135 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Did a bit of Googling to get more details on where that image came from.

It is apparently extremely old, as far as such things go, it actually predates Origins' release. It was from an early idea of what they wanted the look of DA to be in the future. It was far before anything was really nailed down about future plots or characters, hence the references to the Warden and Orlais and such.

So as such, it might not be Rhodes. Like I said, I'm bad at identifying who did what. But that should put it in better perspective.

Here's a link to the dev diary it came from.  

Given the dates involved, it's pretty clear evidence that they were dissatisfied with how DAO looked before it even hit shelves.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 19 septembre 2012 - 05:52 .

[ThisIsZad]

randomlycosmic wrote...
DAO was more in tone with the writing and mature themes of the story.

DA2 was like someone slapped Spyro and a horror novel together.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Stiler]

I think the thing tihat best describes both games to me is "generic."

Now this isn't to say there was no artistic merits in anything, or the game was bad. The overall "feeling" I got from them art wise was just "generic/bland/boring."

Nothing realy popped, or had anything unique or of it's own to me in either game.

[MorningBird]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Did a bit of Googling to get more details on where that image came from.

It is apparently extremely old, as far as such things go, it actually predates Origins' release. It was from an early idea of what they wanted the look of DA to be in the future. It was far before anything was really nailed down about future plots or characters, hence the references to the Warden and Orlais and such.

So as such, it might not be Rhodes. Like I said, I'm bad at identifying who did what. But that should put it in better perspective.

Here's a link to the dev diary it came from.  

Given the dates involved, it's pretty clear evidence that they were dissatisfied with how DAO looked before it even hit shelves.

Oh wow, I never would have thought it was pre-Origins! XD  I figured it was some kind of DA2 promotional (promotional is probably the wrong word) thing!

But I agree... kind of seems like they were tossing around ideas for a more distinctive look from the very beginning... up to and including Qunari/Kossith with horns!  I remember some people were skeptical in regards to their design overhaul between games, but that seems like solid proof that the lack of horned Qunari in DAO was a technical problem (something to do with helmets?  I don't even remember...)

[TheCharmedOne]

Rockpopple wrote...

The artstyle of DA2 was, for the most part, an improvement on the generic look of Origins. In a design sense, generic can kill. Visual distinctiveness is an important element of a big game.

That being said, that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement, especially using the new engine. I'm sure things will end up looking vastly different than Origins and DA2. I'm looking forward to it.

THIS

[Rockpopple]

New and hopefully better engine means better fidelity to the artstyle they choose to go with. If the picture Shorts looked up really predates Origins, it seems like they know exactly what kind of artstyle they want to go with for the Dragon Age series, and I approve.

I just hope the new engine will be able to do the artstyle proper justice for once. Then we won't have to worry about the plastic faces and environment of DA2, or the generic and stiff look of Origins. As I said, I'm really looking forward to it. But not too forward. I have to leave some room for disappointment. =P

[tmp7704]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

There's also a horse in the background, and I never saw an elf with that specific hair-style.

Otherwise nah, pretty recognizably DA2.

Well see, i was thinking of entirely different sort of difference, and that's techniques used to produce the final visuals. While you argue that's "not style, but 'graphics'" it's a false distinction because 'graphics' as you put it are still part of the overall style -- consider for example pointilism or realism, and what exactly decides we recognize piece of art as belonging to those styles.

And what's "recognizably DA2" on this picture is mostly the content -- you have an elf there, a kossith, a warden and another human but ironically enough that's, if anything, subject rather than the style. The subject isn't part of the style (some distinctive way the subjects are portrayed can be, but that's again more in terms of universal approach, than individual made-up species)

To put it differently, you could pretty safely say "mspaint pictures" are actually an art style, one easily recognizable no matter what the subject of the drawing is. That concept art? Try to imagine it with vastly different subject, say, U.S. democratic convention, and you are likely to realize there's very little of "style" that could be applied to this different subject, that would result in reaction like "there's something common about these two pictures". And what little of such "style" there is, it's largely absent in the visuals of DA2, the computer game. Hence why i said there's way more difference between that picture and the game than just the bowstring (or lack thereof)

On the semi-separate matter of "anime style":

The point of that part of my comment was simply to state that a lot of anime (and cartoons) look so wildly different from one another that using the term in a perjorative sense the way the forum often does in applying it to DA2 is effectively meaningless.  Which anime?  Which cartoon?

I understand, but i find it rather disingenuous -- i believe you realize just as well as i do that while there isn't single look to all anime/manga, a large part of it does share certain common characteristics. And when people speak of the "anime/cartoon look" it's these common traits they mean. Similar how --to use an analogy-- when someone says "he/she looks Japanese" they are generally thinking "short person, black hair, dark eyes, epicanthic fold" even though there is some Japanese people who are tall, dye their hair and/or undergo plastic surgery.

Modifié par tmp7704, 19 septembre 2012 - 06:21 .

[Lenimph]

Filament wrote...

Whatever. Spyro was badass.

 

Quoted for truth. 

[EpicBoot2daFace]

If you look at the concept art for DA2 it actually looks pretty good because it has the detail (and people) that's missing in the game itself.





Where did all the detail go? Why is everything so empty and plain? I could understand this lack of detail in a pre-pre alpha build, but for the final product? No way.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 19 septembre 2012 - 06:41 .

[Jackums]

I much prefer DA:O's art style to DA2's, even if it wasn't that amazing.

The main complaint I see about DA2's art style, which I also agree with, is its "cartoon-ish" look. It made the game feel less realistic, as far as dark fantasy goes, I guess.

Modifié par JackumsD, 19 septembre 2012 - 06:36 .

[MorningBird]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

If you look at the concept art for DA2 it actually looks pretty good because it has the detail (and people) that's missing in the game itself.

*snip*

Where did all the detail go? Why is everything so empty and plain? I could understand this lack of detail in a pre-pre alpha build, but for the final product? No way.

Agreed. D:  The environments really needed more clutter and decor.

[Das Tentakel]

tmp7704 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

There's also a horse in the background, and I never saw an elf with that specific hair-style.

Otherwise nah, pretty recognizably DA2.

Well see, i was thinking of entirely different sort of difference, and that's techniques used to produce the final visuals. While you argue that's "not style, but 'graphics'" it's a false distinction because 'graphics' as you put it are still part of the overall style -- consider for example pointilism or realism, and what exactly decides we recognize piece of art as belonging to those styles.

And what's "recognizably DA2" on this picture is mostly the content -- you have an elf there, a kossith, a warden and another human but ironically enough that's, if anything, subject rather than the style. The subject isn't part of the style (some distinctive way the subjects are portrayed can be, but that's again more in terms of universal approach, than individual made-up species)

To put it differently, you could pretty safely say "mspaint pictures" are actually an art style, one easily recognizable no matter what the subject of the drawing is. That concept art? Try to imagine it with vastly different subject, say, U.S. democratic convention, and you are likely to realize there's very little of "style" that could be applied to this different subject, that would result in reaction like "there's something common about these two pictures". And what little of such "style" there is, it's largely absent in the visuals of DA2, the computer game. Hence why i said there's way more difference between that picture and the game than just the bowstring (or lack thereof)

On the semi-separate matter of "anime style":

The point of that part of my comment was simply to state that a lot of anime (and cartoons) look so wildly different from one another that using the term in a perjorative sense the way the forum often does in applying it to DA2 is effectively meaningless.  Which anime?  Which cartoon?

I understand, but i find it rather disingenuous -- i believe you realize just as well as i do that while there isn't single look to all anime/manga, a large part of it does share certain common characteristics. And when people speak of the "anime/cartoon look" it's these common traits they mean. Similar how --to use an analogy-- when someone says "he/she looks Japanese" they are generally thinking "short person, black hair, dark eyes, epicanthic fold" even though there is some Japanese people who are tall, dye their hair and/or undergo plastic surgery.

Hmmm…to illustrate this, two styles depicting the same event (the Russo-Japanese war of 1904), from the same period, but two very distinctive art styles:










To summarise, the art style in that concept art is the art style used by that specific artist for that specific piece of art.
Of the 'content' (subject(s)) that we are seeing, only the Qunari can be really called specific to DA2. I would even say that, without knowing DA2, it would be very easy to see him as just yet another horned humanoid from a D&D or other 'mainstream' fantasy RPG setting.

Might it be useful to shift the discussion from 'art style' to 'art direction' as a whole you think?

Modifié par Das Tentakel, 19 septembre 2012 - 12:15 .

[upsettingshorts]

tmp7704 wrote...

Well see, i was thinking of entirely different sort of difference, and that's techniques used to produce the final visuals. While you argue that's "not style, but 'graphics'" it's a false distinction because 'graphics' as you put it are still part of the overall style

It is not a false distinction, it is a clear distinction. 

tmp7704 wrote... 

And what's "recognizably DA2" on this picture is mostly the content -- you have an elf there, a kossith, a warden and another human but ironically enough that's, if anything, subject rather than the style. The subject isn't part of the style (some distinctive way the subjects are portrayed can be, but that's again more in terms of universal approach, than individual made-up species)

Nope.  I was not thinking of the subjects at all.  

tmp7704 wrote...  

Hence why i said there's way more difference between that picture and the game than just the bowstring (or lack thereof)

Yeah, the difference is graphics and medium.  

tmp7704 wrote... 

I understand, but i find it rather disingenuous -- i believe you realize just as well as i do that while there isn't single look to all anime/manga, a large part of it does share certain common characteristics. And when people speak of the "anime/cartoon look" it's these common traits they mean. Similar how --to use an analogy-- when someone says "he/she looks Japanese" they are generally thinking "short person, black hair, dark eyes, epicanthic fold" even though there is some Japanese people who are tall, dye their hair and/or undergo plastic surgery.

It's not disingenuous to point out that as a criticism of DA2, it is completely useless.  It also reeks of parroting, but that's impossible to prove.  What people tend to end up explaining when pressed on such comments is that they mean is one of two things:  Either they preferred DAO's genericness (because its generic or because by being generic it possessed some level of realism DA2 didnt) or they are cherry picking and just hated the elves (or insert what they disliked here), or disliked the big swords even though DAO had them too but they didn't care because they liked the rest of DAO. 

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Where did all the detail go? Why is everything so empty and plain? I could understand this lack of detail in a pre-pre alpha build, but for the final product? No way.

11 month development window.  

Although they did claim that the lack of detail clutter (such as books on the floor of the Circle Tower in DAO) was deliberate, we'll see.

Das Tentakel wrote...

Of the 'content' (subject(s)) that we are seeing, only the Qunari can be really called specific to DA2. I would even say that, without knowing DA2, it would be very easy to see him as just yet another horned humanoid from a D&D or other 'mainstream' fantasy RPG setting.

I'm at a loss as to how anyone could not see DA2 in that image.  Maybe I'll succeed in guilt tripping an actual artist to respond to this thread who could describe it better than I can.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 19 septembre 2012 - 12:55 .

[Das Tentakel]

tmp7704 wrote... 

Hence why i said there's way more difference between that picture and the game than just the bowstring (or lack thereof)

If I understand you correctly, you mean you don’t see a ‘ style’ that would be recognizably the same or at the very least closely related / belonging to the same artistic tradition that is shared by this concept art and the game.

Hmmm…some examples that I think illustrate where you do see that same/related style in different mediums:

Greek / Graeco-Roman, ‘The Three Graces’:





(note that the statues would originally have been painted as well)



Roman portraits, Graeco-Roman art style, different media:





Mayan fresco:



Mayan wall relief:



Another two:





Egyptian (Old Kingdom):

Page of the Book of the Dead of Hunefer (New Kingdom), British Museum:




Tomb of Siptah, Valley of the Kings (New Kingdom)


Wall relief, Karnak


Statue of Tutankhamun:



…and a really weird one: 'Setau presenting the cobra goddess Nekhbet'



Finally, by way of comparison:





Yep, the same. The difference is 'just graphics and another medium'.
The biggest similarity is the use of red and brown. That's so very distinctive;).


It struck me some time ago that while concept art serves to portray the 'design' of objects and people in a game or movie, and perhaps tries to convey the desired mood and character, it very often does not match the visual style of the game or movie that is based on the concept art. I wonder if this means that, apart from having to switch to what is effectively not just another medium but also another style, there is also often a 'translation problem' when it comes to getting the 'tone' right.

And then there's art direction, of course...

Modifié par Das Tentakel, 19 septembre 2012 - 07:35 .

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Maybe I'll succeed in guilt tripping an actual artist to respond to this thread who could describe it better than I can.

Oh, you mean me.

Gonna dump some facts here for you to have fun with.

Here's how it works:

Art direction is the overall style set by the art director from which all designs for the IP stem. For DA2 this includes things like the minimal, geometric, iconographic UI, woodcut style illustrations, stylized characters, attention to materials in costume design, how the races look, and can also encompass things like animation, VFX, etc. For Kirkwall specifically, it includes things like brutalist architecture, a general spikiness to everything, oppressive atmosphere etc.

Concept art is a means of communicating to other disciplines (modelers, VFX artists, animators, texture artists) what needs to be done to execute the art direction. Concept art doesn't necessarily need to represent 100% of what the outcome ought to look like because 1) that would be time consuming 2) art gets checked up on and reviewed and revised until it fits the art direction anyway.

Not to mention the obvious fact that the concept art we see isn't even the tip of the iceberg of art that goes into making a game. What we are shown may be works in progress, whatever files were handy at the time, a draft, a design that might never be used, art that hasn't been/won't be revised, etc etc.

Concept art from different artists may have some stylistic differences but you don't assemble a team of people who CAN'T follow the art direction, and if you have an existing team that you want to keep, you probably want to make your art direction meld with their strengths.

So you're probably not gonna see grand art direction changes in DA3. Wherever it takes place is going to have its own style, but it generally should fit under the umbrella of what DA looks like. What you will probably see are simply graphical improvements that make everything look better like real time shadows, more characters on screen, higher resolution textures perhaps, better lighting, better lighting, did I mention better lighting? Because friggin ANYTHING looks amazing with good lighting.

Also DA:O is in absolutely 0 ways gritty and realistic and I have an fit every time someone says it but that's another story.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 19 septembre 2012 - 07:58 .

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
Where did all the detail go? Why is everything so empty and plain? I could understand this lack of detail in a pre-pre alpha build, but for the final product? No way.

All of these are time & engine issues.

Both of these issues are more likely than not to be solved with DA3.

[upsettingshorts]

Pseudocognition wrote...

Also DA:O is in absolutely 0 ways gritty and realistic and I have an fit every time someone says it but that's another story.

Amen.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Das Tentakel wrote...

Finally, by way of comparison:





Yep, the same. The difference is 'just graphics and another medium'.
The biggest similarity is the use of red and brown. That's so very distinctive;).

They're soooooooooooooooo different.

• Textures have "lineart" like the concept art. (a deliberate stylistic choice)
• Stylized faces.
• Idealized/heroic proportions.
• Chunky/pieced/"cartoony" hairstyles reflected in the game.
• Atmospheric perspective has identical effects on the landscape.
• Very similar lighting.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 19 septembre 2012 - 08:12 .

[tmp7704]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It is not a false distinction, it is a clear distinction.

I'm sorry, but this statement doesn't address my argument why i'd find the distinction false, and you offer nothing to back it up. You could as well say "Nu-uh!"

Why do you consider "graphics" to be clearly separate from art style, instead of being part of it? Again, keep on mind that some styles are recognized specifically by techniques used to create the image. I.e. what you refer to as "graphics" if i understand it right. If that's wrong, please explain.

Nope.  I was not thinking of the subjects at all. 

In this case what was it that you were thinking of? I'm really not a mind-reader, you need to be at least somewhat specific.

It's not disingenuous to point out that as a criticism of DA2, it is completely useless.

 
It is, when said criticism isn't actually "completely useless" because it's easy enough to infer what it means; and that's easy as long as one isn't acting purposefully obtuse.

If that isn't actually being obtuse on purpose, but genuine ignorance, then it's another matter; but even then i'd consider the problem to be said ignorance of receiver, not with the feedback.

I'm at a loss as to how anyone could not see DA2 in that image.  Maybe I'll succeed in guilt tripping an actual artist to respond to this thread who could describe it better than I can.

I don't know why you'd need anyone else to respond in your place here -- if you are clearly "seeing DA2 in that image" then it should be no problem for you to specify what exactly in it makes you (and not some "actual artist") see DA2 there?

As for how anyone could not see DA2 in that image -- that's pretty simple. There's very little in that image that could be considered distinct art style, one specific to DA2 and nothing else. And the few things which could perhaps be considered 'custom enough' (like secondary/background characters reduced to just silhouettes) ... isn't actually present in the visuals of DA2 game.

[EricHVela]

There was mention that they are able to bring visual assets from the second Dragon Age into Frostbite 2. They mentioned that there were lighting improvements available in Fb2.

One could guess that they're not looking to re-invent the wheel but, rather, just upgrade the television for the same movie. Yet, that would be just a guess.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

tmp7704 wrote...
I don't know why you'd need anyone else to respond in your place here -- if you are clearly "seeing DA2 in that image" then it should be no problem for you to specify what exactly in it makes you (and not some "actual artist") see DA2 there?

There's a vocabulary to talking about art and style that some people might not be versed in.
/answers for him again

[upsettingshorts]

tmp7704 wrote...

Why do you consider "graphics" to be clearly separate from art style, instead of being part of it? Again, keep on mind that some styles are recognized specifically by techniques used to create the image. I.e. what you refer to as "graphics" if i understand it right. If that's wrong, please explain.

Because professional video game artists have explicitly told me so.  

This is also the reason why I'm going to leave the argument to them in the future. 

For my part, it's one thing to recognize people are wrong and wholly another to have the experience, practical and theoretical, as well as terminology to express precisely how in a manner which is not only comprehensible but also accurate.  As such, I would do an injustice to an argument I believe others are better equipped to offer.

This attitude is in keeping with what I'd consider my general posting theme 'round these parts:  Don't pretend to know more than you do.  As such, the extent of my participation in these conversations will never amount to more than "it doesn't work that way" and stepping aside to let others explain why.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 20 septembre 2012 - 12:06 .