155 réponses à ce sujet

[BigBad]

Saying that the "High Dragon" character model got overused is more or less the same as saying that the "Mabari Hound" character model got overused, since every single mabari in the game looks exactly the same (ignoring paints). In this case, it's not the lore that's the problem, it's graphical limitations and art design. The model works because that's what High Dragons look like. Sure, some might have minute differences that aren't immediately obvious to the human eye, or there might be some small variance in coloration or proportions visible to the character, but they aren't important to the story, so they don't get rendered for the player.

[Azraelatrix]

Recycled Mabari's apart, there should be some diversity to the appearance of the dragons. Dragons are an integral part of the story, and are supposed to be unique enemies. They dont appear around every corner like a Mabari does. Though they are rare it was the same High Dragon clone which came to battle each time with the player. The Queen of the blackmarsh used the same mesh as the rest of the clones.

All the High Dragons looked the same and fought the same way and they kinda got repetitive. If there were unique dragons it could add greatly to the combat of the game. Each dragon could have different attacks, Different strengths and different weaknesses. It could make combat more interesting, a heavy spike bone plated dragon could have a high armor rating where normal strikes could be next to ineffective but it could be weak against spirit damage or Ice attacks. This could break the monotony which plagued the so called "Epic" dragon battles and make them more challenging and memorable. 

Where in my post did I state that the lore was the problem for dragons having similar appearances, I stated they were part of the lore and were somewhat integral to the game. Once again read the post properly, the last few lines clearly state the overused 3d model was to blame, not the lore. If the lore states that there is only one type of purple dragon in thedas and they all looked the same then Im wrong.

Modifié par Azraelatrix, 04 mars 2013 - 10:58 .

[BigBad]

I dunno if I'd agree that dragons are more important to the setting than mabari.

Consider:
* We've seen far more mabari than dragons, including the option in both games to have a mabari companion (sort of).
* Mabari (as a breed) are unique to the setting, while dragons are bog-standard fantasy fare.
* Mabari are closely associated with Ferelden, the country most player characters have the most connection to, while dragons are most closely associated with Nevarra, a country we've never seen or visited.

[Azraelatrix]

BigBad wrote...

I dunno if I'd agree that dragons are more important to the setting than mabari.

Consider:
* We've seen far more mabari than dragons, including the option in both games to have a mabari companion (sort of).
* Mabari (as a breed) are unique to the setting, while dragons are bog-standard fantasy fare.
* Mabari are closely associated with Ferelden, the country most player characters have the most connection to, while dragons are most closely associated with Nevarra, a country we've never seen or visited.

To each his own I guess, but I still believe that dragon's need diversity.

[Goneaviking]

Azraelatrix wrote...

Recycled Mabari's apart, there should be some diversity to the appearance of the dragons. Dragons are an integral part of the story, and are supposed to be unique enemies. They dont appear around every corner like a Mabari does. Though they are rare it was the same High Dragon clone which came to battle each time with the player. The Queen of the blackmarsh used the same mesh as the rest of the clones.

All the High Dragons looked the same and fought the same way and they kinda got repetitive. If there were unique dragons it could add greatly to the combat of the game. Each dragon could have different attacks, Different strengths and different weaknesses. It could make combat more interesting, a heavy spike bone plated dragon could have a high armor rating where normal strikes could be next to ineffective but it could be weak against spirit damage or Ice attacks. This could break the monotony which plagued the so called "Epic" dragon battles and make them more challenging and memorable. 

Where in my post did I state that the lore was the problem for dragons having similar appearances, I stated they were part of the lore and were somewhat integral to the game. Once again read the post properly, the last few lines clearly state the overused 3d model was to blame, not the lore. If the lore states that there is only one type of purple dragon in thedas and they all looked the same then Im wrong.

When did dragons become integral to the story?

They're of note because the archdemon is one, because heretic cults occasionally worship them, because people used to believe they were extinct and because they needed to give the game a name that said "Epic Fantasy".

Darkspawn and Grey Wardens are integral. The Mage-Templar conflict is integral. The gypsy elves are to a lesser extent, as are the Deep Roads. Dragons have pretty much just been fire breathing predatory winged lizards as far as I can tell.

Admittedly I haven't made any great efforts to go through the codex, and supplementry material external to the game doesn't interest me enough to spend money on so I may have missed something important; but the game itself has never impressed upon me the idea that they're supposed to be more special than any other monster I've gone up against.

[Herr Uhl]

Goneaviking wrote...

Admittedly I haven't made any great efforts to go through the codex, and supplementry material external to the game doesn't interest me enough to spend money on so I may have missed something important; but the game itself has never impressed upon me the idea that they're supposed to be more special than any other monster I've gone up against.

As far as I can gather there has been some kind of dragon malarkey in the comics.

[Bfler]

Goneaviking wrote...

 The Mage-Templar conflict is integral..

Bioware made it important to have a story after DA:O.
In DA:O it is only a minor conflict and after you have ended the blight there isn't anything left, what could interest the masses. It is the same like e.g in Babylon 5 after the shadows were defeated or in Star Trek DS9 after the Dominion was defeated or in LotR after Sauron was defeated.

But they could also easily raise the importance of dragons, if the e.g. introduce an evil master foe like Deathwing or Alduin.

Modifié par Bfler, 04 mars 2013 - 04:05 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

You know, I would settle for a tremendous boost in detail and some solid art direction. If that includes elemental dragons, so be it.

[ejoslin]

Bfler wrote...

Goneaviking wrote...

 The Mage-Templar conflict is integral..

Bioware made it important to have a story after DA:O.
In DA:O it is only a minor conflict and after you have ended the blight there isn't anything left, what could interest the masses. It is the same like e.g in Babylon 5 after the shadows were defeated or in Star Trek DS9 after the Dominion was defeated or in LotR after Sauron was defeated.

But they could also easily raise the importance of dragons, if the e.g. introduce an evil master foe like Deathwing or Alduin.

Actually, in DAO, there are issues between the mage/templars brewing; they're just not at the forefront yet. Mages are imprisioned and often killed and tranquilized, and you hear about some mages who are beginning to rebel against this.  Even in the mages tower you can hear about the different "schools" of mages, and there are those who want to be free of the templar rule.  That you only deal with one mini-rebellion doesn't mean that the background isn't there.  It is.

Modifié par ejoslin, 04 mars 2013 - 04:27 .

[Azraelatrix]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...




You know, I would settle for a tremendous boost in detail and some solid art direction. If that includes elemental dragons, so be it.

Agreed, I loved the art direction in the cgi trailers, mainly sacred ashes. They should have stuck with that art style rather than the dull brown in Origins and DA2. I also hope they use some decent realistic sking shaders and get rid of the clay like skin, and use some dynamic lighting and normal maps this time around.

[Cirram55]

Goneaviking wrote...
When did dragons become integral to the story?

They're of note because the archdemon is one, because heretic cults occasionally worship them, because people used to believe they were extinct and because they needed to give the game a name that said "Epic Fantasy".

Dragons have pretty much just been fire breathing predatory winged lizards as far as I can tell.

Admittedly I haven't made any great efforts to go through the codex, and supplementry material external to the game doesn't interest me enough to spend money on so I may have missed something important; but the game itself has never impressed upon me the idea that they're supposed to be more special than any other monster I've gone up against.

So you haven't read the comics? You should feel bad! Dragons were the rulers of the world (and its blood, maybe?)! Or something of the sort, whatever.

This is one of the problems I have with this franchise: the writers tend to leave a lot of juicy stuff outside of the main game, and put it in secondary media. Cutting out of lore and even some canon plots whoever isn't able to buy this other stuff.

Modifié par Cirram55, 04 mars 2013 - 05:43 .

[Pelle6666]

The dragons are supposed to be nearly extinct, that's probably the reason there is so little diversity within the species.

[Warden Majere]

I understand that the dragons are on the brink of extinction, but does this mean that every surviving dragon looks exactly the same? Just some diversaty in the way they look would be awesome. they don't have to be elemental or intelligent, just unique.

[Azraelatrix]

Raistlin the Warden wrote...

I understand that the dragons are on the brink of extinction, but does this mean that every surviving dragon looks exactly the same? Just some diversaty in the way they look would be awesome. they don't have to be elemental or intelligent, just unique.

Exactly what Im trying to say.

[MisanthropePrime]

If I were to take two individual crocodiles and put them in front of you, would you be able to tell the difference? The less similar to a human being an animal is, the less likely we are to be able to tell the difference between individuals of the same species, since our brains are hardwired to recognize human facial and behavioral cues but not those of other animals. We can easily tell two different primates from eachother, and a lot of mammals are easy for us to discern as well (especially if they're pets and are familiar to us), whereas invertebrates like squids or flies are right out. Alligators, being large, quadrupedal reptiles like the dragons, and unless you're a herpetologist you probably don't know (or care to know) enough about crocodile physiology to tell two similar members of the species apart. As such, why would we need multiple models for dragons: especially when you consider that high dragons generally only appear once or twice per game?

[Solmanian]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

Dragons are just beasts, animals, no more intelligent than a dolphin.

Because they don't speak english they are beast?

You think they're beasts because they tend to kill humans on sight? What do you think of humans who sprey pesticide on ant farms, if they find one in their house?

Is it because they have no technology? They're the size of a building, can breath fire, and their skin and bones are made from the hardest materials in existence; what reason do they have to develop metal working and pottery, when it would take the "civilized" races of thedas atleast a thousand years to atleast mimck what comes to them naturally?

Is it because they don't get envolved in human politics? Would you negotiate with an ant queen whose ants infested your kitchen, or would you kill it with fire?

I think you simply have dragon-envy.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

MisanthropePrime wrote...

If I were to take two individual crocodiles and put them in front of you, would you be able to tell the difference? The less similar to a human being an animal is, the less likely we are to be able to tell the difference between individuals of the same species, since our brains are hardwired to recognize human facial and behavioral cues but not those of other animals. We can easily tell two different primates from eachother, and a lot of mammals are easy for us to discern as well (especially if they're pets and are familiar to us), whereas invertebrates like squids or flies are right out. Alligators, being large, quadrupedal reptiles like the dragons, and unless you're a herpetologist you probably don't know (or care to know) enough about crocodile physiology to tell two similar members of the species apart. As such, why would we need multiple models for dragons: especially when you consider that high dragons generally only appear once or twice per game?

One doesn't need a lesson in biology to recognize the difference between a High Dragon and the Archdemon. All we're asking for is more variations within those existing groups, specifically the high dragon.

[MisanthropePrime]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

MisanthropePrime wrote...

If I were to take two individual crocodiles and put them in front of you, would you be able to tell the difference? The less similar to a human being an animal is, the less likely we are to be able to tell the difference between individuals of the same species, since our brains are hardwired to recognize human facial and behavioral cues but not those of other animals. We can easily tell two different primates from eachother, and a lot of mammals are easy for us to discern as well (especially if they're pets and are familiar to us), whereas invertebrates like squids or flies are right out. Alligators, being large, quadrupedal reptiles like the dragons, and unless you're a herpetologist you probably don't know (or care to know) enough about crocodile physiology to tell two similar members of the species apart. As such, why would we need multiple models for dragons: especially when you consider that high dragons generally only appear once or twice per game?

One doesn't need a lesson in biology to recognize the difference between a High Dragon and the Archdemon. All we're asking for is more variations within those existing groups, specifically the high dragon.

But why? Dragons have a small population, an extremely long lifespan, are wide-ranging and yet remain in the temperate zone of Thedas. There is literally no reason to have a kajillion dragon species- and I'm glad for that. We just have "elves" in Dragon age, as opposed to high, wood, dark, etc. elves- and I hope that philosophy extends to dragons.

[Wulfram]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

You know, I would settle for a tremendous boost in detail and some solid art direction. If that includes elemental dragons, so be it.

I think the DA dragon itself holds up pretty well there, particularly given that it's two years older than Skyrim.

(The environment on the other hand looks bad)

[Solmanian]

Cirram55 wrote...

Goneaviking wrote...
When did dragons become integral to the story?

They're of note because the archdemon is one, because heretic cults occasionally worship them, because people used to believe they were extinct and because they needed to give the game a name that said "Epic Fantasy".

Dragons have pretty much just been fire breathing predatory winged lizards as far as I can tell.

Admittedly I haven't made any great efforts to go through the codex, and supplementry material external to the game doesn't interest me enough to spend money on so I may have missed something important; but the game itself has never impressed upon me the idea that they're supposed to be more special than any other monster I've gone up against.

So you haven't read the comics? You should feel bad! Dragons were the rulers of the world (and its blood, maybe?)! Or something of the sort, whatever.

This is one of the problems I have with this franchise: the writers tend to leave a lot of juicy stuff outside of the main game, and put it in secondary media. Cutting out of lore and even some canon plots whoever isn't able to buy this other stuff.

While I read the comics, and share your elitist feelings, it should be noted that the comics aren't cannon... If it wasn't made by bioware and written by an official bioware writer, it didn't happen.

Srsly I saw "paragon lost a couple of days ago, and it made my head hurt. A krogan firing a scimitar (a shotgun) on full auto and hitting a slodier from a hundred meters. And also, biotics who work on batteries... Someone didn't do the research.

[Azraelatrix]

MisanthropePrime wrote...

If I were to take two individual crocodiles and put them in front of you, would you be able to tell the difference? The less similar to a human being an animal is, the less likely we are to be able to tell the difference between individuals of the same species, since our brains are hardwired to recognize human facial and behavioral cues but not those of other animals. We can easily tell two different primates from eachother, and a lot of mammals are easy for us to discern as well (especially if they're pets and are familiar to us), whereas invertebrates like squids or flies are right out. Alligators, being large, quadrupedal reptiles like the dragons, and unless you're a herpetologist you probably don't know (or care to know) enough about crocodile physiology to tell two similar members of the species apart. As such, why would we need multiple models for dragons: especially when you consider that high dragons generally only appear once or twice per game?

Two different species of Lizard



Two different species of Crocodile





See the difference?

[MisanthropePrime]

Solmanian wrote...

Cirram55 wrote...

Goneaviking wrote...
When did dragons become integral to the story?

They're of note because the archdemon is one, because heretic cults occasionally worship them, because people used to believe they were extinct and because they needed to give the game a name that said "Epic Fantasy".

Dragons have pretty much just been fire breathing predatory winged lizards as far as I can tell.

Admittedly I haven't made any great efforts to go through the codex, and supplementry material external to the game doesn't interest me enough to spend money on so I may have missed something important; but the game itself has never impressed upon me the idea that they're supposed to be more special than any other monster I've gone up against.

So you haven't read the comics? You should feel bad! Dragons were the rulers of the world (and its blood, maybe?)! Or something of the sort, whatever.

This is one of the problems I have with this franchise: the writers tend to leave a lot of juicy stuff outside of the main game, and put it in secondary media. Cutting out of lore and even some canon plots whoever isn't able to buy this other stuff.

While I read the comics, and share your elitist feelings, it should be noted that the comics aren't cannon... If it wasn't made by bioware and written by an official bioware writer, it didn't happen.

Srsly I saw "paragon lost a couple of days ago, and it made my head hurt. A krogan firing a scimitar (a shotgun) on full auto and hitting a slodier from a hundred meters. And also, biotics who work on batteries... Someone didn't do the research.

The comics are written by David Gaider.

[MisanthropePrime]

Azraelatrix wrote...

MisanthropePrime wrote...

If I were to take two individual crocodiles and put them in front of you, would you be able to tell the difference? The less similar to a human being an animal is, the less likely we are to be able to tell the difference between individuals of the same species, since our brains are hardwired to recognize human facial and behavioral cues but not those of other animals. We can easily tell two different primates from eachother, and a lot of mammals are easy for us to discern as well (especially if they're pets and are familiar to us), whereas invertebrates like squids or flies are right out. Alligators, being large, quadrupedal reptiles like the dragons, and unless you're a herpetologist you probably don't know (or care to know) enough about crocodile physiology to tell two similar members of the species apart. As such, why would we need multiple models for dragons: especially when you consider that high dragons generally only appear once or twice per game?

Two different species of Lizard



Two different species of Crocodile





See the difference?

Someone didn't read my post: I specified individual reptiles ofthe same species, while you show me two different species of lizard and crocodile. As I addressed above, it's unlikely that dragons (at least in the Thedosian continent) would split into multiple species due to a variety of biological factors.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

MisanthropePrime wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

MisanthropePrime wrote...

If I were to take two individual crocodiles and put them in front of you, would you be able to tell the difference? The less similar to a human being an animal is, the less likely we are to be able to tell the difference between individuals of the same species, since our brains are hardwired to recognize human facial and behavioral cues but not those of other animals. We can easily tell two different primates from eachother, and a lot of mammals are easy for us to discern as well (especially if they're pets and are familiar to us), whereas invertebrates like squids or flies are right out. Alligators, being large, quadrupedal reptiles like the dragons, and unless you're a herpetologist you probably don't know (or care to know) enough about crocodile physiology to tell two similar members of the species apart. As such, why would we need multiple models for dragons: especially when you consider that high dragons generally only appear once or twice per game?

One doesn't need a lesson in biology to recognize the difference between a High Dragon and the Archdemon. All we're asking for is more variations within those existing groups, specifically the high dragon.

But why? Dragons have a small population, an extremely long lifespan, are wide-ranging and yet remain in the temperate zone of Thedas. There is literally no reason to have a kajillion dragon species- and I'm glad for that. We just have "elves" in Dragon age, as opposed to high, wood, dark, etc. elves- and I hope that philosophy extends to dragons.

Right, it's just better to use the same dragon model over and over again instead of inventing some new lore to support more dragon variations. Who here is asking for an absurd number of dragon variations?

[Solmanian]

It's one thing to make a leap of faith when it comes to fire breathing dragons. It's another for rainbow dragons... i could believe a creature that shoots electricity. I can believe a creature that spews acid. I can even believe a creature who spits ice and one that breathes fire. I coluldn't believe all those creatures belong to the same species. The evolutionary paths to develop each of those abilities are extremely different and can only be achieved through genetic engineering (and copius amount of pseudo-science).
If one species is vastly superior to another than it will be the dominant one, no matter how smart the other species is. Hence why we didn't dominate the planet until after the dinosaurs were "removed".