567 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

cJohnOne wrote...

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

No, they're saying that Skyrim's steadfast and consistent commitment to a Nordic aesthetic is better than DAO's unfocused lack of direction.

Edit:  

One_Sunny_Place wrote...

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

Grounded in what, exactly?  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 janvier 2013 - 09:45 .

[Druk-Qs]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

One_Sunny_Place wrote...

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

Grounded in what, exactly?  

In reality.

Now, DAO wasn't a photorealistic game(Odd facial structures, impossibly spread cheekbones, etc), but it's art style, particularly it's texturing and light work, made it look more realistic, apart from the fact that the animations weren't so over the top(Most of the time, at least).

Modifié par One_Sunny_Place, 11 janvier 2013 - 09:52 .

[cJohnOne]

I like historical because everything looks right.

[shubnabub]

cJohnOne wrote...

I like historical because everything looks right.

If we're talking about DAO, it wasn't right. It just looked right if you don't know the difference. The armors looked ridiculous and were misplaced, illfitting, etc. The clothes weren't historical, in texture or cut but they kinda looked like period clothing. The language wasn't historical, it was straight out of modern speech patterns. And then of course there were elves, dwarves, and trolls.

[Eternal Phoenix]

calypsnex wrote...

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.

DA2's "focused" art direction was still dull.

calypsnex wrote...

If we're talking about DAO, it wasn't right. It just looked right if you don't know the difference. The armors looked ridiculous and were misplaced, illfitting, etc. The clothes weren't historical, in texture or cut but they kinda looked like period clothing. The language wasn't historical, it was straight out of modern speech patterns. And then of course there were elves, dwarves, and trolls.

Most of those clothing and armor types were used in DA2 still.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 11 janvier 2013 - 10:00 .

[upsettingshorts]

Elton John is dead wrote...

Most of those clothing and armor types were used in DA2 still.

Yeah, because they didn't have time to make new ones.  They re-used a lot of assets.  

I would bet real money on most Origins assets being invisible in DAI, if they use them at all.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 janvier 2013 - 10:02 .

[shubnabub]

Elton John is dead wrote...

calypsnex wrote...

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.

DA2's "focused" art direction was still dull.

calypsnex wrote...

If we're talking about DAO, it wasn't right. It just looked right if you don't know the difference. The armors looked ridiculous and were misplaced, illfitting, etc. The clothes weren't historical, in texture or cut but they kinda looked like period clothing. The language wasn't historical, it was straight out of modern speech patterns. And then of course there were elves, dwarves, and trolls.

Most of those clothing and armor types were used in DA2 still.

I liked the changes in DA2 (visually), not the things that stayed the same.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

cJohnOne wrote...

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

Nordic inspired. Skyrim is not photorealistic. Skyrim is still stylized, and it has a norse THEME. DA:O has no theme.

One_Sunny_Place wrote...
 but it's art style, particularly it's texturing
and light work, made it look more realistic, apart from the fact that
the animations weren't so over the top(Most of the time, at least).

Absolutely not, and the worst offenders are the lighting, textures and animation. Show me a screenshot of an outdoor sunlit area in Dragon Age: Origins that looks like sunlight. Show me a character model that looks and behaves like real fabric. None do. Show me an animation that looks like it was executed by an experienced combatant. Look at how the archers move and fire compared to a real archer. Characters shuffle around in a wide open unprotected stance. It's not realistic in the slightest.

DA2 fails the lighting test for the majority of the game, though act 3 manages to be better in that regard.

The visuals in DAO are NOT a standard to which any game should be held. DA2 having some exaggerated, acrobatic combat animations does not mean DAO is realistic by comparison. They are equally unrealistic for different reasons.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 11 janvier 2013 - 10:12 .

[shubnabub]

I knew that second quote would summon psdo.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

calypsnex wrote...

I knew that second quote would summon psdo.

The timing was such that I just got back from some quick errands and refreshed, though I wish I could say I was summoned. Geniepowers would be cool.

[upsettingshorts]

Pseudocognition wrote...

 I wish I could say I was summoned. Geniepowers would be cool.

They are.

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

calypsnex wrote...

cJohnOne wrote...

I like historical because everything looks right.

If we're talking about DAO, it wasn't right. It just looked right if you don't know the difference. The armors looked ridiculous and were misplaced, illfitting, etc. The clothes weren't historical, in texture or cut but they kinda looked like period clothing. The language wasn't historical, it was straight out of modern speech patterns. And then of course there were elves, dwarves, and trolls.

calypsnex, you are absolutely right about the armor and clothing, and I hate to nitpick, but Dragon Age has ogres not trolls. There are no trolls anywhere in the series. Those can occasionally be found on Dragon Age forums (and other forums) right here on the BSN.

[Eternal Phoenix]

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?

Art style enhances the visual perceptive of a game. It provides the user with visuals they wouldn't see it real life and generally give a game a distinctive unique look. I'm all for Bioware opting to go with a realistic artstyle but I wouldn't mind if they made something suiting that of a series calling itself a dark fantasy.

Unfortunately I think they're going to keep the DA2 artstyle but perhaps on the new engine they'll be able to add the much needed atmospheric effects almost absent from both games. Graphics will be better too so maybe they'll actually be able to finally create a Dragon Age game which actually has good scenary in it. Hopefully they will make adjustments to the whole style though like making the lighting look similar to Origins along with generally darker shadows and colors and toning down on the brightness.

It's always surprised me that Mass Effect has had the superior graphics. I originally thought DA2 would be comparable to ME2 in terms of visuals but even Mass Effect 1 still looks better.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 11 janvier 2013 - 10:16 .

[Druk-Qs]

Pseudocognition wrote...

One_Sunny_Place wrote...
 but it's art style, particularly it's texturing
and light work, made it look more realistic, apart from the fact that
the animations weren't so over the top(Most of the time, at least).

Absolutely not, and the worst offenders are the lighting, textures and animation. Show me a screenshot of an outdoor sunlit area in Dragon Age: Origins that looks like sunlight. Show me a character model that looks and behaves like real fabric. None do. Show me an animation that looks like it was executed by an experienced combatant. Look at how the archers move and fire compared to a real archer. Characters shuffle around in a wide open unprotected stance. It's not realistic in the slightest.

DA2 fails the lighting test for the majority of the game, though act 3 manages to be better in that regard.

I think you didn't quite understood what I said.

I never DAO was photorealistic or even totally realistic, in fact I admitted it wasn't, I said it was more realistic.

More/Better does not mean it's good, just superior to something else.

And animations weren't so over the top, I didn't say they were realistic or perfect or anything. They were slow and looked heavy, perhaps too much, but it was still more beliable than the ninja master fights in DA2.

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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."

The false dichotomy is that they either had to make a DAO clone ("staple two archdemons together"... such irony now that we've seen DA2 Act 3) or radically change the look, tone and mechanics.  The latter sort of gamble is rather self-destructive given the other constraints they had.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

One_Sunny_Place wrote...

I never DAO was photorealistic or even totally realistic, in fact I admitted it wasn't, I said it was more realistic.

More/Better does not mean it's good, just superior to something else.

I disagree that DA:O was more realistic than DA2. It was unrealistic, stylized and exaggerated in different ways than DA2.

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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."

The false dichotomy is that they either had to make a DAO clone ("staple two archdemons together"... such irony now that we've seen DA2 Act 3) or radically change the look, tone and mechanics.  The latter sort of gamble is rather self-destructive given the other constraints they had.

Now they have a better idea what to ditch, keep, and refine for a game they actually have time to make properly.  

Hardly a suicidal gamble. Seems more like a shrewdly calculated one to me.

But I mean, we get that you'd have done things differently.  I would have too.  I'm sure there are people within BioWare, had they overall control, would have as well..  Where does that get us aside from... nowhere?  They were always going to change the art style, they decided on that before they even had a clue what kind of window they'd be looking at, as the change was evident in their earliest mockups of an as-yet-unplanned sequel.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 janvier 2013 - 10:25 .

[Wulfram]

As an aside, if they want to keep this armour from DA2, I'm OK with that



Shame it's totally different from every armour in the game. But still, I really like that armour.

[ianvillan]

Part of my problem with the art style of DA2 was the design decision of wanting the player attention focused on the characters so they wanted the environments to have minimalist details in them, to me that takes away the world which itself should have equal attention and could be considered a character in its own right.

[Daerog]

I like the current art direction that DA3 seems to be going in, at least what has been shown in the concept art so far.

Anyway, to throw in my nitpicking: hurlocks could be better, DA2 genlocks are good, elves are fine but could be better, the armor in the DA3 concept art is nice, get better mage hoods, and... that's it for now until DA3 info actually is released rather than sprinkled on the forums.

[Gebert]

Wulfram wrote...

As an aside, if they want to keep this armour from DA2, I'm OK with that



Shame it's totally different from every armour in the game. But still, I really like that armour.

If all the armours in DA:I would be in the same vein as this one, I would be one happy man. This and the Raider one are the best-looking pieces of gear in both DA:O and DA:II.

EDIT: Oh, and The Rascal's Scale. That one was quite good-looking as well.

Modifié par Gebert, 11 janvier 2013 - 10:35 .

[Brockololly]

Pseudocognition wrote...

One_Sunny_Place wrote...

I never DAO was photorealistic or even totally realistic, in fact I admitted it wasn't, I said it was more realistic.

More/Better does not mean it's good, just superior to something else.

I disagree that DA:O was more realistic than DA2. It was unrealistic, stylized and exaggerated in different ways than DA2.

I think possibly what some people might mean when they say "realistic" is maybe better stated as "plausible" or "authentic." In that, they'd prefer a visual style that had some degree of plausibility  in terms of realism or authenticity in terms of within the game's established universe.

For instance this armor that Wulfram posted:

To me that seems plausible and reasonably authentic. It looks functional and it looks like something somebody could walk around in and someone in a pseudo-medieval world like Dragon Age would likely make as a functional and practical armor. Great!

Now, the designs in Origins weren't necessarily plausible (gigantic pauldrons), but with the universe they were establishing, as "generic" as they might be, I though they felt authentic. That is, the dwarves had a distinct look in their armor, arms and architecture that felt distinct from the elves which felt distinct from the humans and so on. Those aspects felt unique within the world, even if they were under the overarching umbrella of "generic" pseudo-medieval european fantasy.

Its like what Todd Howard from Bethesda mentioned a bunch in the pre-release interviews for Skyrim regarding "authenticity" in their visuals:

Every fantasy world has its uniqueness and similarities to those that
have come before. What we try to do, is treat it like a real place. Like
a place that happened in some alternate history. That despite it being
fantastical, when you play the games it feels completely authentic for
what it is, almost historical.

That came through in Skyrim- it has a great sense of place and for what its trying to do, feels authentic. In Dragon Age, I felt like Origins conveyed a better sense of place and a greater feeling of authenticity, if not always plausibility, with their designs. Not perfect by any means, but not terrible either.

With Dragon Age 2, I felt it was much more of a consistently inconsistent design that while occasionally being more plausible (see armor above) often felt less authentic. This gets back to that Matt Goldman quote on the minimalistic art design, for one. How does that philosophy help flesh out the world? But then you have things like the Champion's armor in the OP- thats the sort of ridiculous looking armor that doesn't seem terribly plausible or functional to simply wear without impaling oneself and doesn't seem to even fit in with any established cultural look in the universe.

And thats part of my problem with DA2- the game might be more visually distinct from other fantasy games, but its less distinct and has less authenticity within the game world. Its like they did a pass over the designs from Origins and made rounded edges into all blocky, angular features, tossed in random spikes and horns and feathers and called it a day. It maybe has a more uniform look as a game, but that means the within universe cultural aesthetics are less unique.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Even with that definition, Brock, I still think most things in DA2 are more plausible than anything in DA:O. I don't want to defend the Champion armor because, practically speaking, its indefensible, but the same can be said for the massive armor and several other armors in DA:O. If you're not going to die from wounds inflicted by your own armor you'll die of exposure because of the skimpy light armor. I'll stop there, since I'd prefer not to have an armor practicality discussion in this thread. [Though feel free to tell me how the skittle-colored noble clothes were authentic to the setting.]

I disagree that DA:O demonstrates any sense of culture or place whatsoever. No location has its own aesthetic; every town is built from the same cartoony impossible gravity-defying shacks that make it seem like all the inhabitants moved in yesterday and built themselves a shelter out of scrap. There is no sense of scale to Denerim since you are walled in with no vistas. Redcliffe is basically a mud puddle. Orzammar is "dwarven" only because it preys on your LoTR nostalgia. That's what generic is; an aesthetic derived from nostalgia and the reduction of popular imagery into its most tiresome, recognizable form.

We ALL get it, DA2 was not an outstanding realization of its own art goals, but the point remains that the underlying ideas and thinking behind the redesign are not without merit and will have really excellent results in DA:I now that they have an engine that does what they need it to do and, of course, time.

Like I said a couple pages back, we're comparing a game with what amounts to no art direction to a game with maybe 75%-baked art, both of which are in an engine that is dated beyond reason. It's not comparing two fully realized art styles, which makes talking about the hypothetical art of DA3 difficult since its not easy to discern what in dA2 fully represents their creative intent and what was thrown together because of the deadline.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 11 janvier 2013 - 11:40 .