567 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
You're still deciding what's "substantive" to you is all that matters.  

So what you're trying to say is that the changes made to DA were well received by players and critics, generally accepted to be worth what was sacrificed to make them possible.

Uh huh.  Like I said, denial.

[daft inquisitor]

In Exile wrote...

ShadowDragoonFTW wrote...
I don't think there's much of an argument to be made there. The fact is that Bioware is one of the very few companies out there that have tried to take any P&P system and try to convert it into a computer RPG.

What? All of the so-called great RPGs of that period are just variants of D&D. Planecape, IWD... these are all D&D games.

I'd like to pick this particular point out -- I understand those are all D&D games. I don't see an issue with that. I don't see whether they are D&D or not has any bearing on what I said. Also, Bioware created the Infinity Engine that all of those games were based on, so yes, they would have pretty much had to be D&D-related, or they would have had to scrub a lot of the system.

I'm not calling out Bioware as a company. Hell, I don't even know why this turned into an argument. I'm just saying, they started out by doing P&P-to-CRPG conversions. They've stopped doing so, and are trying to break away from that mold by breaking away from a lot of conventions (that DA:O had) that they grew into by staying in that mold for so long.

I'm not saying I have an issue with it, I'm just saying it's changing how I percieve the company, and it's changing my expectations for how I see their games from now on.

[Dhiro]

Addai67 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
You're still deciding what's "substantive" to you is all that matters.  

So what you're trying to say is that the changes made to DA were well received by players and critics, generally accepted to be worth what was sacrificed to make them possible.

Uh huh.  Like I said, denial.

I'm a player.

If I say they were, do I win candy?

[LinksOcarina]

ShadowDragoonFTW wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Honestly, the thing that impresses me the most about the JRPG concept art is the sheath.

Yes, particularly large swords often went into sheaths worn over the shoulder and across the back. No, all weapons do not magically affix to the back like in Dragon Age.

Out of curiosity, what JRPGs (or games in general) have both sheaths for weapons and non-uniform sizes and shapes for those weapons?

Witcher and Witcher 2?

I'm sorry, but I have to be That Guy.

*ahem*

The Witcher franchise is NOT a JRPG. They're not from Japan. They're from Poland, you dummy. <_<

God almighty, do I need to school everyone on this? 

First off, you can't determine a game based off country of origin, or else I would be calling The Witcher a PRPG. 

Second, the term JRPG is supposed to refer to mechanics and style, not country of origin. The term was coined on the internet as short-hand slang to be deragatory towards a specific style of game through mechanics and cliches, fixed protagonists, linear gameplay, turn-based gameplay and other simpler combat systems. Pre-built characters in a narrative is also a key element, because it is wholly fixed over a more open world style of game.

If you want a some comparisons, Skyrim is not what one would consider "JRPG", whereas a game like Final Fantasy is. Plus the term would not make sense regarding games made in Japan that do not fit those mechanics. Dragon's Dogma, Demon Souls, The Wizardry series, they are mostly open world or dungeon crawlers where the emphasis is less on a coherent story and more on the exploration and "do anything" style of mechanics typically associated with so-called Western RPGs. And it goes both ways, Lord of the Rings: The Third Age, Betrayal at Krondor, and Fable are quite the opposite as they are more linear, more story fixed and "lighter" than an open world style-game. 

So I would agree, the Witcher is technically in the same style mechanically as Final Fantasy. It shares more elements with what people should associate the term with, but never do because its a poorly defined term. Heck, BioWare has a made a living off of it since I would argue Baldur's Gate, which shared many tropes that people would use the term on, albiet it almost all of their games are hybrid versions of the style.But thats a whole other discussion, as it is something the Witcher is also in because it is analagous to what BioWare does. 

But I digress....

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 11 janvier 2013 - 06:25 .

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
You're still deciding what's "substantive" to you is all that matters.  

So what you're trying to say is that the changes made to DA were well received by players and critics, generally accepted to be worth what was sacrificed to make them possible.

Uh huh.  Like I said, denial.

No, I'm saying your definition of substantive is arbitrary and self-serving.

On that note, this is what I've learned from this exchange:

Something I appreciate: BioWare should trust their instincts, do what they feel is appropriate and not waste time pandering to a potential audience.

Something I don't appreciate: BioWare should focus on what the potential audience wants in spite of their instincts and desires.

Suddenly the whole BSN makes sense.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 janvier 2013 - 06:26 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

Pseudocognition wrote...

Cel shading is a staple of western cartoons too. Western cartoons also exaggerate and/or simplify facial expressions and use symbols to convey emotion.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. The fact that all live action films star people and props and real things does not preclude them from having unique styles.

Yes that is true of western cartoons but the style used to draw them is different from that of an eastern cartoon. Not all eastern cartoons are anime either. Anime is its own sub genre as we've spoken about before and while it originated in the east there are now western animes.

The design of eastern cartoons are different too. That is true. That's what this whole argument comes down to. I say it's style (realism, photo-realism, surrealism, cartoon, anime), color use and lighting use that define the artstyle with design being part of it (just like contrast and other additional effects) but not defining it. You say it is the design that defines an artstyle.

I base my understanding of artstyle on the definition it has been given from paintings. That's my interpretation of it. You and others clearly have your own. So if you disagree with mine then that's fine. As I said to Upsettingshorts before; none of us are going to change our stance so I see little point in continuing this debate about the definition of artstyle.

In the end my true original point still stands. Origins is leagues above Dragon Age 2 both in terms of the artstyle and the atmosphere brought on by that artstyle. The colors used in Origins never produced a look which said "bright" but were varied enough to give each location an individual feel. Outdoor areas looked terrible in Origins but indoor areas looked good and better than anything Dragon Age 2 had at least.

Origins never produced scenery which was awe-inspiring but at least it had realistic varied color. Dragon Age 2 had a limited color palette which gave a dull look to things. Orlais is meant to be rather varied in color and quite extravagant according to what we know so I hope Bioware go back to a style more reminiscent of Origins and make things look more suiting to a series calling itself a dark fantasy.

With that being said I'm hoping Bioware are able to give DA:I a unique look that will remain consistent throughout the series but has some hints of the "dark fantasy" feel that Origins provided. However I'm sure I heard that there are no major plans to update the current artstyle much. However this doesn't bother me much anymore due to the fact that I'm sure character faces at least will look better with the new engine and Bioware are bound to produce some environmental effects to bring areas to life. I'm sure things will look much better on the engine regardless of the artstyle they choose to use.

calypsnex wrote...

I see a guy acting obtuse when it serves his argument, and getting very specific in pointless ways to further obfuscate any real discussion (art style versus art design leading to pages of pointless semantic nonsense). 

That said, I didn't miss the art style of DAO at all and welcomed the more dynamic approach to costume design and animation in DA2. And all the examples given of how DA2 landscapes and environments are somehow worse than DAO are fails in my opinion and the comparisons chosen were constant choices of apples and oranges except for one comp of the deep roads in which DA2 looked better anyway.

Meanwhile, this guy seems totally unaware that he's arguing with actual industry veteran artists, and trying to school them by pulling half baked nonsense out of his...pocket...instead of listening and processing anything anyone else says beyond looking for ways to mischaracterize or derail any real discussion.

This thread is the worst example of stubborn ignorance I've seen in a long time.

And how do you know I'm not an veteran artist in video games? Because my definition of artstyle is different from theirs? Or because I'm not blindly accepting another's opinion like you who appears to be unable to comprehend anything bad regarding DA2. Your use of fancy vocabulary doesn't help you either but I'm glad you took the time to browse your dictionary to provide your rather pointless narration on the subject which you too misunderstand just like smallwhippet.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how I'm wrong in saying that "a game with gothic architecture but anime style in terms of color and characters equals anime".

Or perhaps you, not understanding art and critique fail to realize that art spans a wide history and that everyone has a different interpretation of it. At the end of the day it matters not if it's the style or design which determine artstyle because DA2's artstyle was absolute garbage.

LiquidGrape wrote...


I'm not really sure what authority you have to browbeat others about style if you are self-admittedly unable to distinguish between the infinitely diverse aesthetics of cinema. The implication that Apitchatpong Weerasethakul's Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives is in the same style as David Cronenberg's A History of Violence purely because they both employ human beings in real, physical locations is bizarre.

Also, while I am not personally acquainted with pseudocognition, I can vouch for her, hoorayforicecream and axl99 working with games professionally. I could even name titles, some of which you'd no doubt recognise, but I prefer to respect their right to privacy.

Where did I mention that it's human beings which make films look similar? You're referring to aesthetic design. By the use of lighting and color, Pan's Labyrinth is able to create a different style used in fantasy films such as The Hobbit but everything else comes down to aesthetic design and then we enter a debate about "are films art" and that's a lengthy subject that I'm not even going to consider going down.






Regardless of whether or not those individuals are video game artists or not doesn't change the fact that their experience of designing art, 3D modelling or animation is rather irrelevant to what the definition of artsyle is. In theory anyone who has study art and animation can give their interpretation so kindly stay out of it until you answer my question about anime style but gothic architecture.

In any case as I've explained to two others now:

I base my understanding of artstyle on the definition it has been given from paintings and no other definition exists. That's my interpretation of it. You and others clearly have your own. So if you disagree with mine then that's fine. As I said to Upsettingshorts before; none of us are going to change our stance so I see little point in continuing this debate about the definition of artstyle.

Furthermore I think this thread can tell us that most people hated the DA2 artstyle. Some liked it but some liked the artsyle of Origins to. My original point still stands though and that's that the artstyle was abysmal.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 11 janvier 2013 - 07:12 .

[Wulfram]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Which games is it DA:O looks too much alike?

If it ripped off a single game, people wouldn't be calling it generic.  It would be called a ripoff of [game].

I'm not asking for a single game, I'm asking for a group of games from which it is difficult to distinguish.

It's generic because it doesn't deviate from broad genre conventions in any consistent way, and the inconsistent ways in which it does deviate are all hideously awful.

Are you saying this doesn't apply to DA2?  If so, please expand on how it deviates from genre conventions in it's art.

(Feel free to do the same for The Witcher 2, or Mass Effect, or Skyrim, if you prefer)

[daft inquisitor]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Things I've learned from this thread:

Something I appreciate: BioWare should trust their instincts, do what they feel is appropriate and not waste time pandering to a potential audience.

Something I don't appreciate: BioWare should focus on what the potential audience wants in spite of their instincts and desires.

Suddenly the whole BSN makes sense.

...I've only been here a week, and even I already figured that out. 

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Addai67 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
You're still deciding what's "substantive" to you is all that matters.  

So what you're trying to say is that the changes made to DA were well received by players and critics, generally accepted to be worth what was sacrificed to make them possible.

Uh huh.  Like I said, denial.

They anticipated they were going to get middling reviews for an 11 month game anyway, so why not pile on the desired changes while they're in a position of not being able to make a truly epic sequel anyway?

Game developers make games that they want to play.

[TheJediSaint]

Dhiro wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
You're still deciding what's "substantive" to you is all that matters.  

So what you're trying to say is that the changes made to DA were well received by players and critics, generally accepted to be worth what was sacrificed to make them possible.

Uh huh.  Like I said, denial.

I'm a player.

If I say they were, do I win candy?

Oooh, me too!

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Wulfram wrote...

Are you saying this doesn't apply to DA2?  If so, please expand on how it deviates from genre conventions in it's art.

(Feel free to do the same for The Witcher 2, or Mass Effect, or Skyrim, if you prefer)

• The Witcher 2 is a fully realized, well researched Medieval German inspired world and every aspect reinforces this art direction.
• Skyrim is a fully realized, well researched Norse inspired world and every aspect reinforces this art direction.
• DA2 does not reference any particular real life culture but has a consistent aesthetic in its architecture and has a stylized twist to everything that is quite unique for the genre.

Of the bunch, Mass Effect 1 is the most generic and uninspired, being an unapologetic Syd Mead ripoff....Syd Mead being the artist who basically laid the foundation for modern science-fiction. Throughought the series it maintains the Syd Mead style but starts throwing other stuff in there to offset the cliche, ending at ME3 which manages to be its own thing even though its basically a sci-fi stew.

[Wulfram]

[quote]Pseudocognition wrote...

They anticipated they were going to get middling reviews for an 11 month game anyway, so why not pile on the desired changes while they're in a position of not being able to make a truly epic sequel anyway?[/quote]

Game developers make games that they want to play.
[/quote]

1.  Because they should want to make as good game as possible.
2.  Because putting out rubbish version of your ideas isn't going to win any converts to them.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Wulfram wrote...

1.  Because they should want to make as good game as possible.
2.  Because putting out rubbish version of your ideas isn't going to win any converts to them.

1. They did exactly as good a job as they could have done in 11 months.
2. Says you. I wouldn't have given Dragon Age a second look if I hadn't known they were going to change the artstyle.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 11 janvier 2013 - 06:39 .

[upsettingshorts]

Wulfram wrote...

1.  Because they should want to make as good game as possible.

By whose definition of good?

Because, again, they didn't think another Origins would be good.

Wulfram wrote...

2.  Because putting out rubbish version of your ideas isn't going to win any converts to them.

And putting out a more rubbish version of a previous game's formula, one they don't believe in, would do... what, exactly?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 janvier 2013 - 06:42 .

[Addai]

Pseudocognition wrote...

They anticipated they were going to get middling reviews for an 11 month game anyway, so why not pile on the desired changes while they're in a position of not being able to make a truly epic sequel anyway?

So how did that work out for them?  How many "Worst Of" lists did FNV make in 2010, as compared to DA2 in 2011, and FNV with its boring, dated art?

Like I said upthread, I value art style a great deal in a game, but fail to see anything but incremental improvements in small things and overall a lackluster result even when they had more time for MoTA.  So at this point it looks like a net negative to me.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Addai67 wrote...

So how did that work out for them?  How many "Worst Of" lists did FNV make in 2010, as compared to DA2 in 2011, and FNV with its boring, dated art?

Who knows, but FNV continues to be a poor comparison to DA2.

And again, they didn't make DA2 thinking it would be amazing.

I said...

Can we collectively stop acting like there's anything actually similar
enough to compare the development of DA2 to? It's an outlier.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 11 janvier 2013 - 06:49 .

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...

So how did that work out for them?

Monday morning quarterbacking.

[TheJediSaint]

I thought that all the fundamental ideas behind DA2 were fine. It was the truncated development time that caused most of the games problems.

[In Exile]

ShadowDragoonFTW wrote..
I'm not calling out Bioware as a company. Hell, I don't even know why this turned into an argument. I'm just saying, they started out by doing P&P-to-CRPG conversions. 

I'm not trying to argue. I just had the impression you were trying to attribute to Bioware more of a connection to P&P than they really seemed to want at the start. When they made TOR, they chose P&P mechanics because that's what they worked on before, but the goal was cinematic storytelling. That's the point the abandoned P&P motifs and themes completely.

I'm not saying I have an issue with it, I'm just saying it's changing how I percieve the company, and it's changing my expectations for how I see their games from now on.

I'm not saying you should have an issue, honest. I'm just trying to get at the idea that Bioware wasn't as keen on P&P as you might think.

[axl99]

This thread is ridiculous for asking a developer midway through game development to stop what they're doing and redesign the look of their game so that it looks purposely dated.

How backwards is that logic?

All you silly naysayers need to know one thing. FROSTBYTE IS NOT ECLIPSE.

[In Exile]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Something I don't appreciate: BioWare should focus on what the potential audience wants in spite of their instincts and desires.

The potential audience being not COD, because the second Bioware wants that potential audience they are sellouts without a shred of creativity or passion for the games they make.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

axl99 wrote...

All you silly naysayers need to know one thing. FROSTBYTE IS NOT ECLIPSE.

And thank the Maker for that, they can't make a game look as bad as Origins even if they wanted to.

[upsettingshorts]

Oh right, I forgot. Only True Fans ™ need apply, no potential converts welcome.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 janvier 2013 - 06:52 .

[TheJediSaint]

axl99 wrote...

All you silly naysayers need to know one thing. FROSTBYTE IS NOT ECLIPSE.

^ This does not get emphasized enough.

Modifié par TheJediSaint, 11 janvier 2013 - 06:54 .

[Complistic]

There's many things from Origin I want to see returned, but it's art style really wasn't anything special at all. I'd rather they try something different than either Origin or the other game I don't like to talk about.