567 réponses à ce sujet

[TheRealJayDee]

Brockololly wrote...

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.

I admit I pretty much haven't got a clue about design and art styles and stuff. I mostly judge visual things by how they appeal to me and wether I think they are appropriate for whatever they are used for. DA:O looked like... well, "fantasy". Nothing spectacularly unique or artistically innovative, no doubt about it. But what I saw mostly made sense to me, and didn't take me out of the experience. Was it pretty? Not really, but I didn't deem it overly ugly either. Was it realistic? Not really, but to me it had a certain degree of believabilty. It was generic fantasy, and it was satisfying.

DA2 brought a lot of visual changes, and I honestly can't think of a single one that felt like a considerable improvement from DA:O. Instead a lot of things had me stop and think "this is Dragon Age, right?!". The new elves had me reconsider my Warden's interaction with the race in DA:O. The darkspawn just looked completely ridiculous, The new flashy combat looked like I accidentily stepped into a different world/game.

Anyways, while DA:O had little particular visual identity outside of "generic fantasy" I really didn't feel DA2 had more to offer in that department. The change wasn't from "generic fantasy" to "distinctly Dragon Age", but to "somehow different from DA:O". DA3 should be the game in which they decide what they actually want.

[In Exile]

TheRealJayDee wrote...
 Not really, but to me it had a certain degree of believabilty. It was generic fantasy, and it was satisfying.

And I think that's the essence of the difference on preference. I like fantasy games, but I loathe the fantasy aesthetic. The faux medieval look it goes for. 

[TheRealJayDee]

In Exile wrote...

TheRealJayDee wrote...
 Not really, but to me it had a certain degree of believabilty. It was generic fantasy, and it was satisfying.

And I think that's the essence of the difference on preference. I like fantasy games, but I loathe the fantasy aesthetic. The faux medieval look it goes for. 

So how should fantasy games look like? And do you expect/wish for Dragon Age to develop an asthetic that is completely different from what the first game looked like?

[In Exile]

TheRealJayDee wrote...
So how should fantasy games look like?

Not faux medieval. I don't have a preferred aesthetic, other than to say that I think any attempt at a realistic portrayal in an RPG creates huge story/gameplay distiction problems.

And do you expect/wish for Dragon Age to develop an asthetic that is completely different from what the first game looked like?

Yes. But I don't care for visual continuity very much, so long as the vision is consistent with itself. This is why, for example, the darkspawn in DA:O bothered me more than DA2's ridiculous chalkspawn do. I agee that DA2's design is not very good, but it's harmonious in a way DA:O's wasn't.

[cJohnOne]

I love medieval settings. Don't like guns in my rpg's at all. What do you mean by not liking faux medieval?

[Herr Uhl]

cJohnOne wrote...

I love medieval settings. Don't like guns in my rpg's at all. What do you mean by not liking faux medieval?

It doesn't have to be faux medieval in order to not have guns.

[In Exile]

cJohnOne wrote...
What do you mean by not liking faux medieval?

I mean I don't like what fantasy medieval looks like, which is not the same as what medieval looks like.  Look at a claymore, for example:



Contrast this with:

[cJohnOne]

The second blade looks more interesting but looks a little to wide in the blade part. Doesn't make me cringe or anything.

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...
Yes. But I don't care for visual continuity very much, so long as the vision is consistent with itself. This is why, for example, the darkspawn in DA:O bothered me more than DA2's ridiculous chalkspawn do. I agee that DA2's design is not very good, but it's harmonious in a way DA:O's wasn't.

How are the darkspawn not consistent in DAO?  In DA2 a genlock, for example, looks nothing like a dwarf, and all of them are more comical than menacing.

I also don't understand how a realistic portrayal contributes to gameplay/ design inconsistency.  You can make weapons and armor look realistic, or a slightly stylized version of it, even if they don't have the same properties in terms of gameplay.

I loathe the fantasy aesthetic often, too, but I think we have different ideas of what that means.

Modifié par Addai67, 13 janvier 2013 - 06:37 .

[Maria Caliban]

Pseudocognition wrote...

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.

Games use visual storytelling.

Art style is narrative. Or, depending on how strictly you define narrative, art style exists to support narrative.

[KarshKaIe]

I'm perplexed that this topic has even reached 22 pages. I can't believe that there are some people arguing that the artistic style of Dragon Age 2 was better than the one from Origins. Sure, Origins isn't an example of art in video games when it comes to its visual elements but the style at least was what Bioware had intended and it successfully portrayed the universe as it was meant to be. The style of Dragon Age 2 did not even fit in with the universe and this was reflected in the game itself where the labs of necromancers and the alienage of elves didn't in any way portray disparity or hopelessness.

Speaking now of the aesthetic look of armors and the architecture; there was nothing amazing about them either. Bioware had planned for Origins to look generic and it did, it successfully succeeded in doing so. Denerim's buildings were generic. Bioware had planned for Dragon Age 2 to look unique and it didn't. It looked horrible, bland, uninspiring and dull. The architecture of Kirkwall was uninteresting and the new armor designs looked horrible and impractical.

I'm actually finding this topic hilarious and I won't bother participating in it any further after this simply because the widely accepted census (on this forum and others) is that the Dragon Age 2 art style failed. Like with the style of Origins it never stood out and there will never be any articles about good art in video games that will mention Dragon Age 2.

Thankfully Dragon Age 3 seems to be taking a new direction in both the artistic style and aesthetic design as seen with the the concept art but concept art does not always reflect the visual elements of a game. However given that Bioware have expressed that they'll be avoiding the major mistakes of Dragon Age 2, I suppose there is indeed good hope that DA3 will have an improved style.

To conclude:

Jonata wrote...

Dragon Age surely needs some inspiration. It's kind of baffling how quickly they went from "generic fantasy goodness" to "Final Fantasy medieval edition". To me, it looks like this series is simply without a proper art design and struggling to find an identity.

My personal choice? A completely new art style. JRPGs like the aforementioned Dark Souls and Dragon's Dogma are finding a perfect balance between realism and surrealist, flamboyant art styles. Let's take a hint or two from them insteand of going full-Soul Calibur with gauntlets that will "tear apart my itchy buttocks".

[upsettingshorts]

Hah, the very last thing I'm going to accept an appeal to popularity in regards to is artistic appreciation.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 13 janvier 2013 - 12:50 .

[StElmo]

I like the DA2 art style much more. Its fantasy. Provided nothing in the narrative happens to do with tripping over your triangular kneepads, there is nothing wrong with unrealistic armor sets.

Modifié par StElmo, 13 janvier 2013 - 12:57 .

[Noviere]

KarshKaIe wrote...

I'm perplexed that this topic has even reached 22 pages. I can't believe that there are some people arguing that the artistic style of Dragon Age 2 was better than the one from Origins.

I know!!! It's almost like there are people who actually believe that art is subjective. I mean, c'mon! That's just crazy!!! Also, I heard that there are people who actually like red instead of the blue! This world is chock full of weirdos!

Modifié par Noviere, 13 janvier 2013 - 01:40 .

[addiction21]

KarshKaIe wrote...

I'm perplexed that this topic has even reached 22 pages. I can't believe that there are some people arguing that the artistic style of Dragon Age 2 was better than the one from Origins.

Its a rather simple concept. Different people prefer different things. Maybe you should deal with it instead of acting as if you and those that share yours are the only valid ones or as if those other people do not exist.

KarshKaIe wrote...


I'm actually finding this topic hilarious and I won't bother participating in it any further after this simply because the widely accepted census (on this forum and others) is that the Dragon Age 2 art style failed. Like with the style of Origins it never stood out and there will never be any articles about good art in video games that will mention Dragon Age 2.

Nice confirmation bias and appeal to popularity there buddy.  Sorry but if you even bothered to pay attention there is no actual consensus you are just seeing what you want to see. So I am going to take a page from your playbook and not engage you anymore after this because its pointless and there are already enough around here that will lecture me as to why my preferences and opinions are wrong.

[In Exile]

cJohnOne wrote...

The second blade looks more interesting but looks a little to wide in the blade part. Doesn't make me cringe or anything.

That's the thing, though: medieval isn't all that interesting. It's simple and practical. Faux medieval is stupidly ornate.

How are the darkspawn not consistent in DAO?  In DA2 a genlock, for
example, looks nothing like a dwarf, and all of them are more comical
than menacing.

But the gremlin looks like a dwarf in DA:O? Or the rotting hurlock looks like the very clean and scaly genlock? There's no theme - the hurlocks are the only darkspawn that are diseased, the genlocks for whatever reason look like gremlins, the hurlock alphas apparently have more ornate armour than Cailan, the ogres happen to be purple...

There's no indication that they are a race. The genlock fails to look like a dwarf, true, but all of the darkspawn look as if they belong to the same kind of species, using the same types of assets. Even Corypheus fits the aesthetic.

I also don't understand how a realistic portrayal contributes to gameplay/ design inconsistency.

Because the gameplay is decidedly unrealistic. Whether or not Hawke leaps across the battlefield in or the Warden takes 5 fireballs without dying, it's the same departure from reality.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Games use visual storytelling.

Art style is narrative. Or, depending on how strictly you define narrative, art style exists to support narrative.

Art, as in level art, lighting, and everything you see in the game does indeed exist to support the narrative. Style/aesthetic is distinct from these things. You could tell the story of Dragon Age with the style of Dishonored or Pokemon if you wanted and if it was well executed enough it'd probably be really cool and just as effective. There is not merely one aesthetic suitable to visually represent any narrative tone or genre. There is no law that says that if the narative is generic the aesthetic must be too. There are expectations, but ignoring, breaking or subverting them is not inherently bad.

The idea that nothing in DA:O's narrative was unique enough to merit a mindful, concise art style is kind of wrong and sad.

In Exile said...

Because the gameplay is decidedly unrealistic. Whether or not Hawke
leaps across the battlefield in or the Warden takes 5 fireballs without
dying, it's the same departure from reality.

You, my friend, make sense.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 13 janvier 2013 - 07:02 .

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...

That's the thing, though: medieval isn't all that interesting. It's simple and practical. Faux medieval is stupidly ornate.

Medieval craftsmen did not only create "simple and practical" objects.  Now you're saying the Middle Ages had no art style?

But the gremlin looks like a dwarf in DA:O? Or the rotting hurlock looks like the very clean and scaly genlock? There's no theme - the hurlocks are the only darkspawn that are diseased, the genlocks for whatever reason look like gremlins, the hurlock alphas apparently have more ornate armour than Cailan, the ogres happen to be purple...

They look like rotting, diseased versions of their original selves.  IOW how the books described them.  And they're actually gross and occasionally scary as opposed to comical.

They aren't a race; they're the corruption of other races.  And the visual disparity is even greater in DA2, so I'm still not getting where there's a criticism here.

Because the gameplay is decidedly unrealistic. Whether or not Hawke leaps across the battlefield in or the Warden takes 5 fireballs without dying, it's the same departure from reality.

This is the sort of reasoning that says because I ate a cookie I might as well gorge the whole tin.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Addai67 wrote...
This is the sort of reasoning that says because I ate a cookie I might as well gorge the whole tin.

It's the sort of reasoning that says that if DA2 "gorged the whole tin" DA:O must have so as well because neither is realistic in any respect.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 13 janvier 2013 - 08:22 .

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Because the gameplay is decidedly unrealistic. Whether or not Hawke leaps across the battlefield in or the Warden takes 5 fireballs without dying, it's the same departure from reality.

This is the sort of reasoning that says because I ate a cookie I might as well gorge the whole tin.

The example given from DAO was far more extreme, though. 

Since these games already have eating whole tins of cookies (5 fireballs) nibbling on one (stylized animations) hardly represents some unprecedented departure from reality.

So, congrats on reading his argument back to him, I guess.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 13 janvier 2013 - 08:23 .

[Addai]

So when the devs themselves describe DA2 combat as "over the top," they're, what.... lying?

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...

So when the devs themselves describe DA2 combat as "over the top," they're, what.... lying?

No, when BSN forum posters describe DAO combat as "realistic" they're wrong.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

No, when BSN forum posters describe DAO combat as "realistic" they're wrong.

*DAO anything-related-to-visuals

stayin on topic

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

So when the devs themselves describe DA2 combat as "over the top," they're, what.... lying?

No, when BSN forum posters describe DAO combat as "realistic" they're wrong.

Good thing I never did that.

I was questioning why it's incongruous to say you prefer a style that is less exaggerated and over the top, even in a fantasy setting.

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...
Medieval craftsmen did not only create "simple and practical" objects.  Now you're saying the Middle Ages had no art style?

No, I didn't say that. I said medieval weaponry is - for the most part - simple and practical and not ornate.

They look like rotting, diseased versions of their original selves.

Point out where the rot is:

http://images4.wikia...-Genlock_2.jpgp

Explain to me how the corruption gives dwarves pointy ears.

Where is the rot and corruption here:



More importantly, since the horns are kept but DA:O Qunari don't have them, what's the deal with then getting horns?

IOW how the books described them.  And they're actually gross and occasionally scary as opposed to comical.

The gremlins are very funny to me, and the ogre is, basically, badass. It's neither gross nor diseased.

They aren't a race; they're the corruption of other races.

A) Mention that to the Architect.
Even if you're right, they're still not in harmony with each other.

And the visual disparity is even greater in DA2, so I'm still not getting where there's a criticism here.

No, it isn't.

This is the sort of reasoning that says because I ate a cookie I might as well gorge the whole tin.

I'm sorry for your inability to reason: my condolences.

The argument is in reverse: it's if you've gorged on the whole tin, acting as if eating one more cookie will be an incredible betrayal of your diet is absurd.

The tin is the gameplay, then cookie is the aesthetic.

Modifié par In Exile, 13 janvier 2013 - 08:49 .