567 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Wulfram wrote...

Neither of these issues existed in DA:O.  Or at least not in the same way.  The faces didn't look doughy, by and large.  The lighting could look goofy by and large, but it was at least more interesting

Wulfram wrote...

1.  Brighter.  Which is part of the lighting which you've just assured me isn't deliberate.
2.  Colourful.  Which isn't reflected in my impression of the game.

If faces were doughy in DA2, they was plastic-y in DAO.  

As far as the brightness comment goes, that's not exactly what I meant.

I guess if purple lighting coming from unknown locations in the Deep Roads is interesting, then sure, DAO had more "interesting" lighting.  They tried to do more with it in DA2 but were still limited a lot by the engine.  

With regards to color, I interpreted Goldman's statements differently.  He speaks of deciding on color pallettes and applying it throughout the game.  Which is an improvement upon the Skittles-in-mud colors of Origins.  

In terms of recognizability, look no further than Kirkwall.  How often does one see brutalist architecture in fantasy games?  How often do you see towns that look exactly like Lothering, Redcliff, and Denerim?  

But then I'm getting too close to being out of my depth art terms wise, so for any futher follow ups I'll defer to others.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 janvier 2013 - 02:14 .

[Xewaka]

Wulfram wrote...
Actually I'd say DA:O is more easily recognisable, if only because the lack of variety of armour and the damn silly giant shoulders on the Massive armour.

Warhammer did it first.


"Peripheral vision?" THAT'S HERESY!
(I know this is WH40K, not WFB. The point stands)

Modifié par Xewaka, 10 janvier 2013 - 02:12 .

[Wulfram]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

If faces were doughy in DA2, they was plastic-y in DAO.

Their skin textures were more detailed, showing wrinkles and things.  And they weren't built from such round presets.

I guess if purple lighting coming from unknown locations in the Deep Roads is interesting, then sure, DAO had more "interesting" lighting.  They tried to do more with it in DA2 but were still limited a lot by the engine. 

What I mean, is stuff like this from earlier in the thread



you don't seem to get much like that, the light almost always seems flat or so bright as to wash out everything.  Except in Avelline's office for some reason, I like the lighting there.

[upsettingshorts]

There are examples of high contrast lighting as well as flat lighting in both games?  In both games, the best lighting tends to be in very fixed settings, like a cutscene/conversation at Flemeth's hut, or Isabela's introductory barfight.

Where DA2 tries to do a bit more, especially when compared with Origins, are in environments:



Aside from the hilariously boring, uniform, tiled floors, that is.  If DA2 suffers from any one thing, looks wise, I'd argue it's precisely that.  The floors.  The issue is compounded by the fact the camera is often angled downwards straight at the most boring part of the environment.  That isn't to say though, that the rest of the environment is bad, because the opposite is certainly true.

Whereas Origins, well, here's a screenshot you posted yourself in a similar thread a while back:



While I don't think it would be fair to label all of Origins as looking exactly that bad, there are of course parts that look much better, nothing in say... Denerim tries to come close to what they did with Kirkwall.  I'd post Denerim screenshots, but all the examples I can find are from blurry console versions and I don't think that would be fair.

IGN also put up a video a while back that compares the visuals of the two games more directly, scene-to-scene.  But a lot of that involves graphics more than style, however the differences in terms of color and lighting are made to be pretty clear.  It's useful to link here because it provides plenty of examples of Origins lighting worse than your screenshot, and plenty of examples of DA2 lighting as good or better as it.  The differences between the lighting at the mountain at the Dalish camp and the Brecilian Forest are stark.  But neither game has like... dynamic shadows.  

I don't want to get too off track here into a graphics discussion, but the issue was raised as to whether or not DA2 did try to do more with lighting and color, so I provided some screenshots that demonstrate this.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 janvier 2013 - 02:50 .

[SweQue]

That picture from Dragon Age2 Hawke I always thought was to show he could be "Anything"., That pic is half warrior half mage.

[Zardoc]

Xewaka wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
Actually I'd say DA:O is more easily recognisable, if only because the lack of variety of armour and the damn silly giant shoulders on the Massive armour.

Warhammer did it first.


"Peripheral vision?" THAT'S HERESY!
(I know this is WH40K, not WFB. The point stands)

FEAR THE MIGHTY PAULDRONS!

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

For more information, here's another interview on the very subject for Destructoid.

Reading this interview is painful.  You're focusing a lot on professional expertise, but if the design team's goals don't carry over, that is a problem that can't just be waved away by "you just don't get how genius it is."  Which is exactly what Bioware tried to do in the aftermath of DA2, and it didn't go over so well.

Picture-making opportunities?  Where?

Art supporting combat- you mean the ridiculous chipmunks-on-crack combat animations?  The ceilings which were supposed to be so pretty but which meant we got no isometric camera?

Again with Morrigan- how could she be so distinctive and a positive example of character modeling if the character modeling in DAO was so terrible?  She didn't have a unique body model.  Her clothing didn't have to be glued on to her for it to be recognizable.

This just reminds me that so many of DA2's design parameters were things that did not in fact enhance the game.  I can tell that the devs find them very important, because they kept repeating this stuff in the marketing, but they were not elements that contributed to a fun game.  They should be less focused on the perfect framing for a cinematic shot and more on the actual substance of gameplay.

[Bfler]

Addai67 wrote...
 She didn't have a unique body model. 

Her robes and therefore the shape of the body which comes with these robes is unique.

The chars of a race do only share the naked body model, but can wear different armors. Without mod nobody else can wear her robes, so, technically, she has an unique model.

Modifié par Bfler, 10 janvier 2013 - 05:11 .

[fides5566]

don-mika wrote...

A plea for a return to DA:O art style

why do something that already was done before
every new game must be new

BTW

Because it is gold. However, I won't judge DA3 because it is different from DA:O. But, let's hope it is worth the change.

[upsettingshorts]

Seeing as someone took care of the inaccurate Morrigan comment, I'll move on:

Addai67 wrote...

Picture-making opportunities?  Where?

Literally any of the Dragon Age 2 screenshots posted above.  But if I had to pick one, the shot from the Chantry could only be described as not being a picture-making opportunity by someone with an agenda that would fail to recognize any such opportunities as a matter of principle.

Addai67 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

For more information, here's another interview on the very subject for Destructoid.

Reading this interview is painful.

I suppose now you know what it's like whenever I read someone describing Origins as "dark, gritty, and realistic" despite it being none of those things, in planning or practice.

Addai67 wrote...

They should be less focused on the perfect framing for a cinematic shot and more on the actual substance of gameplay.

These are different jobs, for different people.  Though I suppose they could fire the artists and cinematic designers since their work is apparently not considered worthwhile or substantive.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 janvier 2013 - 07:13 .

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Literally any of the Dragon Age 2 screenshots posted above. 

And you could equally take a shot of Lothering or of the Dead Trenches and call it picturesque if you want.

Bottom line, I'm not seeing what they're saying was a priority for them.  And I question whether the priorities are really that important to making a good game.  DA2 is not exactly known for its art assets.  Overall the experience created was quite bland and underwhelming.  Not necessarily worse than DAO, but not better.

These are different jobs, for different people.  Though I suppose they could fire the artists and cinematic designers since their work is apparently not considered worthwhile or substantive.

Matt Goldman was talking about art supporting combat.

These discussions would be more worthwhile if you dropped the melodrama.

[upsettingshorts]

But Origins isn't supposed to be picturesque, it's allegedly "dark, gritty, and mature." Remember? Maybe it's as inconsistent as I've been saying it is...

That said, "They should be less focused on the perfect framing for a cinematic shot and more on the actual substance of gameplay" doesn't address what Matt Goldman was talking about in any respect, it just dismisses the value of cinematics and visuals, whereas Goldman was talking about how the game looks reflecting the gameplay and vice versa. Yours is a disingenuous dichotomy, whereas he was talking about mutual support.

Speaking of, spare me the lectures on holding back on the melodrama, Mrs Reading That Was Painful.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 janvier 2013 - 08:00 .

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

But Origins isn't supposed to be picturesque, it's allegedly "dark, gritty, and mature." Remember? Maybe it's as inconsistent as I've been saying it is...

Or you're just being deliberately obtuse because it seems to score a point.  I never talked about Origins being "dark, gritty or mature," and I don't have a clue what you mean about it being "inconsistent."

In that bullet I'm saying that I see no improvement from DAO to DA2 in the area of "creating pictures."  Kirkwall is ugly and bland.  The scenery of the Wounded Coast is pretty, but no better or worse than Lothering or the quite pretty scenery at Lake Calenhad.  Where is the leap forward in design that Goldman is describing?

That said, "They should be less focused on the perfect framing for a cinematic shot and more on the actual substance of gameplay" doesn't address what Matt Goldman was talking about in any respect, it just dismisses the value of cinematics and visuals, whereas Goldman was talking about how the game looks reflecting the gameplay and vice versa. Yours is a disingenuous dichotomy, whereas he was talking about mutual support.

Yes it does relate.  I was summarizing by talking about having design goals that are worthwhile from a player perspective, that actually contribute to a game being fun to play.  Bioware is so caught up with creating the perfect animated movie that they're forgetting to make games.

Speaking of, spare me the lectures on holding back on the melodrama, Mrs Reading That Was Painful.

Nice to see that nothing changes.

Modifié par Addai67, 10 janvier 2013 - 08:25 .

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Addai67 wrote...

I'm talking about having design goals that are worthwhile from a player perspective, that actually contribute to a game being fun to play.  Bioware is so caught up with creating the perfect animated movie that they're forgetting to make games.

As shorts said, the part of the team making the game fun to play is basically independent from the team responsible for the cinematics. Having picturesque environments does not detract from the combat designers' ability to do their jobs whatsoever.

Claiming that a focus on cinematics and art detracts from gameplay is a fallacy, as that focus can only be carried out by the part of the team to which it applies.

As a player, I found that the new art greatly enhanced my gaming experience. [It is, of course, not perfect, but I can appreciate it as a forecast of where the series is going.] Origins is oppressively ugly and, having bought it blind, I coudln't believe I had paid money for it. It took me several false starts and a lot of patience to play it long enough to find something in the story to latch on to enough to want to continue. Presentation is a massive part of a successful game. The are dozens of people employed on ever game project dedicated to solely that and let me repeat: these people are not same as the people employed to make the game fun.

In my experience, even though these teams can work seperately, the artists are still beholden to the needs of the part of the team responsible for the fun. Fun is the goal of the majority of games. Even if you didn't like the art there is no realistic way for the art team to have somehow trampled on the fun or lack thereof in gameplay.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 10 janvier 2013 - 08:40 .

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...
Or you're just being deliberately obtuse because it seems to score a point.  I never talked about Origins being "dark, gritty or mature," and I don't have a clue what you mean about it being "inconsistent."

I'm saying that I see no improvement from DAO to DA2 in the area of "creating pictures."  Kirkwall is ugly and bland.  The scenery of the Wounded Coast is pretty, but no better or worse than Lothering or the quite pretty scenery at Lake Calenhad.  Where is the leap forward in design that Goldman is describing?

...I'm not going to update you on the discussion that has been taking place since before you decided to grace the thread with your presence.  There's nothing obtuse about my position.

Kirkwall cannot be bland by comparison to Denerim, Redcliff, and Lothering.  I can't take an argument that claims it is seriously at all.  Ugly is, at least, in the eye of the beholder.  But bland?  Nonsense.  Call this an unfair response if you must, but until I'm inundated with countless examples of cities in fantasy that employ brutalism and iconography the way Kirkwall does to the point I'm tired of seeing it (like I am with cities that look like Denerim) and I'll be more open to persuation on the criticism of it being "bland."  

If you likewise can't see an improvement in the screenshots posted above, then I don't know what to tell you.  

Addai67 wrote...

Yes it does relate.  I'm talking about having design goals that are worthwhile from a player perspective, that actually contribute to a game being fun to play.

Whatever the opposite of a useless platitude is called, I'm sure this is a perfect example of one.

Addai67 wrote...

Bioware is so caught up with creating the perfect animated movie that they're forgetting to make games.

Yet another insulting strawman.

You're right, things haven't changed.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 janvier 2013 - 08:34 .

[Addai]

Pseudocognition wrote...

As shorts said, the part of the team making the game fun to play is basically independent from the team responsible for the cinematics. Having picturesque environments does not detract from the combat designers' ability to do their jobs whatsoever.

Claiming that a focus on cinematics and art detracts from gameplay is a fallacy, as that focus can only be carried out by the part of the team to which it applies.

Goldman is the one who talked about art supporting combat.  Maybe you can explain what he means, then, if I'm not getting it- and where this shows up in DA2.  I did repeat his point with a question mark, not so much making a statement as saying "I don't see it."

Presentation is a massive part of a successful game. The are dozens of people employed on ever game project dedicated to solely that and let me repeat: these people are not same as the people employed to make the game fun.

I agree.  Art design is one of the major things that attracts me to a game.

Kirkwall is ugly and featureless.  In some areas it's so ugly as to be comical.  You hear this in review after review, so it's not just my experience.  I'm glad for those who experienced it differently- if mystified at how they can have done so.

[upsettingshorts]

Ugly I can buy. Fine.

Featureless? Only if you don't count any of the features. Which I wouldn't put past people.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Addai67 wrote...

Goldman is the one who talked about art supporting combat.  Maybe you can explain what he means, then, if I'm not getting it- and where this shows up in DA2.  I did repeat his point with a question mark, not so much making a statement as saying "I don't see it."

Here is how I imagine it went down:

Time: Before DA:O was even released
Place: A meeting room

Gameplay team, art team, lead designers, lead artists, project lead, company executives, others: Hey, we'd like to make combat faster and more visually interesting. We really hated how it looked like LARPers shuffling around.
Art team: Sure. We'll put some concept artists on storyboarding some combat animations. We'll send that to the animation guys and tech artists, and you keep in touch with them to make sure its what you want and you get all the animations you need.
Gameplay people: Sure thing.
Everyone involved in the game, because something this major doesn't get into the game without approval: Yeah we love this new stuff! Well done.
Gameplay people: Cool now we need to design some encounters.
Deadline: Hey, I'm just around the corner.
Gameplay people: Crap.
Deadline: I'm just gonna hang out here in the corner.
Gameplay people: Ok well we've finally got a combat system we like, unfortunately we can't really give the players fun encounters to play with it in.
Deadline: Yeah well you have 11 months, this is what you get.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 10 janvier 2013 - 08:51 .

[Addai]

Pseudocognition wrote...
Deadline: Yeah well you have 11 months, this is what you get.

... which sort of makes it impossible to evaluate DA2 design, but also what I mean when I say that I think they chose the wrong things to focus on.  I would have preferred to keep the generic blah art style but have a game with more substance.

And not that "we only had 11 months" gets Bioware off the hook.  It was their choice to torpedo their franchise that way.

And now I'm done, since DA2 postmortem is a pointless exercise if there ever was one.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Addai67 wrote...

And not that "we only had 11 months" gets Bioware off the hook.  It was their choice to torpedo their franchise that way.

Or, you know, EA's. I don't think any developer would give themselves such a short deadline for this kind of game if they could help it.

Addai67 wrote...
which sort of makes it impossible to evaluate DA2 design

This is true, and this is also why I take issue with people cursing DA2 as a fully realized example of their creative intent when in fact we are dealing with an awkward situation where the examples we are comparing are a game that spent over five years in development hell without art direction, and a game made in less than a year that achieved the bare minimum of what it meant to. Because of the engine and these circumstances, neither is an outstanding example of how to do game art.

Given that it is true that DA2 is not a representation of their full creative intent, no one in here is upholding it as some kind of masterwork. Both Shorts and I simply think any deviation from DA:O's utterly absent art direction is a step forward and do not understand how anyone could think DA:O was a stunning or even passable example of game visuals in any aspect.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 10 janvier 2013 - 09:10 .

[Maria Caliban]

I hope for a new art style in DA:I.

Honestly, I've rarely found BioWare games visually pleasing. When it comes to aesthetics, I'd say games like Deus Ex: HR, Dishonored, the Witcher 2, or Diablo III are more interesting to me than DA:O or DA II.

I understand though that a big part of that is the type of game that BioWare creates.

[Wulfram]

Jade Empire, BG2 and ME1 are Bioware's best games aesthetically, IMO.

[upsettingshorts]

Wulfram wrote...

Jade Empire, BG2 and ME1 are Bioware's best games aesthetically, IMO.

They certainly stole from the best with that one, that's for sure.

[Fast Jimmy]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I hope for a new art style in DA:I.

Honestly, I've rarely found BioWare games visually pleasing. When it comes to aesthetics, I'd say games like Deus Ex: HR, Dishonored, the Witcher 2, or Diablo III are more interesting to me than DA:O or DA II.

I understand though that a big part of that is the type of game that BioWare creates.

I concur. The level of visual fidelity has only the most marginal of merit in my book. The games, worlds, stories and events that Bioware creates are what matter to me. In all of my many complaints on DA2, I don't think I once complained about its visuals... except in the case of the elves. Honestly, they just were so nasty to me. The bones... the bones...

[shubnabub]

Pseudocognition wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

And not that "we only had 11 months" gets Bioware off the hook.  It was their choice to torpedo their franchise that way.

Or, you know, EA's. I don't think any developer would give themselves such a short deadline for this kind of game if they could help it.

What was up with the 11 month dev cycle? Were they trying to make DA the Modern Warfare of RPGs?

Modifié par calypsnex, 10 janvier 2013 - 09:28 .