567 réponses à ce sujet

[shubnabub]

I like the direction the champion armors were going, even if they weren't perfect or plausible. And clearly in Kirkwallian culture one always uses the left hand to scratch one's ass.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

calypsnex wrote...

I like the direction the champion armors were going, even if they weren't perfect or plausible. And clearly in Kirkwallian culture one always uses the left hand to scratch one's ass.

Unless you're into the claws-up-ass kind of thing. You never know.

[upsettingshorts]

Pseudocognition wrote...

calypsnex wrote...

I like the direction the champion armors were going, even if they weren't perfect or plausible. And clearly in Kirkwallian culture one always uses the left hand to scratch one's ass.

Unless you're into the claws-up-ass kind of thing. You never know.

I hear that in Tevinter you can buy slaves who will do that for you.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...

calypsnex wrote...
I like the direction the champion armors were going, even if they weren't perfect or plausible. And clearly in Kirkwallian culture one always uses the left hand to scratch one's ass.

Unless you're into the claws-up-ass kind of thing. You never know.

I hear that in Tevinter you can buy slaves who will do that for you.

It can be a lot to take in.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 11 janvier 2013 - 11:54 .

[Wulfram]

Pseudocognition wrote...

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.

While my point is that, in as much as they are discernible, they are without merit, and will have poor results in DA:I.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

You have repeatedly proven yourself to have a poor eye for art and to be content with the least inspiring visuals in a game I've ever seen, so just go ahead and stay upset.

[Eternal Phoenix]

krul2k wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...

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.

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.

ever realised you talk ****??

Holding a grudge against me because I said "no to atheism" in your religion topic are you? At least I don't constantly talk out of my ass like you and then make excuses saying I was "drunk posting". Cry some more and lay off the beer son.

axl99 wrote...

Not until you actually go do some research yourself Elton. Your opinions are invalid otherwise.

Actually, I don't care for your opinions either way. They're malinformed, misleading, and biased.

Biased and malinformed? Yeah just like your comment. Take your own advice:

http://www.digra.org/dl/db/05150.48223

University document there. It concerns computer graphics but "artistic rendering style" too and covers cartoon style, realism, photo-realism and cel shading. In any case I'm done with this argument but feel free to disagree with the document.

Only if you have an actual argument to make and not just ramblings disagreeing with my comment that you wish to post as several others before you have done, then contact the university and start a debate against the two lecturers mentioned in the document. I'm done debating with people ill-educated in the subject.

Another one too (missing the textbook information but if you search enough using the references in the book you might find it as a PDF on the web but all that matters to me right now is the excerpt below):

Edexcel

Excerpt:

Artistic styles used in computer games: photorealism; cel-shading; abstraction; exaggeration, eg anime, manga.

There's many more resources I can dig up that support me but I can't be bothered doing research for you. Do your own damn research before telling someone else who has, to do it. When you actually find something supporting whatever the hell your argument is then feel free to PM it to me so I can debunk it with thrice as many academic papers. I am done with this thread.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 12 janvier 2013 - 12:58 .

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Or you could just take the word of several people who do this for a living and went to art school, instead of an academic essay or a curriculum outline. The terms outlined by the curriculum are not comprehensive nor are they universally used or relevant.

Also the first link doesn't work.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 12 janvier 2013 - 01:17 .

[Brockololly]

Pseudocognition wrote...

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.

Oh, I agree. The shoulder pauldrons in Origins look like they belong on a Warhammer 40K Ultramarine or something.

Pseudocognition wrote...
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.]

Again, I'm not necessarily saying that Origins was some brilliant masterwork visually. But the direction they took things in DA2 didn't serve to improve things much either. For me, both games are visually sub par, with Origins+ Awakening being slightly more palatable in some respects than DA2. But with DA2 many of the brand new designs were ones that were especially over the top and ridiculous- Hayder's Razor, Flemeth, Meredith's Soul Calibur lightsaber, the Key 2 handed sword in the legacy DLC and so on.

Pseudocognition wrote...
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.

Within Ferelden all of the shacks having roughly the same look makes sense. Sure, I would have appreciated more regional diversity that made sense based on climate/geography like Skyrim has between Whiterun, Markarth, Riften, Windhelm and so forth. But Ferelden is supposed to be a bit of ****hole backwater armpit of Thedas. The simple human settlements reflected that good enough for me. Contrast that with Kirkwall in DA2, which is supposed to be this overflowing city filled with refugees and there are all of a dozen people walking around. Its supposed to be an old Tevinter slave center yet because everything is blocky and angular, it might as well be Dwarven architecture.

Pseudocognition wrote...
There is no sense of scale to Denerim since you are walled in with no vistas.

The same can be said of Kirkwall. Personally, I think this is as much a problem of the camera as anything. Yes, there are big buildings to look up at in Kirkwall but the way they're designed and situated, your eye is never drawn to them. In Origins its actually kind of cool how you can see Fort Drakon towering in the distance from just about anywhere in the city... but only if you have your camera tilted up. Thats the same problem in DA2.

Pseudocognition wrote...
Redcliffe is basically a mud puddle.

I don't deny that Redcliffe could have looked nicer. Its terrible that they seemingly had a great opportunity for a great skybox and vista looking out onto Lake Calenhad and its this drab overcast nothingness. But the actual level affords more potential cool views and sense of verticality than most of DA2. Just from how you start in by the bridge with the waterfall and wind your way down. I thought that was cool. Again, Ferelden is supposed to be a backwater ****hole, so the construction style of the buildings matched what the lore was supposedly saying.

Pseudocognition wrote...
Orzammar is "dwarven" only because it preys on your LoTR nostalgia.

Sure. And its still similar in DA2 with the reliance on angular shapes and blockiness to all things Dwarven. Except they expanded the blocky aesthetic to everything in DA2 beyond Dwarves as well.

Pseudocognition wrote...
That's what generic is; an aesthetic derived from nostalgia and the reduction of popular imagery into its most tiresome, recognizable form.

Sure, but then if DA:O's goal was to be generic, did it not succeed? What was DA2's design goal for the art? To simply be different for the sake of different? I can't tell.

Pseudocognition wrote...
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.

Yes, it would seem they have a better chance to fully realize their goals visually, whatever they may be. But thats the catch for me with DA2 and all of its art/visual changes. How many were born of genuine desire to change things a certain way and how many were necesitated by technical limitations? I'll go back to that quote from Matt Goldman- if they could do anything with Dragon Age visually, was the minimalist style he proposed what they actually wanted to do? Or was it a compromise they were forced to make due to technical limitations based on the engine? And then going forward, if they're not still shackled as much by the engine, will they still keep those design principles they adopted for DA2, even if some of them were born of past engine constraints?

Pseudocognition wrote...
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.

Yup. Hell, I prefer the original Dragon Age artwork more than what Origins ended up with. That had some style to it.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Heh well we'll just have to differ on the last point.

Re: "different for the sake of being different," yes that is the the goal of the art in most games. All games except simulations strive to have a unique look and vision that applies to all aspects of the game, so that any individual part is recognizable as belonging to that game. If BSN has made anything abundantly clear it is that some people do not value this whatsoever, but the fact remains that it's important to everyone on the development side of things.

I appreciate your responses and I understand where you are coming from. I think we can either go back and forth more on individual design decisions or agree to disagree, and at this point I think I'm up for the latter.

To clarify, when I refer to a vista I refer to things far off in the distance that give you a sense of scale and a way to orient yourself in the world, whether the camera deliberately makes you stare at them or not. The view from Ostagar was not a particularly inspired vista but it was still a vista. From the docks in DA2 you were able to look over the ocean to the Gallows, from Darktown you were able to look out into the canal, from Hightown you were able to see buildings off in the distance, from the peak of Sundermount you could see the camp you started at. Most environments in DA:O give you the sensation of being in a mall or a bowl... or like, a colon, in the case of the Deep Roads. Just something to think about.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 12 janvier 2013 - 02:19 .

[TEWR]

Brockololly wrote...

Its supposed to be an old Tevinter slave center yet because everything is blocky and angular, it might as well be Dwarven architecture.

To be fair, some of the more notable buildings were built by the Dwarves and were later rezoned for other non-Tevinter purposes centuries later. I'd wager the entire city's buildings might've been Dwarven made if the Dwarves were responsible for the more notorious ones of the city.

[MrBonkBonk]

DAII personally had some of the best character art direction of any medival WRPG i've ever played. I especially appreciated the main character designs, they weren't so  typical western generic designs or over the top retarded and completely disproportionately silly looking. Or even borderline Caricature. (without mods)


Yes. Flame away because I have a different opinion.

[Maria Caliban]

Pseudocognition wrote...

I don't disagree that a lot of the narrative is broadly derived from genre conventions, but there is a difference between narrative and art style.

There's a difference, but what I meant was that DA is generic in a wide-range of ways. Narrative, art style, setting, quest structure, classes and gameplay, and even the music all adheres to what I expect from the fantasy RPG genre.

I don't consider that a bad thing. Something can be generic but not boring or mediocre.

Maybe not innovative in all respects but unusual and unique? Hell yeah.

Do you mean the attention to storytelling and companions?

[Maria Caliban]

cJohnOne wrote...

Life doesn't have an art style.

I disagree, but going into detail would only derail the discussion so instead I'll move onto...

Why is it better to have an art style in a game? Instead of being generic or realistic?

Because a game is a visual artform. Art styles enrich the experience of the game by giving us information about the setting and mood of the game.

Arkham City, for example, has this crumbling urban decay that mirrors the broken society Batman operates in. Mirror's Edge has antiseptically clean world where the human element is tightly controlled by the government.

[Bfler]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Because a game is a visual artform. Art styles enrich the experience of the game by giving us information about the setting and mood of the game. 

And they failed in DA2 with that. E.g Kirkwall is mostly empty and bland like this:




when it has to be something like in this artwork to convey the impression of a busy multicultural town:




In Denerim with it's marketplace I get the at least impression to be in a city.

Modifié par Bfler, 12 janvier 2013 - 11:35 .

[Bayonet Hipshot]

DAI should not be a Skyrim wannabe ...They should have medieval French art style..Because its Orlais...

[Kusy]

Bfler wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Because a game is a visual artform. Art styles enrich the experience of the game by giving us information about the setting and mood of the game. 

And they failed in DA2 with that. E.g Kirkwall mostly empty and bland like this:
-snipshon-

Do we seriously have to talk about Dragon Age 2 at all? Kirkwall is essentially a mildly interesting dungeon in design.

[soignee]

Denerim felt empty and cold to me, as did Kirkwall-- but then again, even Skyrim felt quiet and unpopulated, but the lore of the game it made sense that it felt sparse.

The closest I felt to "this is a city" for video games has been Assassin's Creed series and, oddly, Batman: Arkham City. The latter was very clever in that it was essentially a city without humanity, yet still felt very human.

Who knows, maybe I just like playing characters that brood on rooftops.

Modifié par soignee, 12 janvier 2013 - 12:23 .

[Uccio]

Great post Brockololly, thats exactly how I felt too.

[Master Shiori]

Brockololly wrote...


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.

I'll have to strongly disagree with you on the bolded part. 

The universe established in DA:O completely lacked any disctinct visual indentity when it comes to races and different human nations. Elves, dwarves and humans, in most cases, shared the same type of armor and weapons across the board, with differences being merely cosmetic (different color scheme, like green for elves). In fact, there were very few truly distinct pieces of armor. The only one that comes to mind is the dwarven full plate armor. Even the look they established for Ferelden and it's people in game, didn't match the description of the country in the codex. 

DA2 finally marked a concrete effort on Bioware's part to establish a proper visual indentity. Dwarves now have their own unique looking armor (light and heavy). Elves got their own unique light armor models which are not only different from those used by humans, but also show a difference in style between city elves and the Dalish (Just compare Athenril's armor from when you first come to KIrkwall to armor worn by the Dalish at Sundermont).
I don't think I even need to mention the changes to the Qunari and their equipment..

What's more, they're actually establishing distinct look for armor worn by humans from different nations. DA2 proper established the look of Free Marches. MotA gave us a glimpse of what Orlesians look like. Item pack 2 and DA comic established the new look for Fereldan arms and armor, which now actually despict a culture "on the verge of slidding back into barbarism".

So no, DA, prior to DA2, had no visual indentity to speak off. Especially if compared to other settings like Elder Scrolls, the Witcher, Kingdoms of Amalur, etc.

[Master Shiori]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

Its supposed to be an old Tevinter slave center yet because everything is blocky and angular, it might as well be Dwarven architecture.

To be fair, some of the more notable buildings were built by the Dwarves and were later rezoned for other non-Tevinter purposes centuries later. I'd wager the entire city's buildings might've been Dwarven made if the Dwarves were responsible for the more notorious ones of the city.

And you'd be right. Dwarven cuture greatly influenced the Tevinter Imperium at it's height. Ofc, as evidenced in DA: Those Who Speak comic, modern Tevinter architecture no longer has heavy dwarven influence to it, but Kirkwall was built in the old days, so it's similarities to Deep Roads and dwarven ruins shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who follows the lore.

Modifié par Master Shiori, 12 janvier 2013 - 04:47 .

[Druk-Qs]

Master Shiori wrote...

Brockololly wrote...


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.

I'll have to strongly disagree with you on the bolded part. 

The universe established in DA:O completely lacked any disctinct visual indentity when it comes to races and different human nations. Elves, dwarves and humans, in most cases, shared the same type of armor and weapons across the board, with differences being merely cosmetic (different color scheme, like green for elves). In fact, there were very few truly distinct pieces of armor. The only one that comes to mind is the dwarven full plate armor. Even the look they established for Ferelden and it's people in game, didn't match the description of the country in the codex. 

DA2 finally marked a concrete effort on Bioware's part to establish a proper visual indentity. Dwarves now have their own unique looking armor (light and heavy). Elves got their own unique light armor models which are not only different from those used by humans, but also show a difference in style between city elves and the Dalish (Just compare Athenril's armor from when you first come to KIrkwall to armor worn by the Dalish at Sundermont).
I don't think I even need to mention the changes to the Qunari and their equipment..

What's more, they're actually establishing distinct look for armor worn by humans from different nations. DA2 proper established the look of Free Marches. MotA gave us a glimpse of what Orlesians look like. Item pack 2 and DA comic established the new look for Fereldan arms and armor, which now actually despict a culture "on the verge of slidding back into barbarism".

So no, DA, prior to DA2, had no visual indentity to speak off. Especially if compared to other settings like Elder Scrolls, the Witcher, Kingdoms of Amalur, etc.

I believe what he meant was that Dwarves and Elves felt distinct between each other, not in a general sense.

Could be wrong, though.

[DarthLaxian]

Mr.Kusy wrote...

Do we seriously have to talk about Dragon Age 2 at all? Kirkwall is essentially a mildly interesting dungeon in design.

indeed, that is how i would have put it (it felt like a world of warcraft open sky dungeon like say zulgurub or something like that)


as for displaying a real populated city:

assassin's creed showed how it could be done (it could be done better, but it was just background for AC anyway)

as for "distinctive art style":

i don't need that and frankly i don't want that!

DA is no manga or something like that, it does not need a special style (maybe the buildings of a certain culture could have a certain style but that's about it, i don't need the trees looking a certain way or other surroundings, it is immersion breaking for me. i'd rather have them try to have everything look good then go for "artistic" or something!

greetings LAX

[sympathy4sarenreturns]

(Post removed)

Modifié par sympathy4sarenreturns, 12 janvier 2013 - 04:25 .

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

DarthLaxian wrote...

DA is no manga or something like that, it does not need a special style (maybe the buildings of a certain culture could have a certain style but that's about it, i don't need the trees looking a certain way or other surroundings, it is immersion breaking for me. i'd rather have them try to have everything look good then go for "artistic" or something!

The funny thing is, unless you only play simulators or photorealistic games, the aesthetics of most if not all games are stylized or "artistic" in some way.

If the trees in DAO were sufficient and didn't break your immersion, then you are in fact actually not bothered by a LOT of stylization.

Maria Caliban wrote...

There's a difference, but what I meant was that DA is generic in a wide-range of ways. Narrative, art style, setting, quest structure, classes and gameplay, and even the music all adheres to what I expect from the fantasy RPG genre.

I don't consider that a bad thing. Something can be generic but not boring or mediocre.

I happen to think everything but the writing in DAO was generic, boring and mediocre, but I see what you're saying. I'm not sure how useful it is to bring up the narrative in an art style discussion, was my point.

Maybe not innovative in all respects but unusual and unique? Hell yeah.

Do you mean the attention to storytelling and companions?

Yeup. And some other things, for example I feel like I've learned quite a bit about some game dev stuff because basically no AAA devs have had to put up with so much engine BS hehe. Its like watching a wrestling match happen as you play a game.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 12 janvier 2013 - 08:15 .