman describes as "picture-making opportunities." Taking particular cues from The Triumph of Death -- a 16th century oil painting by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, a Flemish artist -- and Akira Kurosawa's classic 1957 samurai film, Throne of Blood, Goldman's team studied each artist's use of planar composition and negative space to frame each scene in a way that focuses on character interaction.

The result is a brighter, more colorful game, with a focus on a dramatic presentation layer. "Just because you're treating dark themes doesn't mean it has to be physically dark and that you can't see where you're going," explains Goldman, setting his game apart from the current trend in videogame visuals. "By setting the story in a place that has better picture-making opportunities, you can use the framing ... to evoke a mood." (links added by me)

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 15 septembre 2012 - 03:40 .

[upsettingshorts]

King Cousland wrote...

Generic may have become synonymous with poor, but BioWare should remember that distinctive is not synonymous with good. 

This is, I think, getting at a core issue any game has to deal with when it comes to their art.

How far can you push creativity without taking the risk of alienating a potential audience?

For my part, I hated the art style of Kingdoms of Amalur so much that I'd never consider buying it, let alone spending dozens of hours looking at it.  It certainly had a unique style of its own, and wasn't generic like DAO, but if it had been as generic as DAO, would I have given it a shot?  Probably.  

It strikes me as a balancing act.  And DA2's art style changes were not helped by the rushed development window and corresponding technical limitations which resulted in less-than-ideal execution.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 15 septembre 2012 - 03:54 .

[King Cousland]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

When speaking about improvements on Dragon Age: Origins, lead writer David Gaider takes a more measured stance: "The graphics in Origins were dated. They were functional, but they weren't pretty, and you could tell that the game had been cooking for five years." That's a technical assessment, to be sure, but it could also point to the game's dated, archetypal fantasy look as a whole.

Goldman agrees: "And, you know, to be honest you're going up against Lord of the Rings and Conan and other established [intellectual properties] that have nailed that 'generic' fantasy way harder than we're ever gonna nail it. "I totally think that the art style needed to change."

In a recent Q and A session at BioWare's Edmonton studios, lead designer Mike Laidlaw explained that, for his team, "style is measurable." After picking a slew of visual inspirations -- other games, art, film, wood cuts -- the art team studied the color palettes and saturation levels that most appealed to them. Their first task was to set out to replicate those styles in Dragon Age II.

The second step of Dragon Age II's visual overhaul was to create what Goldman describes as "picture-making opportunities." Taking particular cues from The Triumph of Death -- a 16th century oil painting by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, a Flemish artist -- and Akira Kurosawa's classic 1957 samurai film, Throne of Blood, Goldman's team studied each artist's use of planar composition and negative space to frame each scene in a way that focuses on character interaction.

The result is a brighter, more colorful game, with a focus on a dramatic presentation layer. "Just because you're treating dark themes doesn't mean it has to be physically dark and that you can't see where you're going," explains Goldman, setting his game apart from the current trend in videogame visuals. "By setting the story in a place that has better picture-making opportunities, you can use the framing ... to evoke a mood." (links added by me)

Good Lord, Goldman likes to contradict himself! Earlier we had him saying that it's better when a game's art style and atmosphere match, here we have him saying that even though they're dealing with dakrk themes, they want to make the world bright.

In my opinion, the attitude of wanting brighter, more colourful visuals to deal with dark atmospheres and themes is absurd. It certainly explains why All That Remains seemed so comical, almost as though Stephen King were writing for Scooby Doo. 

[upsettingshorts]

King Cousland wrote...

Good Lord, Goldman likes to contradict himself! Earlier we had him saying that it's better when a game's art style and atmosphere match, here we have him saying that even though they're dealing with dakrk themes, they want to make the world bright.

You're confusing the terms, he isn't.  He is asserting that there are other ways to convey dark themes than dark environments.

For example, some of the darkest and most unsettling scenes in Citizen Kane take place in brightly lit rooms.  The right mood is achieved through things like body language, blocking, camera position, framing, and especially (for that movie) deep focus.  That film is also consistent in how it shows each of those things when it is trying to present a certain idea.  That consistency helps make the subconscious visual cues work.

You're welcome to disagree of course, and you clearly do, but mischaracterizing his position does yours no favors.

King Cousland wrote... 

In my opinion, the attitude of wanting brighter, more colourful visuals to deal with dark atmospheres and themes is absurd.

How very conventional and dare I say, generic of you. 

Edit:  That's my 2c on this issue anyway, I can't think of anything more to add other than - like most things involving DA2 - I'll be interested to see what BioWare does with it given a proper development window.  Then I'll feel like my opinions on things will be less... temporary and conditional.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 15 septembre 2012 - 03:57 .

[King Cousland]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

You're welcome to disagree of course, and you clearly do, but mischaracterizing his position does yours no favors.

I wasn't trying to do anything of the sort, I simply interpreted his quote differently. 

Upsettingshorts wrote...

For example, some of the darkest and most unsettling scenes in Citizen Kane take place in brightly lit rooms.  The right mood is achieved through things like body language, blocking, camera position, framing, and especially (for that movie) deep focus.  That film is also consistent in how it shows each of those things when it is trying to present a certain idea. That consistency helps make the subconscious visual cues work. 

I would agree, but Dragon Age II's problem wasn't just with the lighting. It's smooth, cartoon-like character models and enviroments just don't fit any kind of dark situation in my opinion. In films such as Citizen Kane, you can at least (as you said yourself) witness the body language, you can see the horror and aguish on character's faces. 

I may be beating a dead horse, but for me it really does boil down to realism vs. styilization. And if realism means genericism, then give me genericism. 

[Lotion Soronarr]

King Cousland wrote...
I may be beating a dead horse, but for me it really does boil down to realism vs. styilization. And if realism means genericism, then give me genericism.

QFT.


EDIT:

I personally found the Kirkwall Alianage to be HORRIBLE. So tiny.