567 réponses à ce sujet

[tishyw]

Jzadek72 wrote...

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.

Agree 100%.

[axl99]

Here. Your daily dose of "Dark, Gritty and Realistic."

[Rinji the Bearded]

axl99 wrote...

Here. Your daily dose of "Dark, Gritty and Realistic."

I've never seen a picture more apt to describe my feelings about DA:O

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
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.

And I think this is what people sometimes mean when they ask for a return to DAO's style.  A directional thing- dialing back on the exaggerated/ cartoonish elements- rather than "I loved everything about DAO's look."

[upsettingshorts]

I refuse to believe people who claim they love -everything- about DAO's look.

It's too inconsistent to have a consistent opinion about.

I get that by comparison they may feel that certain elements of DA2's style push things too far, and that's fine. I can understand an argument that calls for a regression to the mean.

In many ways, I'm not so much concerned with defending Dragon Age 2 as I am with refusing to accept Origins' visuals as a good example of anything.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 09 janvier 2013 - 10:59 .

[XX-Pyro]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I refuse to believe people who claim they love -everything- about DAO's look.

It's too inconsistent to have a consistent opinion about.

I get that by comparison they may feel that certain elements of DA2's style push things too far, and that's fine. I can understand an argument that calls for a regression to the mean.

In many ways, I'm not so much concerned with defending Dragon Age 2 as I am with refusing to accept Origins' visuals as a good example of anything.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. 

Modifié par XX-Pyro, 10 janvier 2013 - 12:17 .

[Conduit0]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I refuse to believe people who claim they love -everything- about DAO's look.

It's too inconsistent to have a consistent opinion about.

I get that by comparison they may feel that certain elements of DA2's style push things too far, and that's fine. I can understand an argument that calls for a regression to the mean.

In many ways, I'm not so much concerned with defending Dragon Age 2 as I am with refusing to accept Origins' visuals as a good example of anything.

What are you talking about? DAO's visuals were a good example... of every other uninspired, bland, and generic fantasy game ever made.

[Eternal Phoenix]

smallwhippet wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...

smallwhippet wrote...

Couldn't decide whether it was genuine misunderstanding of the terms of reference, or being wilfully obtuse.

Or perhaps I wasn't even discussing post-processing in the first place.

...and the misunderstanding continues! I was merely concurring with @Pseudocognition's assessment of  what you had written in your previous posts.
Specifically, I was referring to the fact that you didn't appreciate the point @Upsettingshorts was making about an artstyle and an aesthetic being the same thing. Even when he tried to explain it, you doggedly held on to the notion that he was talking about armour design, and insisted that he was contradicting himself, when, in fact, he wasn't. 

For what it's worth, I agree with @Upsettingshorts's last post. I would be inclined to drop the subject.

Yet I also originally said that aesthetic design and artstyle were not the same things. If you want to argue that they are with Upsettingshorts then fine but there's a reason why they both have different names and definitions. I could create a game with a realistic style to it (Mass Effect graphics for example) and yet with anime design (give realistic looking characters big eyes and big weapons). Design would be anime but artstyle would be realistic if characters weren't cartoons.

Seems people here can't make out the difference still between style or design though so whatever.

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.  

Well perhaps the fact that I'm a computer scientist who studied 3D animation along the way with a host of other subjects concerning computer application use. However I guess everyone who agrees with you is a "professional video game artist" now.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Likewise, that Valve article you linked? Doesn't say remotely what you think it does.  And you're not fooling anyone with your excuse that you cited fourth graders on purpose.  Nobody believes you didn't just type art style into Google and blurt out whatever could be misinterpreted to support your "argument."

How was the 4 graders article (which was linked to on purpose) misinterpreted when it agreed exactly what I said about artsyle? I don't want to bring Wikipedia into this but even that says the same thing just like the About.com article and just like any other site about artsyles will. The Valve article pretty much says what I've been saying all along that the "ahistorical" (your words not mine) defintion of artstyle can and does apply to games too.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'll let the experts do the rest of the talking, a lesson you should have learned a long time ago.  For my part, I'm through with you.  

The expert did do the talking and provided references and sources. Perhaps if you did your own research by Googling "artstyle" or even "video game artstyle" you would see a host of sites agreeing with me. Hoorayforicecream started his own argument about shaders (something really irrevelant to what I was discussing) and pseudocognition was making an excuse for DA2 with his post-processing argument.

Pseudocognition wrote...


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.

LOL goodbye then "professional video game artist" who can't even provide sources and references to support his incorrect notion that aesthetic design is the same as style. You couldn't be anymore wrong. I could give things a gothic design and architecture but if I make the color bright and cartoonish (with characters that look like cartoons) the artstyle would be cartoon/comical rather than gothic.

But whatever. Make your excuses for DA2 with your post-processing argument.

====

In any case if we agree that design does define what an artstyle is (when it's only a part and does not fully define it) then there's no difference with Origins or DA2 as they generally had the same armor designs from the leather armor to plate and templar armor.





Clearly the DA2 defenders didn't play through the game much like I did otherwise they would have noted the aesthetic similarities between weapons and armor. The only true aesthetic difference being with the town which was part of its history.

Hmmm. I wonder. Should DA:I be classed with an eastern artstyle if the developers threw in eastern weapons and armor but kept DA2's exact artstyle unchanged (on the same graphical engine too)? It shouldn't be. It would be the same artstyle as DA2 just with different designs.

There's no misunderstanding on my part whatever. I see why "some" people are confusing design to mean artstyle but they're wrong in their interpretation of the meaning as I've explained above.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 10 janvier 2013 - 01:21 .

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

I think dao looked really good, minus the archaic technology. and in spite of it, the flames are some of the prettiest I've seen in a game. The environments were probably the biggest eye sore. Definitely hope they go back

[upsettingshorts]

No, they were video game artists well before they agreed with me. It's fantastic you've moved on to calling them liars though, truly.  

But hey, you studied stuff once along the way to your unrelated occupation and can misinterpret your "sources" to have them say whatever you want them to, despite the fact they do not.

As for me, I'm perfectly content that the people who actually know what they're talking about broadly concur with me and not you.  Reading further posts from you on the subject matter are an exercise in futility.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 janvier 2013 - 01:23 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

Well I was a video game artist too working for Bungie before I quit the job to continue my career in computer science. Welcome to the internet Upsettingshorts where anyone can be anyone (well the only untruth in my statement is that I have not worked for Bungie).

I haven't misinterpreted my sources in any way hence why you can't even explain or argue against my points other than disagreeing with them and repeating the same old garbage about design being the same as artstyle. That's your interpretation? Fine but a game with gothic architecture but anime style in terms of color and characters equals anime to me.

I see no point for this to continue. You have dismissed yourself away several times anyway and none of us are going to change our stances evidently.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 10 janvier 2013 - 01:31 .

[ravnkl0]

Honestly the main problem I had with DA2 was the look of the darkspawn, They didn't look terrifying and bone chilling like in Origins. I saw the darkspawn and could honestly say that I laughed. They looked weak and flimsy. I only hope that in DA3 that if they bring back darkspawn they bring back the horrorifying and grotesque look from Origins

I honestly thought DA2 was beautiful and a much better world to explore aesthetically. And that the armour was much nicer, especially for the Grey Wardens (as my profile picture shows)

[upsettingshorts]

Several people have, at length, explained precisely why you're wrong. Several people have, at length, explained various different ways that your counter-arguments are specious. Several people have pointed out that you have moved the goal posts. Several people have pointed out that the terms you're using don't mean what you think they do.

Your response is to cite 4th graders, articles that don't say what you claim they do, and propose laughably absurd arguments like porting DA2 armor into Skyrim.

Either they're all wrong or you are. You maintain they're all wrong. They maintain you are. Your final argument is to call people who claim personal expertise are liars. This is revealing. This is also what we in the argument business call an impasse.

Im not going to give you an art history lesson, and I doubt pseudo or axl99 has the time to explain everything they know about video game art to you either.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 janvier 2013 - 01:35 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

No. Several people have confused what my original argument was about and spoke about different things. I was never speaking about the graphical engine (you contradict yourself as before) or post-processing.

No one has explained how I'm wrong in saying that "a game with gothic architecture but anime style in terms of color and characters equals anime" hence why you haven't even addressed this still (or my other post) and neither did your so-called professionals.

You're not going to give me an art lesson? Good. I don't need one from an amateur who can't even understand a site for 4th graders.

I could use your same logic and say that because several people in this thread compared DA2 to a cartoon/anime (agreeing with me about the cartoon look of DA2 in comparison to the realistic darker look of Origins) and gave well written reasons for why they think this, you're wrong but instead (because you're so wrong) I am able to dispute all of your points with my own argument much unlike your so called professionals.

Edit:

Let's use your flawed logic:

Both BioticSage (Ex-Artistic Director for Castlevania Lords of Shadow + Dark Souls) and robtheguru (Artist working for Blizzard) agree with me that DA2 is cartoony, bright and stylized in comparison to Origins and since they're such esteemed personal I'm right by default. No argument to be had.

(All from the first page but I could find more from the following 8 pages but can't be bothered using your flawed logic)

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 10 janvier 2013 - 01:53 .

[Augoeides]

I was definitively ambivalent (and the award for poor use of English and self-contradiction goes to...) regarding the art style, aesthetics, art design, what the lordy lord you want to call it, of both DA:O and DA2.

Environmentally DA:O was very much "Oh look it's fantasy", "Oh look it's stone walls and dirty ground and some trees in a forest", it ticked the boxes, pretty much all of the boxes I'm aware of and that's fine, it got the job done and in one or two places I really liked how that was implemented in the game itself, for example, even in Redcliffe, aside from the finery splashed about the castle when it wasn't overrun with undead, I could look down at that grungy looking town, with its crapshacks and dirty lake water and even accounting for the recent undead I could look at it and say appreciatively: "This looks like, and could not be mistaken for anything other than the everyday squalor of a medieval town." The Alienage felt disproportionately colorful in comparison, it was that damn tree bringing a tiny bit of hope into their lives I imagine.

Armor wise, DA:O ticked the boxes again. Nothing great, nothing too horrific... barring mage hats.

Character designs: we have a young handsome man, a sultry young lady, a kindly but stern older lady, the often demure but sometimes fiery redhead (funny how redheads tend to be fiery), the handsome elf who just happened to be the handsome lech too, the big guy, the bearded red-haired dwarf drunk battleaxe, and the token whacky party options in the form of a dog (not that whacky anymore, in fact I know it's showed up a few times prominently in JRPGs at least) and a golem. That's not to say I didn't like the party but, when you look at the concept art and then look at what we had in game... let me rephrase: 'when I do those things', I see concept art flirting with high fantasy that got tethered back into a 'just fantasy' realism. Not great, not bad, it got the job done, and it got it done right, not spectacularly but very much right.

Comparatively, when I look at the concept art available to us regarding DA2 I can see the transition from the art to the game itself: the conceptual art translated into the game itself very clearly. However good a job or not it may have done at making that art style 'attractive' is another debate but it certainly seemed to have some foci which were indicative of it, and not a genre at large.

If 'dark, gritty, and realistic, are the buzzwords to lend credence to the notion that DA:O's visual direction wasn't just a parade through the brown land of fantasy tropes then I want to see DA:I as bright, polished, and fantastical: it is supposedly mother******* Orlais after all.

That said, if I want to play that amazes me with its vivid and unique artistic style, I will not be playing Dragon Age, I'll be off indulging in the Atelier series or Okami or Final Fantasy 6. Say what you want about 'cartoonish' games or 'anime style', I'm still getting a lot more variety and and enjoyment out them after all these years, definitely more than I'm getting out of so called 'dark, gritty, realism'. (That said I ADORE Dragon Age, love it for it is and appreciate all the artist's hard work and input and will be playing it)

Modifié par Augoeides, 10 janvier 2013 - 02:15 .

[Maria Caliban]

I have a question:

I hated DA:O's goofy hats but thought they looked fine in the Witcher 2. Why is that?

Let me illustrate.

These two come from the 'let me slap a puffy thing of cloth' on my head school:


This woman is wearing that 1990's Madonna bra on her head:


I find myself thinking that's goofy headgear, but it doesn't bother me. It doesn't take me out of the game.

Then there's Dragon Age:



I just find myself thinking 'why?!' Every time I see the headgear I pause and wonder why it looks so goofy.

Can anyone explain to me the difference? It's a serious question.

[Jzadek72]

[quote]RinjiRenee wrote...

[quote]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?"

[/quote]

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.  

[/quote]

I'd say that in the process of creating something, if you approach them as anything other than inextricably linked, you're doing it wrong.


[quote]Upsettingshorts wrote...

[quote]Jzadek72 wrote...

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

That implies we're confused.

We're not.

[/quote]

It implies nothing other than that you don't share his opinion, which you've made pretty (unnecessarily aggressively) clear.



[quote][quote]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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

Which I'm arguing isn't such a bad thing, because it provides a recognisable basis for what the DA:O universe is like. If you think the world is generic, then that's your prerogative, and I'm not sure I'd completely disagree - but that's what it is now, so the art-style may as well support it.

[quote]Jzadek72 wrote...

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

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?  [/quote]

Dark the tone is not the same thing as dark the colour. 

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

I'm not sure I'd agree with you that everythings all that clean. But even then, it's success is another thing entirely to it's intention. And giving the marketing buzzwords, I think we can safely say that gritty was an aim.

[quote]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? [/quote] 

Honestly? Partly because they didn't do their research properly, partly because to most people it won't actually matter and will still look realistic *enough* and partly because of the god-awful engine. 

[quote]Why is the sun a perfect yellow circle in the sky?  Why does fabric look like plastic?[/quote]


Engine limitations? I'm sure the new frostbite stuff will be better at this.

[quote]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.  [/quote]

Well, funny as it may seem, I'm not interesting in changing your mind either. I'm interesting in posting an alternative point of view that I happen to have. 


[quote] 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. [/quote]

Yeah, okay, I should clarify that I'm talking mainly about the world of humanity. Dwarves are a whole other category. 

But taking your example of the Broodmother, I think that that's an enormous fallacy in the context of a fantasy world. Suspension of disbelief maintains that the Broodmother exists, and we as an audience must accept that. In the realms of the setting, it is acceptable. Now, a supposedly normal human swinging what appears to be a massive claymore/butchers knife lovechild one-handed while wearing something which seems to be some weird mongolian pixel art violates that suspension of disbelief in a whole different way.

Lothering I'll grant you, and I think the artstyle failed in conveying the feeling of a refugee camp. But I think it was trying.


[quote][quote]Jzadek72 wrote...

that 'generic' look suits the tone of the game,[/quote]

That's the most effective condemnation of Origins' story I've ever read.[/quote]

Well, great. Feel free to use that when we discuss Origins' story.

[quote][quote]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.[/quote]

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

[/quote]

Yeah, Skyrim does it far, far better. But DA:O is at least aiming for something, while I think that DA2 shoots the wrong way.


[quote][quote]Jzadek72 wrote...

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

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

It doesn't. DA:O  borrows from lots of different parts of Medieval Europe, and different periods in it's history. But ultimately, it becomes something coherent and recognisable - much like Skyrim, which we've both agreed on is consistent, borrows from Saxon, Celtic, Scandinavian, classical Germanic tribes and arguably Russian stylings. It would be disengenuous to say that the Celts and the Saxons, or the Teutons and the Vikings were the same, but they share enough in terms of culture that they become something recognisable and thematically consistent when put together. Again, I'll concede that Skyrim does it far better, but it's still doing the same thing. 

[quote][quote]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. [/quote]

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.
[/quote][quote]


Again, I've addressed this. It's based on an amalgamation of various cultures which become something which does not clash. Sure, the Franks are not the Holy Roman Empire which is not Hungary, but even an Art History course would do a good job at explaining that they are similar enough, that for purposes of creating a game universe that feels real, and tangible, combining them is a forgivable thing.

But hey, I'm not even arguing that they do it particularly well, or that it isn't derivative of fantasy media (though I'd reject your premise that that isn't derivative of history in itself) - I'm arguing that I prefer it to the complete, well, fantasy of Hayden's Razor or the Mage Champion armour. I think Origins is on the right path, and that with the new engine, we could see something genuinely great.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Elton John is dead wrote...

"a game with gothic architecture but anime style in terms of color and characters equals anime"

That's like saying Fritz Lang's Metropolis, The Big Sleep and Ed Wood are all the same because they're in black and white.

Or like saying all Film Noir movies look the same. But then what about Blade Runner? Blade Runner is Film Noir, but it looks different because of the set and prop design.

Or like saying 300 and Sucker Punch are the same because they're both by Zack Snyder.

Does a cartoon made in Japan feature a building with Gothic architecture? They would refer to it as anime regardless of the content because anime means "cartoon." The building with Gothic architecture would still be Gothic.

(Also, "anime" is not defined by its color choices. Many anime are very muted and realistic in color, for example Ghost in the Shell: SAC or Monster. The only thing "anime" indicates is that it is a 2D animation made in Japan and generally having a Japanese aesthetic which in some cases barely differs from a Western cartoon aesthetic.)

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 10 janvier 2013 - 02:42 .

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Can anyone explain to me the difference? It's a serious question.

The Witcher hats are not garish. They share colors, materials and patterns with the character wearing them, even if they're basically ridiculous.

Dragon Age hats suffer from 1) only matching approximately one color variation of one outfit 2) looking ridiculous even in that one circumestance because, in the case of the Libertarian's cowl for example, it has such an unnecessary concentration of decoration it borders on Mardi Gras level crazy.

[The Hierophant]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I have a question:

I hated DA:O's goofy hats but thought they looked fine in the Witcher 2. Why is that?

Let me illustrate.

These two come from the 'let me slap a puffy thing of cloth' on my head school:


This woman is wearing that 1990's Madonna bra on her head:


I find myself thinking that's goofy headgear, but it doesn't bother me. It doesn't take me out of the game.

Then there's Dragon Age:



I just find myself thinking 'why?!' Every time I see the headgear I pause and wonder why it looks so goofy.

Can anyone explain to me the difference? It's a serious question.

Because it looks like they're wearing archaic condoms on their heads.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Pseudocognition wrote...
That's like saying Fritz Lang's Metropolis, The Big Sleep and Ed Wood are all the same because they're in black and white.

Or like saying all Film Noir movies look the same. But then what about Blade Runner? Blade Runner is Film Noir.

Or like saying 300 and Citizen Kane are the same because they both star actors.

Does a cartoon made in Japan feature a building with Gothic architecture? They would refer to it as anime regardless of the content because anime means "cartoon." The building with Gothic architecture would still be Gothic.

(Also, "anime" is not defined by its color choices. Many anime are very muted and realistic in color, for example Ghost in the Shell: SAC or Monster. The only thing "anime" indicates is that it is a 2D animation made in Japan and generally having a Japanese aesthetic which in some cases barely differs from a Western cartoon aesthetic.)

Why not? It's known for its unique color choices as well as appearance of characters who generally have wide eyes and perform very unrealistic faces when making emotions (like their head getting big when they get angry with a small dot appearing at the side of their face). The color is different from any western animation I know and is often accompanied by a very light by distinctive shading that gives it the "anime" feel. You can't say it's down to aesthetic when Bioware just released a Dragon Age anime which is very western in terms of design...



Most films do all look the same IMO and that's down to real life looking, well, realistic. Unless of course you're talking about fantasy films which employ backgrounds (and now animations) to change the stylization and mood. Generally all live-action films feature realistic objects, people, scenarios, designs and style. I don't think they can even be compared to paintings or animations in the same way.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Then there's Dragon Age: 



I just find myself thinking 'why?!' Every time I see the headgear I pause and wonder why it looks so goofy.

Can anyone explain to me the difference? It's a serious question.

They're just horribly designed and make them look like they have had a cranial deformation like those anicent people from Peru:

[Maria Caliban]

Pseudocognition wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Can anyone explain to me the difference? It's a serious question.

The Witcher hats are not garish. They share colors, materials and patterns with the character wearing them, even if they're basically ridiculous.

Dragon Age hats suffer from 1) only matching approximately one color variation of one outfit 2) looking ridiculous even in that one circumestance because, in the case of the Libertarian's cowl for example, it has such an unnecessary concentration of decoration it borders on Mardi Gras level crazy.

That makes sense. My thanks. :happy:

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Cel shading is a staple of western cartoons too. Western cartoons also exaggerate and/or simplify facial expressions and use symbols to convey emotion.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. The fact that all live action films star people and props and real things does not preclude them from having unique styles.