567 réponses à ce sujet

[Bfler]

Pseudocognition wrote...

If you want to know what happens to games that do the same crap over and over look no further than Final Fantasy. Square Enix's reputation is in the toilet.

What's with Starcraft 2? Basically it is the first part with better graphics.

[upsettingshorts]

ScarMK wrote...

I liked the "genericness/blandness" of Origins, could it have been better? Of course. To me, the look seems to suit the game.

...so you didn't like the game, then? 

I'm not sure how else to interpret the statement that acknowledgeness the generic/bland art, then calls it suited to the rest of the game.

[Addai]

Pseudocognition wrote...

If you want to know what happens to games that do the same crap over and over and bring in no new materials or ideas ever look no further than Final Fantasy.

This is one of those false dichotomies Shorts likes to point out.

[In Exile]

Wulfram wrote...
I did that.

(I still prefer less specific backgrounds.  Getting a choice of specific backgrounds is simply preferable to getting only one)

Do you remember that one thread about how someone wanted to RP a human who lived only in the wilderness and was anti-social, but the human noble narrative wouldn't let you do it?

Emzamination wrote...
Sale figures coupled with complaints
about changes to art style, combat mechanics, Dialogue wheel, fetch
quest, and the list goes on... etc. 

People complained about everything for ME2 and ME3, and both sold the same. ME1 sold 2.74 million. ME2 sold 2.96 million. ME3 sold 2.71 million. ME3's user score on metacritic is 4.5. DA2 has a 4.3.

Yet DA:O sold many times DA2. There's criticism, complaints, furor, etc. and that has nothing to do with the sales. DA2 sold badly compared to DA:O, but it's not clear that the forum (and general pre-release hate) furor is what led to those poor sales.

But DA:A tanked. Why isn't it absurd to think that lots of people tried DA:O based on world of mouth and didn't like it?

[upsettingshorts]

Bfler wrote...

What's with Starcraft 2? Basically it is the first part with better graphics.

Sure, if you wait over a decade before releasing an updated version of what is essentially the same game, I can see that working.

Addai67 wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...

If you want to know what happens to games that do the same crap over and over and bring in no new materials or ideas ever look no further than Final Fantasy.

This is one of those false dichotomies Shorts likes to point out.

Not really.  It's a response to the argument that BioWare should, once it has established something, continue to make more of the same.  The position was, and I quote, "gambling is self destructive."

As a counter-argument to your position, it's a strawman.  As a counter-argument to Emzam's, it's damning.

Not that it matters, BioWare has never done anything like Emzam suggests they do, nor is anyone other than Emzam suggesting they do it.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 janvier 2013 - 08:55 .

[Wulfram]

My only knowledge of final fantasy comes from watching spoony's reviews, but my impression is that they do lots of new things.

I mean, don't they have a new setting almost every game? Aren't the latest ones much criticised for being one corridor, when the previous ones allowed a lot of random wandering? Didn't Final Fantasy IX look like this? Didn't they do a MMO or two?

[Herr Uhl]

Pseudocognition wrote...

If you want to know what happens to games that do the same crap over and over and bring in no new materials or ideas ever look no further than Final Fantasy.

Final fantasy has tried plenty of new things.

[Herr Uhl]

Wulfram wrote...

Didn't they do a MMO or two?

11 and 14 are MMO's.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Wulfram wrote...

My only knowledge of final fantasy comes from watching spoony's reviews, but my impression is that they do lots of new things.

I mean, don't they have a new setting almost every game? Aren't the latest ones much criticised for being one corridor, when the previous ones allowed a lot of random wandering? Didn't Final Fantasy IX look like this? Didn't they do a MMO or two?

Sometimes they change the gameplay up but its functionally the same thing. Linear turn or ATB based combat. Random encounters in seperate instances. The series has maybe one or two styles depending on who is lead artist.

They all feature an unlikely band of inexplicably young people who need to save the world.

When they actually DID try something new with FF12 all the FF stans lost their minds, then they went back to making the same old stuff and then riding the FF13 name into the ground.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 11 janvier 2013 - 09:01 .

[Herr Uhl]

Pseudocognition wrote...

They all feature an unlikely band of inexplicably young people who need to save the world.

This is a vague thing to say that makes them all the same. The setting has gone from sword and sorcery to steampunk to sci fi in the series for example.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...

They all feature an unlikely band of inexplicably young people who need to save the world.

This is a vague thing to say that makes them all the same. The setting has gone from sword and sorcery to steampunk to sci fi in the series for example.

It is often a thoughtless amalgam of all of the above which makes it "Final fantasy."

The only one with a coherent art style is 12.

[Wulfram]

In Exile wrote...

Why isn't it absurd to think that lots of people tried DA:O based on world of mouth and didn't like it?

DA2 sold much better than DA:O on the first week, which wouldn't be the expected result if the problem was that people didn't like DA:O.  The problem was that DA2 sales dropped off dramatically after that, while DA:Os kept going nicely.  Though some of that was surely christmas.

But on XBox DA:O actually sold better than DA2 in 2012 according VGchartz.  

[upsettingshorts]

It's curious how, all of a sudden, we're talking about the alleged nuances and subtle changes made within the Final Fantasy series... yet I've endured years of comparisons between its inane ubiquity and Dragon Age 2.

Convenient.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 janvier 2013 - 09:13 .

[In Exile]

Wulfram wrote...
DA2 sold much better than DA:O on the first week, which wouldn't be the expected result if the problem was that people didn't like DA:O.

Not at all. It could mean there was a core fanbase that loved DA:O, and then the rest that bought it that loathed it. It was pre-orders that drove up the sale of DA2.

The problem was that DA2 sales dropped off dramatically after that, while DA:Os kept going nicely.  Though some of that was surely christmas.

Much of it, IMO was good word of mouth. But it continues to get. Bioware hasn't been able to get a handle on its detractors, and so has to deal with the vibe around its games being horridly negative.

But on XBox DA:O actually sold better than DA2 in 2012 according VGchartz. 

It did. It sold about 187,591 to 117,915, so 70,000 extra copies. That's driven entirely by sales in the US by the looks of it.

[cJohnOne]

Life doesn't have an art style. Why is it better to have an art style in a game? Instead of being generic or realistic?

Modifié par cJohnOne, 11 janvier 2013 - 09:19 .

[Wulfram]

I've always been under the impression that the best thing about the Final Fantasy series was the art. They certainly look very pretty to me.

(Which is very different from saying I want Dragon Age to look like them.)

Modifié par Wulfram, 11 janvier 2013 - 09:20 .

[upsettingshorts]

Touche.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

You're the one who limited the aesthetic design to architecture, not me.

We're saying that everything about how an example of media looks contributes to and is derived from its art style.

You're claiming that we're saying it's only one thing, and then "correcting" us by saying it is two things.

It's everything.  

It doesn't matter if I change it to armor design or weapon design. In which case both Origins and DA2 have a fair share of equipment which retains the same design (templar armor, leather armor, heavy plate armor).

Yes it is everything. My opinion though is that there are some things that are more important than the design hence why I said pages back that design does not define it. For me if a game has a clear anime style but the aesthetic design of weapons and armor is gothic I would define that game's artstyle as anime. If your opinion is that all aspects are equally important and you define a game's artstyle by its aesthetic design instead then that's fine by me.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 11 janvier 2013 - 09:28 .

[shubnabub]

cJohnOne wrote...

Life doesn't have an art style. Why is it better to have an art style in a game? Instead of being generic or realistic?

If you wanna play life I'll sell you a brand new copy for $60. It's all new content, with constantly updated challenges, also the graphics are top notch and totally generic, although the character creator sucks and grinding is horribly tedious and long (like 10,000 hours to master a skill, ug).


*not making fun, just riffing*

Modifié par calypsnex, 11 janvier 2013 - 09:33 .

[upsettingshorts]

cJohnOne wrote...

Life doesn't have an art style. Why is it better to have an art style in a game? Instead of being generic or realistic?

Why aren't all movies shot like documentaries?  Why isn't all art photography?  Why aren't all books nonfiction?  Why don't all buildings look the same?

In all seriousness, realism is cool.  But it isn't everything, nor ought it be.

(Also generic and realistic aren't the same thing)

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 janvier 2013 - 09:35 .

[cJohnOne]

But some people seem to be saying that Nordic or whatever is better than DAO's art style.

[Druk-Qs]

I agree OP. I'd like something a little more grounded.

[shubnabub]

cJohnOne wrote...

But some people seem to be saying that Nordic or whatever is better than DAO's art style.

What's being implied is that focused art direction is better than DAO's generic, unfocused, pseudo-historical art direction.