567 réponses à ce sujet

[Sutekh]

DAO artstyle was appropriate for Ferelden. It was brown and generally muddy and stony which gave a good feeling of the place. There were some exceptions (e.g. sacred ashes, the broodmother's lair), which emphasized the fact that we were in exceptional places. I wasn't very fond of the armor design which I found a tad dull, but then again I like my rogues in gritty armors with lots of buckles and such. I frankly don't care much for so-called "realism", I play games for fun, not for a history lesson. Especially when it comes to heavy plates, unless said realism also reflects on the gameplay (if you just took a massive hammer blow, don't make me believe you just can get out of that smashed can that easily). The mages robes were abominations in their own right - once you're out of the Circle and aren't supposed to follow the "rules" anymore, that is. Context is important.

DA2 artstyle was very hit and miss for me. There were truly splendid things, some wow moments (something I very rarely felt in DAO, visually speaking) and some very boring places. Lots and lots of sand, off-white, grey and beige which had a neat feel - but wasn't always appropriate. It sometimes felt as though the place had been sterilized, and many sceneries were incredibly flat. I didn't like the lighting either (much). Again, too neutral. Not saying everything should look like a Rubens, but some shadow don't hurt either. Armors / weapons were hit and miss as well, with some truly beautiful things, and some embarrasing and ridiculous.

The thing about DA2's artstyle is that when it was good it was really good, but when it wasn't, it really, really wasn't. DAO was more (consistently) in the middle.

Now, seeing that DA3 is set in Orlais, I expect some more fantasy and colours in the settings (at least the urban ones). Something that makes us feel the Orlesian mood and the difference from being in Ferelden or Kirkwall. I like what I've seen from the concept arts so far, but I'll wait to see how it translates into the game before rejoicing or starting a whining spree. I'd very much like DA3 to be its own person and not a DA2 bis or a DAO come-back.

tl;dr: To each game its artstyle. Ferelden isn't Kirkwall isn't Orlais so let's DA3 have its own.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Elton John is dead wrote...

Clearly you can't spot the differences then between the artstyle of Origins and DA2. Many people in this thread all agree that the two have distinctively different artstyles. These differences aren't caused by graphical differences or due to post-processing but are caused rather by differences in color, texture and shading technique. The artstyle of Origins for example was clearly designed to give the impression of a dark fantasy universe. It was atmospheric whereas DA2 was designed to be the complete opposite. There are simply no dark fantasy traits.

DA:O uses more colors than DA2 but it can't be likened to a rainbow. DA:O is not as bright as a rainbow it simply has more palette than the water-washed look of DA2. DA2 could have been post-processed to Hell and still wouldn't look as good as DA:O as this modder would tell you:

You are becoming tedious and you don't understand what you are talking about so I'm going to get back to my life now.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

How arrogant do you have to be to
presume to lecture professional game artists on their job, Elton?
 Hoorayforicecream, axl99, and pseudocognition all work in the industry. 

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 09 janvier 2013 - 06:29 .

[AtreiyaN7]

My response is: no - I don't want to see DA:O's style back again - not ever. And that doesn't mean I was in love with DA2's style - I was mostly okay with it and preferred the color palette at least. I just want them to do something new that's both aesthetically pleasing and doesn't involve a palette comprised of various shades of mud and/or dirt.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 09 janvier 2013 - 06:35 .

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...
 The huge weapons really do have to go- and it appears from the armor concept art that the fat swords are still sticking around. Does it do any good to go from generic western fantasy to generic JRPG?

That was from DA:O, and the justification for the oversized weapons was the camera. It was also the justification for the oversized hands in DA:O.

Many of the DA2 sword models are just DA:O models, especially the 2H models.

Modifié par In Exile, 09 janvier 2013 - 06:37 .

[Wulfram]

Pseudocognition wrote...

Also, protip Wulfram, you do watch animation. There is a metric f***ton of animation in games.

I never said, or even vaguely suggested, I didn't watch animation.  That would be stupid.

But games using animation is a practical necessity.  When the choice is available, people tend to go for live action.  Because the desire in most cases is not for distinctiveness, but for reality.

And I should say it's not just artists that need to be kept on the leash.  Everyone does.  If you just have all the departments doing what they think is cool and no apparent controlling vision then you end with, well, probably something like DA2.

Modifié par Wulfram, 09 janvier 2013 - 07:27 .

[upsettingshorts]

Wulfram wrote...

When the choice is available, people tend to go for live action.  Because the desire is not for distinctiveness, but for reality.

This assertion does not stand up to scrutiny.  Two problems:

* The statement that live action is preferred to "animation," which for this argument's purposes will mean everything that isn't actors and practical sets, is not really reflected in the box office.  A list of highest grossing films shows a mix, and the highest grossing film of all time (not adjusted for inflation) is Avatar.  Your comment about "given a choice" is meaningless, as such a choice is never actually offered.  There is no live action version of WALL-E to choose instead.

* The other problem is that live action doesn't equal realism.  After all, there are movies like Crank which are live action and not realistic at all.  Media likes to play lip service to realism - usually in the press or in commentaries to sound impressive - but it's rare that anyone seriously embraces it.  When they do, it's a conscious choice for good thematic reasons and not simply because "people tend go for it."

That isn't to say that "reality" isn't extremely important when it comes to certain subject matter, only that it's not as important as you're implying.  Distinctiveness also doesn't always matter a great deal, but it can, especially when you're establishing a franchise or IP's "look."  This is just as prevalent in live action (see the continuity of things ranging from uniforms, to ship designs, to LCARS user interface in Star Trek) as it is in games.

Star Wars would work fine as a story if lightsabers were replaced with generic swords that could be angled to reflect blaster fire, but some artists and writers had a fantastic idea for something creative and memorable.

Wulfram wrote...

If you just have all the departments doing what they think is cool and no apparent controlling vision then you end with, well, probably something like DA2.

Dragon Age 2 is plenty consistent in what it does visually.  It was just made in 11 months.  

But I'm glad you said "apparent."  That leaves open the possibility you acknowledge that you simply were unable to notice it.  Not everyone has that problem.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 09 janvier 2013 - 07:54 .

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...

Many of the DA2 sword models are just DA:O models, especially the 2H models.

There wasn't anything like that ridiculous Hayder's Razor in DAO that I can recall.

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Many of the DA2 sword models are just DA:O models, especially the 2H models.

There wasn't anything like that ridiculous Hayder's Razor in DAO that I can recall.

DA2's worst offenders are worse offenders than DAOs, but that doesn't mean both games werent offending with frustrating regularity.

[Twisted Path]

Regardless of art style I hope they at least get rid of spikey armor.

[Bfler]

Addai67 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Many of the DA2 sword models are just DA:O models, especially the 2H models.

There wasn't anything like that ridiculous Hayder's Razor in DAO that I can recall.

I think this sword shall be an allusion to the Ashbringer in WoW.

Modifié par Bfler, 09 janvier 2013 - 08:29 .

[Cimeas]

Bfler wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Many of the DA2 sword models are just DA:O models, especially the 2H models.

There wasn't anything like that ridiculous Hayder's Razor in DAO that I can recall.

I think this sword is only in the game as an allusion to the Ashbringer in WoW.

Your picture just reminded me that the Prince of Persia (2008) art style was incredible and it would be awesome if DA3 looked half as good as that

[Bfler]

Cimeas wrote...

Bfler wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Many of the DA2 sword models are just DA:O models, especially the 2H models.

There wasn't anything like that ridiculous Hayder's Razor in DAO that I can recall.

I think this sword is only in the game as an allusion to the Ashbringer in WoW.

Your picture just reminded me that the Prince of Persia (2008) art style was incredible and it would be awesome if DA3 looked half as good as that

Lol, DA with cel shading. 


PS: I think an ending like in PoP 08, where the hero undoes everything he has done before to revive his LI, would create a ****storm among the "fans", similar to ME3.

Modifié par Bfler, 09 janvier 2013 - 08:53 .

[XX-Pyro]

Just make it less brown and I'll be happy. I mean, I don't think I've ever seen the colour purple yet? Come on Bioware!

[Wulfram]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

That isn't to say that "reality" isn't extremely important when it comes to certain subject matter, only that it's not as important as you're implying.  Distinctiveness also doesn't always matter a great deal, but it can, especially when you're establishing a franchise or IP's "look."  This is just as prevalent in live action (see the continuity of things ranging from uniforms, to ship designs, to LCARS user interface in Star Trek) as it is in games.

I'm not saying that distinctiveness is necessarily bad.  I'm saying that "genericness" isn't necessarily bad.  And that distinctiveness and style should serve a purpose, not exist for the sake of it.

Star Wars would work fine as a story if lightsabers were replaced with generic swords that could be angled to reflect blaster fire, but some artists and writers had a fantastic idea for something creative and memorable.

Lightsabers serve a purpose in not being generic swords.  This is a science fiction style setting, not a fantasy one, so plain swords would feel out of place and it justifies their bolt reflecting properties, which helps explain why you're taking a sword to a gun fight.

It's distinctiveness to a purpose, not meaningless style for the sake of it.

Dragon Age 2 is plenty consistent in what it does visually.  It was just made in 11 months.  

But I'm glad you said "apparent."  That leaves open the possibility you acknowledge that you simply were unable to notice it.  Not everyone has that problem.

Firstly,  I disagree, I don't see much visual consistency.  For one example, the Champion's armour might as well be from outer space considering how it fits with the rest of the armour in the game.

But, that wasn't the point I was making.  Rather I'm talking about how the visuals interact with the story and gameplay, and how the story interacts with the gameplay.  I don't think they supported each other.

DA:O was heroic fantasy in the tradition of Lord of the Rings, with a certain skew towards the dark and gritty.  The art, by and large - I of course have niggles - fit that, as did the gameplay.

Modifié par Wulfram, 09 janvier 2013 - 09:39 .

[upsettingshorts]

Wulfram wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

That isn't to say that "reality" isn't extremely important when it comes to certain subject matter, only that it's not as important as you're implying.  Distinctiveness also doesn't always matter a great deal, but it can, especially when you're establishing a franchise or IP's "look."  This is just as prevalent in live action (see the continuity of things ranging from uniforms, to ship designs, to LCARS user interface in Star Trek) as it is in games.

I'm not saying that distinctiveness is necessarily bad.  I'm saying that "genericness" isn't necessarily bad.  And that distinctiveness and style should serve a purpose, not exist for the sake of it.

Style does serve a purpose.  That's the point people have been trying to make.

Genericness is bad because it is inherently derivative of broad genre conventions.  That's what generic is.

People "like" it around here because it doesn't challenge them, and they just remember what they want to about DA:O and don't remember anything else that blatantly contradicts the impression they decided to take away from the game.  Like "it's dark and gritty" or "it's brown" despite it not being consistently either of those things.

DA:O's genericness is obvious not because it's consistent, it's obvious because it's incredibly inconsistent.   The assertion, to me, that DA:O had some kind of aesthetic coherence that fit its narrative doesn't make any sense to me, because there was no coherence to what DA:O did at all.  Which should be expected when the art team is given no direction at all and are left to wander around in the vagueness of "it's generic."

Wulfram wrote...

Lightsabers serve a purpose in not being generic swords.  This is a science fiction style setting, not a fantasy one, so plain swords would feel out of place and it justifies their bolt reflecting properties, which helps explain why you're taking a sword to a gun fight.

It's distinctiveness to a purpose, not meaningless style for the sake of it.

Welp ya missed that point, I'll just move on then.

Wulfram wrote...

Firstly,  I disagree, I don't see much visual consistency.  For one example, the Champion's armour might as well be from outer space considering how it fits with the rest of the armour in the game.

How is it especially out of place?  

In what respect does it not fit in with "the rest of the armor?"

If we take your example for granted, and one example can ruin the whole consistency of an art style, how can you explain the rainbow abominations that were the Origins Noble clothes?  Do they not clash with the "dark and gritty" label people apply to DA:O so liberally?

Wulfram wrote...

But, that wasn't the point I was making.  Rather I'm talking about how the visuals interact with the story and gameplay, and how the story interacts with the gameplay.  I don't think they supported each other.

DA:O was heroic fantasy in the tradition of Lord of the Rings, with a certain skew towards the dark and gritty.  The art, by and large - I of course have niggles - fit that, as did the gameplay.

If that's what DA:O was, in what way did the art style support this specifically?  

What is DA2?  And in what way did the art style conflict with this specifically?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 09 janvier 2013 - 09:53 .

[Rinji the Bearded]

Wulfram wrote...
DA:O was heroic fantasy in the tradition of Lord of the Rings, with a certain skew towards the dark and gritty.  The art, by and large - I of course have niggles - fit that, as did the gameplay.

What about DA:O's gameplay was "dark and gritty?"  The last time I checked, "slow and clunky" are not synonymous with those terms.

[Jzadek72]

You guys are being very down on Wulfram, but I actually see where he's coming from. Now, I don't come from an artistic background here, but a historical one, and I'm going to speak from that. The reason that DA:O's artstyle seems generic is because it is based on medieval europe, which is an extremely popular setting. I'm not so sure that's a bad thing, either. It gets you into the dark, gritty and realistic feeling. Sure, it could use a little refinement, but by and large, that 'generic' look suits the tone of the game, as it isn't really high fantasy, and for the most part, the social structures and whatnot echo reality. Skyrim has been cited in this thread as a distinctive artstyle, but in reality, it's not actually any different from DA:O's, it's just set in a setting based on a different period.

This is what I find really jarring about DA2 - it doesn't. As you have said, the artists got to be a little more creative, but as a result of that, it deviated from the realistic, grounded tone of the game. The armours were strange-looking; the weapons overly ornate. It didn't feel real - which is fine for, like you said, Star Wars, or, say Spirited Away, where you're being taken off to a world that doesn't resemble our own, but seeing that superimposed onto what is basically a medieval European setting is jarring.

Now, Skyrim worked, because the world, from the start, is set up to be a Nordic/Germanic-themed setting, and the artstyle informs that while remaining quite gritty and realistic feeling. The problem that comes up now is that Thedas is medieval Europe, just with dragons and a darkspawn invasion - but still, thematically, it is medieval europe. Unfortunately, that cannot be changed at this point. I'd love to see a game with, say, a Hellenistic or Persian influence, but that is not the world that Dragon Age is. So I sort of feel like some degree of 'generic' (for want of a better word) medieval europe is warranted, and not a bad thing, because it fits the world. Save the garish champions armour or the strangeness of some of the weapons for a setting which fits them.

That is not to say I wouldn't like to see some distinctiveness, like changes to the elves to make them look genuinely different from humans, but the basic artstyle, in my opinion, should enforce the overall atmosphere, rather than clashing strangely with it.

[Rawgrim]

Just tone down the over the top anime combat and fix the elves so they don`t look like anorectic aliens. That would go a long way.

[Wulfram]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

People "like" it around here because it doesn't challenge them, and they just remember what they want to about DA:O and don't remember anything else that blatantly contradicts the impression they decided to take away from the game.

]

Remove the "People like what I don't like so they're idiots" overtone, and you've just just conceded my argument, so I'll leave it at that.

[Rinji the Bearded]

I swear to God, when any one says all three buzzwords here ("dark, gritty, AND realistic"), I think it's just one big elaborate trolling effort.  I'm kinda hoping it is at this point, because I can't apply any of those terms to fit DA:O.

Modifié par RinjiRenee, 09 janvier 2013 - 10:13 .

[mesmerizedish]

Wulfram wrote...

Remove the "People like what I don't like so they're idiots" overtone...

But that's your entire position.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

RinjiRenee wrote...

I swear to God, when any one says all three buzzwords here ("dark, gritty, AND realistic"), I think it's just one big elaborate trolling effort.  I'm kinda hoping it is at this point, because I can't apply any of those terms to fit DA:O.

My thoughts exactly.

Dark/gritty are not useful words to use to describe art style. They don't mean anything in that context. Dark describes the absence of light, and gritty can only refer to narrative tone or perhaps combat. A well art-directed game will have both bright and dark areas. A well written game will have lighter stories to contrast the darker ones. There is no tried and true formula of dark, gritty and realistic elements that result in some mythical super-game.

Gritty is the worst offender. It means absolutely nothing. If you asked an artist to make something more gritty, they'd say "gritty how?"

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 09 janvier 2013 - 10:26 .

[Wulfram]

It wasn't massively dark, gritty and realistic. It had a certain skew towards it compared to the conventions of the High fantasy genre. At least, the genre as it had generally appeared in computer games. The books moved that direction before the computer games.

DA2's story was more dark, and more down to earth, and probably intended to be more realistic. Of course, the art ignored this and the gameplay took a ****** all over it.

[Rinji the Bearded]

Pseudocognition wrote...

My thoughts exactly.

Dark/gritty are not useful words to use to describe art style. They don't mean anything in that context. Dark describes the absence of light, and gritty can only refer to narrative tone or perhaps combat. A well art-directed game will have both bright and dark areas. A well written game will have lighter stories to contrast the darker ones. There is no tried and true formula of dark, gritty and realistic elements that result in some mythical super-game.

Gritty is the worst offender. It means absolutely nothing. If you asked an artist to make something more gritty, they'd say "gritty how?"

Maybe overlaying the textures with sandpaper?  I have no idea.  But yeah, agreeing with what is said here.  Dark and gritty are words better used to describe tone and not visual elements.  

Wulfram wrote...
It wasn't massively dark, gritty and realistic. It had a certain skew towards it compared to the conventions of the High fantasy genre. At least, the genre as it had generally appeared in computer games. The books moved that direction before the computer games.
DA2's story was more dark, and more down to earth, and probably intended to be more realistic. Of course, the art ignored this and the gameplay took a ****** all over it.

I would you like to define DA:O's style without using the DGR buzzwords.

Modifié par RinjiRenee, 09 janvier 2013 - 10:33 .

[upsettingshorts]

Jzadek72 wrote...

You guys are being very down on Wulfram, but I actually see where he's coming from.

That implies we're confused.

We're not.

Jzadek72 wrote...


Now, I don't come from an artistic background here, but a historical one, and I'm going to speak from that.

Oh boy, that's my background too!  

Jzadek72 wrote...


The reason that DA:O's artstyle seems generic is because it is based on medieval europe, which is an extremely popular setting.

It's based on fantasy conventions that are based on a stylized idea of medieval Europe.  

Which is another way of saying its derivative of broad genre conventions.  Which is generic.

Jzadek72 wrote...

I'm not so sure that's a bad thing, either. It gets you into the dark, gritty and realistic feeling.

Being generic is bad for reasons stated many times.  Whether or not DA:O is dark (sometimes), gritty (rarely), or realistic (inconsistently) is up for debate.  

If DA:O's art style was meant to support the dark themes, why is the game so colorful in places that don't call for it at all?  

If DA:O's art style was meant to support gritty themes, why is everything so clean?  

If DA:O's art style was meant to convey realism, why do almost none of the clothes make sense?  Why are the swords huge?  Why is the sun a perfect yellow circle in the sky?  Why does fabric look like plastic?  

I'm tired of taking this "dark, gritty, and realistic" stuff for granted.  Explain precisely in what ways Dragon Age's art is any of these things, and provide many examples of how they do these things consistently.  If you won't do that, I'm not interested in changing my mind.  If you can't do that, then the game's aesthetic doesn't actually do it.  

An art style is not an inconsistent thing.  If you put a picture of the Broodmother and say, "Look at how dark and gritty" it's also a contradiction of the assertion of realism.  If you put a picture of Lothering and say, "Look at how realistic" it's also a contradiction of the assertion of dark and gritty.  If you put a picture of Orzammar and try to claim it's dark, gritty, or realistic, you're just plain crazy. 

There are consistently dark games.  There are consistently realistic games.  There are consistently gritty games.  Origins is none of these things.  It's generic, it's only consistent in that when it comes time to portray something, it rips off the broadest genre conventions for the given subject it possibly can and plops it in the game.  For everything else that could be described as original, like the noble clothes, they just drew a bunch of hideous nonsense because they had no direction at all.

Jzadek72 wrote...

that 'generic' look suits the tone of the game,

That's the most effective condemnation of Origins' story I've ever read.

Jzadek72 wrote...

Skyrim has been cited in this thread as a distinctive artstyle, but in reality, it's not actually any different from DA:O's, it's just set in a setting based on a different period.

Skyrim is consistent.  Even the zombies are Norse/Saxon-themed.

Jzadek72 wrote...

Thedas is medieval Europe, just with dragons and a darkspawn invasion - but still, thematically, it is medieval europe.

I don't know how anyone claiming to have a historical background can refer to Medieval Europe as having a coherent theme.

Jzadek72 wrote...

Unfortunately, that cannot be changed at this point. I'd love to see a game with, say, a Hellenistic or Persian influence, but that is not the world that Dragon Age is. So I sort of feel like some degree of 'generic' (for want of a better word) medieval europe is warranted, and not a bad thing, because it fits the world. Save the garish champions armour or the strangeness of some of the weapons for a setting which fits them.

At this point I'm trying really hard not to mention that even an Art History survey course would do a fantastic job explaining how Europe wasn't generic at all.  It was dynamic and diverse and full of creativity and competing and evolving movements in everything ranging from armor design to architecture.

But the answer is obvious.  Dragon Age, and fantasy in general, is not really based on Medieval Europe.  It's based on fantasy genre conventions that are built on a stylized concept of Medieval Europe.  It's not derivative of history, it's derivative of every damn fantasy media of the last hundred years, put in a blender.  That's why it sucks.

Reasonable people can disagree over how Dragon Age 2 looks.  I don't honestly care if people hate it with every fiber of their being.  But what I do care about arguing is that at least Dragon Age 2 looks like Dragon Age 2 and not a fantasy game loaf.

Wulfram wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

People "like" it around here because it doesn't challenge them, and they just remember what they want to about DA:O and don't remember anything else that blatantly contradicts the impression they decided to take away from the game.

]

Remove the "People like what I don't like so they're idiots" overtone, and you've just just conceded my argument, so I'll leave it at that.

If convincing yourself that's what happened here is what it takes for you to give up your argument, then by all means, believe what you want.  It'll save me the headache of continuing to respond to your nonsense.

And to be accurate, it's not people liking what I don't like that makes them idiots.  It's people directly contradicting professional video game artists that makes them idiots.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 09 janvier 2013 - 10:41 .