102 réponses à ce sujet

[Sir JK]

I believe the biggest problem with making "realistic" weapons is twofold. Partly because people doesn't want weapons to be realistic as much as conform to their idea of realism as others have already said. This idea is subjective however, what is tolerable varies greatly from person to person. So if you satisfy one person there'll always be another that thinks it is unrealistic.

The other problem is the trope "Reality is Unrealistic". Often, when faced with real things in an artistic medium, it will stand out as the unrealistic thing. Just see all the complaints about Leliana's accent as a great example of this trope in DA itself.

This is made even worse by the blatant myths that still perpuates what we know about mediveal weaponry. So people will often go blatantly complaning about things being unrealistic but hold onto views of realism that are plain lies.

The most common unrealistic weaponry in fantasy? That goes back pretty much all the way to the invention of the genre? Axeheads. Virtually every single axehead ever made for combat can almost fit inside the open hand of a person. They're, as a rule, smaller than woodcutting axes heads. The idea is to focus all the force in a small area to -puncture-. Even more notable... the heads of twohanded axes were usually -smaller- than those of one handed axes.
When was the last time you saw a tiny axehead in fantasy?

The second most egregious offender? The maul. Mauls have never intentionally been used in combat (though it's better than nothing). It's too heavy, cumbersome and slow to be a good weapon. There's even been modern renectors that discovered that most wooden mauls can't even bruise a person in armour.
Two handed hammer/mace heads could, like axes, fit inside an open hand. Usually weighing no more than a kg. Anything else will be too heavy, to slow.
When was the last time you saw a hammer in fantasy with a realistic head?

Then we have swords. At least they're identifiable as real swords, if usually a bit distorted. But just how good would a realistic sword look on screen? Remember, even the most zoomed in we still cannot look particularly closely to our characters (and still manage to see what's going on that is).
Swords are surprisingly thin things. Usually no more than 4 to 2 fingers wide. Twohanders are even thinner than one handers. The thicker the blade, the shorter it is.
Compare with my avatar here... 3 fingers is the width between the eyes. And that is extremely zoomed in. That means in normal combat view chances are we'd not see much of the sword other than that the character is in fact holding one. A slight sliver of silver.
More over, there'd be precious little differences between individual blades. Visual customization is held as a virtue in this social network. Swords, as a rule, differ very little in appearance (since they're virtually all made for function).

Would you really want an array of swords that, aside from subtle details, look pretty much the same?
And would you accept weapons which is more likely to be called "toothpicks", given the game interface, than realistic?
Would you accept maces, hammers and axes were the most visible and distinct part of the weapon is the hilt?

[AntiChri5]

One thing i would certainly prefer more realism in is hammers. The mauls in Dragon Age have been hilariously silly.

I like the way Warhammers evolved from Oblivion to Skyrim:

Oblivion:


Skyrim:

[Elanor]

For me it wolud be good if weapons won't floating around character back. It looks really unrealistic when sword is in the air.

[marshalleck]

Dark Souls has a nice mix of historically accurate weapons, more fantastical designs, and some that are just way out there (Smough's hammer, I'm looking at you)

Modifié par marshalleck, 07 octobre 2012 - 09:58 .

[Das Tentakel]

AntiChri5 wrote...

* snip *

Which, if anything is an argument against realism. Most people don't have a very solid idea of what historic weapons realistically look like.

If you mean specifics like typology - the difference between spatha and gladius, between Zweihänder and rapier, between pattern-welded swords and later steel swords - sure.
But people generally do recognise what is 'real' or not, at least beyond a certain age (individual mileage may vary).
The 7-year old nephew test, shown my replica 3rd century spatha: 'Vet! Een ECHT zwaard' (Cool! A REAL sword!).

(One shouldn't underestimate kids anyway - they often instantly grasp the weak spots in mine and my fellow reenactors' equipment, like the lack of crosspieces in Roman-era swords, absence or presence of nasals in helmets etc. It gets a bit harder when you have to explain the compromises behind these 'weaknesses').

Sir JK wrote...

just how good would a realistic sword look on screen? Remember, even the most zoomed in we still cannot look particularly closely to our characters (and still manage to see what's going on that is).
Swords are surprisingly thin things. Usually no more than 4 to 2 fingers wide. Twohanders are even thinner than one handers. The thicker the blade, the shorter it is.
Compare with my avatar here... 3 fingers is the width between the eyes. And that is extremely zoomed in. That means in normal combat view chances are we'd not see much of the sword other than that the character is in fact holding one. A slight sliver of silver.
More over, there'd be precious little differences between individual blades. Visual customization is held as a virtue in this social network. Swords, as a rule, differ very little in appearance (since they're virtually all made for function).

Would you really want an array of swords that, aside from subtle details, look pretty much the same?
And would you accept weapons which is more likely to be called "toothpicks", given the game interface, than realistic?
Would you accept maces, hammers and axes were the most visible and distinct part of the weapon is the hilt?

This is certainly an issue.  It's no longer an issue in single-character games like Skyrim and The Witcher II, but the DA games are (still) somewhat tactical, with lots of zooming in and out. On the other hand, the different weapons in DA:O/DA2 aren't all that recognisable when you zoom out either, and up-close they seem to give a lot of people 'suspension of disbelief' problems. That, and evoking unintended laughter. Maybe slightly exaggerating width a bit when zoomed out? (meaning it looks wider than it would under 'real' circumstances, but still thinner than up close).

Of course, you also need to be able to zoom in sufficiently so you can admire the artistry of, say, an Orlesian noble's duelling rapier...



Regarding individual customization, seen at a distance it probably works best with clothing and/or armour anyway (including shields). You can recognize helmet styles, types of body armour, type of shield and shield motif and general type of weapon pretty well at a distance. Same goes for type and colour of clothing. Just look at Total War (you can generally recognise different troop types) or pictures of big battle reenactments.

Modifié par Das Tentakel, 07 octobre 2012 - 10:57 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Believable/realistic all the way.

And anyone who disagrees with me is a poopy-head. NYA!!!

[Maytrows]

I think the big weapons in DA2 was to make then visable on consoles (TV), since it has low resolution weapons needed to be big to be visable. Since DA3 will be on consoles the weapons will be large(ish).

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Game needs more Halberds, Battleaxes, Flails and accompanying fighting styles/animations.

Realistic but also gives the distinct feeling of overkill.

[Urazz]

Blair Brown wrote...

Personally I like more fantasy based looking weapons over realistic ones, a game full of true born realistic weapons would look very flat to me. I do prefer more realistic physics when it comes to weapons, a little over sized is fine (adds dynamics) but I still want to think that someone actually could lift the thing.

I don't mind more fantasy looks for weapons as long as they aren't oversized or too gaudy looking.

[Lolomlas]

I don't have problem with the weapons in DAO and DA2, and I think DA3 will had similar weapons. My only problem is the oversized two handed weapons, which has paper weight, like in DA2. Oh and I want to see a qunari cannon in action.

Modifié par Lolomlas, 07 octobre 2012 - 01:36 .

[Sandy]

Some examples of what I would like the weapons in DA3 to look like:

One handed swords for warriors:


One handed blades for rogues:


One handed axes:


Two-handed sword:


Also, having some two handers be hand-and-a-half /bastard-swords in length would be swell.

Overall I would like Bioware to take a more realistic and simplistic approach to weapon shapes, particularly the blades of swords, but add things like interesting hilts, runes, guards, pommels and stuff like that.

[philippe willaume]

Blair Brown wrote...

Personally I like more fantasy based looking weapons over realistic ones, a game full of true born realistic weapons would look very flat to me. I do prefer more realistic physics when it comes to weapons, a little over sized is fine (adds dynamics) but I still want to think that someone actually could lift the thing.

Well may be you did not looks at enough real weapons. 

we can turn that argument in wich ever way we like. it is a matter of suspension of disbeileif with an influence of the role of a warrior added in the mix.
Most if not all european fantasy especially medieval ones have normaly sized weapon. Most of the time the warriors kit is there to anchor thing in reality, the fantasy aspect is covered by sortileges or superior craftmanship.

what i am getting at is that Durendal or excalibur are not super sized sword. they are just magical.
Neither of them don't look like an oversised diapason (ie  a tuning fork )  the same can be said from Gram or nothung/Balmung
and Gram was made of stell folded 10 time in sword, grinded and feed to geeses. (Krupp tried and it made a steel harded for the same flecibility somethingto do with nitrates and carbone) 

On top of that  BFS are linked to  japanese fantasy, amime/manga  or kung fu movies. 

In DA:0 weapons were oversized but the stayed of the "beleivable" for western fantasy "standard".

Personaly i don't like oversized weapon that have no chance to remotly work.

 
phil

[byzantine horse]

As long as there are no super-saiyan swords I'm content. That red thing in DA2 was horrendous, it's a fantasy setting but at least be consistent with how physics work, if regular armor is heavy then a 4m sword should be impossible to carry let alone swing.

[Naughty Bear]

I don't want swords like Hayden's Razor. Too anime like and i seriously don't like anime.

[Cigne]

Sir JK wrote...

I believe the biggest problem with making "realistic" weapons is twofold. Partly because people doesn't want weapons to be realistic as much as conform to their idea of realism as others have already said. This idea is subjective however, what is tolerable varies greatly from person to person. So if you satisfy one person there'll always be another that thinks it is unrealistic.

The other problem is the trope "Reality is Unrealistic". Often, when faced with real things in an artistic medium, it will stand out as the unrealistic thing. Just see all the complaints about Leliana's accent as a great example of this trope in DA itself.

This is made even worse by the blatant myths that still perpuates what we know about mediveal weaponry. So people will often go blatantly complaning about things being unrealistic but hold onto views of realism that are plain lies.

The most common unrealistic weaponry in fantasy? That goes back pretty much all the way to the invention of the genre? Axeheads. Virtually every single axehead ever made for combat can almost fit inside the open hand of a person. They're, as a rule, smaller than woodcutting axes heads. The idea is to focus all the force in a small area to -puncture-. Even more notable... the heads of twohanded axes were usually -smaller- than those of one handed axes.
When was the last time you saw a tiny axehead in fantasy?

The second most egregious offender? The maul. Mauls have never intentionally been used in combat (though it's better than nothing). It's too heavy, cumbersome and slow to be a good weapon. There's even been modern renectors that discovered that most wooden mauls can't even bruise a person in armour.
Two handed hammer/mace heads could, like axes, fit inside an open hand. Usually weighing no more than a kg. Anything else will be too heavy, to slow.
When was the last time you saw a hammer in fantasy with a realistic head?

Then we have swords. At least they're identifiable as real swords, if usually a bit distorted. But just how good would a realistic sword look on screen? Remember, even the most zoomed in we still cannot look particularly closely to our characters (and still manage to see what's going on that is).
Swords are surprisingly thin things. Usually no more than 4 to 2 fingers wide. Twohanders are even thinner than one handers. The thicker the blade, the shorter it is.
Compare with my avatar here... 3 fingers is the width between the eyes. And that is extremely zoomed in. That means in normal combat view chances are we'd not see much of the sword other than that the character is in fact holding one. A slight sliver of silver.
More over, there'd be precious little differences between individual blades. Visual customization is held as a virtue in this social network. Swords, as a rule, differ very little in appearance (since they're virtually all made for function).

Would you really want an array of swords that, aside from subtle details, look pretty much the same?
And would you accept weapons which is more likely to be called "toothpicks", given the game interface, than realistic?
Would you accept maces, hammers and axes were the most visible and distinct part of the weapon is the hilt?

+

I prefer realistic weapons, and both games had them as well as the unrealistic ones; however it seemed to me the more effective/powerful weapons fell into the unrealistic category.

I'd like to see Bioware keep a similar spread between real and fantasy, but gave us a way to craft an 'iconic' set of weapons of our choice (properties and appearance) that would level up with the PC. In Awakening, when the player went to Wade to have him forge Vigilance, Wade could have shown the PC different weapon models from an ingame book.

Or something like that.

The devs only have to give the player access to weapon models in game, how many zots could that take?

Really. I have no clue, but this would allow players another level of customization. And it's a feature I'd really like to see.

[Psearo]

I'll be honest, I don't want "realistic" weapons, just weapons whose that are in scale to our charcters. I like "plain" style weapons, and some of the more fantastic styled weapons.
In other words, no FF7 Cloud wielding swords three times our size or looking far too heavy for a strong man to wield with ease.

[DreGregoire]

I want to be able to use my staff as a walking stick. No, I can't have that? Even the mage staffs are a bit on the large size. Hmm.... oh I know can I please have daggers that aren't the size of small swords? I mean we have a murder knife in DAO and DAII, can we have something between that size and the small sword (oops daggers) labeled as daggers? That would be great! Thanks! While we are talking about weapons, as it was mentioned here, can we please have some type of harness of pack that sits between our backs and the weapons? And why are there no hip riding weapons?

[SafetyShattered]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

I support rapiers. According to Fire Emblem, they are good against armored enemies, so they'll be handy for when we fight Chevaliers/Templars. However, I don't mind some weapons looking unrealistic as long as it's explained lorewise.
Edit: Wow, first to reply on both of your threads. I must seriously like medieval weaponry

Ah....Fire Emblem. That game has taught me much. Like never to attack an archer from the back of a a pegasus. That's an important life lesson right there. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Nizaris1 wrote...

look at these Excalibur, they are not overexaggerated look, but we all know Excalibur is a special magic sword

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.4616253083157812&pid=15.1
Couldn't help myself

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Shadowfang12 wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

I support rapiers. According to Fire Emblem, they are good against armored enemies, so they'll be handy for when we fight Chevaliers/Templars. However, I don't mind some weapons looking unrealistic as long as it's explained lorewise.
Edit: Wow, first to reply on both of your threads. I must seriously like medieval weaponry

Ah....Fire Emblem. That game has taught me much. Like never to attack an archer from the back of a a pegasus. That's an important life lesson right there. 

That saved my life once.