216 réponses à ce sujet

[The Six Path of Pain]

I hated it,the more realistic style of Origins was better.I probably could have coped with the art style though if the hair didn't look so damn horrible

Modifié par The Six Path of Pain, 11 mars 2013 - 03:19 .

[Wulfram]

I found it difficult to work out if there was a deliberate art style behind all the stuff that just looked rubbish.  Though I assume the decision to have the boringest floors ever was a deliberate choice.

I think it was possible to make good looking female hawkes with a mod that unlocked some of the better Bioware created assets that were kept from the CC, but the original CC was rather mediocre with all the round faces.

Modifié par Wulfram, 11 mars 2013 - 03:16 .

[Blazomancer]

@Plaintiff - Well, some rich people do want to be more rich, don't they? That doesn't mean they don't have enough money.

I believe that irrespective of the amount of content in a well received game, if that game is accompanied by modding tools, people will always come up with extra content, because as human beings we want more, especially more of the goodies.

[Indoctrination]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Once again, you seem to have trouble understanding: The people who make the mods are not the people who play the mods. People occasionally make mods "just because." No one said you download them "just because." Do you know what the word modify means?

If they're not doing it just because, then they're doing it because they want something to change. You're either wrong because you didn't get the facts right, or you're wrong because you have conceded the point to me. Take your pick.

There is no "make it accept more." There is no limitation on the amount of choices, other than simply whatever choices are in the appropriate folder. If you put more compatible files, textures, whatever, in that proper folder, they will display. There is no "accept" or not accept. It doesn't "not read" certain types because there's an artificial limiter.

Okay, it's clear that you've never modded a file of anything in your life. Of course there's a set limit. If there wasn't, you would go into the base face builder and there would be infinite empty slots. The fact that the game reads face assets and asigns them numbers and also assigns them to a beginning and end position on the slider means the game must be coded with limits. This is getting embarrassing.

[Tinu]

I think my Hawke looks pretty good, but I don't remember if I used any mods for it.

Making a good looking male in Mass Effect 2 is so discouraging.

[MoMan313]

8D I ddiiiiddd

[Renmiri1]

Indoctrination wrote...

I found that in DA2, it was really, really easy to make a good looking character in the game's face builder. I noticed that this was significantly harder in games like Origins and especially Mass Effect 3 without the aid of extensive fan modding.

I'm wondering if it was the unique art style in DA2 that made it easier to make cool looking characters, and I'm wondering if its the realistic art style that made custom Shepards look so old and generally terrible, half of the time in ME3. It would be nice if a developer familiar with the graphical side of the game could fill us in on how much the art style affects their face builders.

I hope the face builder in Dragon Age 3 lives up to its predecessor, because it was really good!

I liked it too, also liked the city and scenery

You are not alone

[grumpymooselion]

Warden Commander David wrote...I think DA:O had a realistic, gritty feel for it's setting.

I mean sure...the proportions of some character models were off...i.e. the hands...as you mentioned...but I still believe that they tried to make the characters as realistic looking as they possibly could.

I can't really agree. We've seen older games than DA:O, and games in the same timeframe as DA:O that didn't have these issues.

You're comparing the DA:O to modern times...which is ridiculous.

Um . . .

Think of the times back then...colors were dull...people didn't shower everyday...there were no light bulbs to light places up...

I think you've played too many video games that try and substitute grim, dark and monotone for realism.

And "back then" doesn't apply to something that isn't "back then".

...the world was a dark, gritty, and grimey place.

A. I want you to go out hiking, like I said, to some place with no modern buildings or anything of the sort. Outside. Nature. And if you don't see color, and vibrancy everywhere, a wonderful living and breathing world . . . you have something wrong with your eyes.

B. I have walked around in old castles, and old buildings that are centuries, even thousands of years old. They're not dull and dead looking. They're not drained of color and life. They're amazing looking. These places are amazing to witness. They're not grim and dark and lifeless, they're eye opening and lovely.

C. Look at Kirkwall. Take away the cartoony portion and really look at its architecture. It's massive and elegant, complex and beautiful. It's intricate. It's utterly breath taking. The complex etchings and carvings, the complex statues. These things would be equally interesting and amazing if done in an 'actual' realistic manner, just look looking at ancient carvings and massive buildings and beautiful statues is interesting and amazing.

However, if you'd done those in the style of DA:O . . . they'd have been drained of life, monotone and dead. DA:O was not realistic looking. It was dead looking. The color and vibrancy of our world, not, in nature, is not a new thing. The cities of the past might have been filthy, but they were also bustling and lively places. They were drained of color. Ever seen old victorian or older buildings? They're not ugly. They're not grim. They're not any of these things . . .

D. "Didn't shower every day" ? Really? This is your reason for things looking ugly or grim or dark? This is utterly ridiculous. Depending on the specific time or place in our historical past, people did bathe more or less, but there were even older cultures than the medieval ones that actually bathed quite regularly. And the lack of bathing even in medieval times didn't make things colorless or ugly. Their clothes weren't "one thing" they were many things ranging from rich to poor to 'I don't have anything at all' and there was great variety. There were colors.

E. There were lights, but not lightbulbs. The glow of a fire or candle light doesn't make things look dull and lifeless, the glow of a flame ADDS color. Fire is a beautiful thing and the glow it casts in a room leaves it warm looking, and gives you a nice fuzzy feeling inside.

I think that DA:O did a great job in creating a setting that matched the times in which the game takes place.

Yes, I remember that exact point in time that DA:O is set in very clearly where the earth was mysteriously drained of color, and everything was grim and dark and lifeless . . .

Oh, wait, DA:O wasn't set in any time or 'back then' that you seem to be imagining. DA:O doesn't look realistic. It looks ugly, drained of color, dull and lifeless, and it looked technically dated even for the time it came out in.

I don't care if you like cartoony or realistic, but DA:O doesn't fall under either category.

[Azraelatrix]

I didn't like the art style of neither, I liked the art style of the CGI trailers ( don't confuse with graphics), realistic and dark yet vibrant and beautifully contrasting at the same time like god of war, alan wake or Red dead Redemption. Not the horrible dull brown of origins or the everything made of clay like DA2.

Modifié par Azraelatrix, 11 mars 2013 - 04:36 .

[grumpymooselion]

Azraelatrix wrote...

I didn't like the art style of neither, I liked the art style of the CGI trailers ( don't confuse with graphics), realistic and dark. Not the horrible dull brown of origins or the everything made of clay like DA2.

I'd overall agree with that. The style in the CGI trailers was very nice.

[Blazomancer]

@Indoctrination - I remember downloading lots of hair mods, colors, tattoos that didn't replace the vanilla hairstyles. Even adding new armors, weapons, spells, npc's, etc. was possible which was not really modifying a vanilla assett, rather introducing something completely new to the game world.

[Indoctrination]

Blazomancer wrote...

@Indoctrination - I remember downloading lots of hair mods, colors, tattoos that didn't replace the vanilla hairstyles. Even adding new armors, weapons, spells, npc's, etc. was possible which was not really modifying a vanilla assett, rather introducing something completely new to the game world.

It absolutely did alter original game files. That doesn't mean replacing the original content though. You have a house and you build an extension onto it to make it bigger. You didn't get rid of the house, but you did change it. Understand now?

[Blazomancer]

@Indoctrination - Exactly, but that doesn't necessarily mean that my house itself is not adequate enough. It may be because I want more luxury, and more facilities. It doesn't even mean the additional room would change my perception of an original room.

[Indoctrination]

Blazomancer wrote...

@Indoctrination - Exactly, but that doesn't necessarily mean that my house itself is not adequate enough. It may be because I want more luxury, and more facilities. It doesn't even mean the additional room would change my perception of an original room.

It means exactly that, actually. Unless you're incredibly irresponsible, you don't tear down a wall and build an extension onto a house "just because." That would be ridiculous. Maybe I didn't make this clear before, so I'll try to say it again. The "people engage in complicated projects for absolutely no reason" argument is not persuasive. It has failed to persuade me. Posting in 10 more times will not make it more persuasive. Sorry.

[Blazomancer]

No all of the mods are complicated, especially not when you are provided with a toolset. Even to this date, people in DA nexus are coming up with face morphs and other mods. It's just because they like creating and sharing them with the world.

And recently, from a post by fast jimmy, I came to know that a few coders actually came up with a minor mod for BF3, just because they wanted to prove that the frostbite engine can be tinkered with given time, unlike what someone in DICE claimed.

So, in a nutshell what I'm saying is-
"People engage in modding for two main reason - first, to fix bugs and replace other annoying aspects, and second to create more content for a game that they love, so that other people can extend the baseline vanilla experience plus also to showcase their creative talents."

[wrdnshprd]

Indoctrination wrote...

I found that in DA2, it was really, really easy to make a good looking character in the game's face builder. I noticed that this was significantly harder in games like Origins and especially Mass Effect 3 without the aid of extensive fan modding.

I'm wondering if it was the unique art style in DA2 that made it easier to make cool looking characters, and I'm wondering if its the realistic art style that made custom Shepards look so old and generally terrible, half of the time in ME3. It would be nice if a developer familiar with the graphical side of the game could fill us in on how much the art style affects their face builders.

I hope the face builder in Dragon Age 3 lives up to its predecessor, because it was really good!

i liked the art style as well.  only exception was the darkspawn.  i thought they looked waaay better in DA1.  other than that though.  dont see the issues with the art style in DA2.

as for ME, i actually liked the art style for the most part.  only exception was the eye animations.  though they were drastically improved in ME3.. the eyes still made the characters look.... off.

[cJohnOne]

I liked the Art much better in DAO but I don't know what I'm talking about specifically. I just enjoyed DAO's art style more DA2's. On the other hand the Iconic looks of companions was probably a step foward in the game in DA2. I thought the companions looked pretty good.

I don't know what I want for DA3:Inquisition but I pretty sure it will be great.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

The Qunari redesign was the only good thing to come out of DA2 on an artistic level.



The rest of it was bad.

[cJohnOne]

The Qunari were different looking and probably improved in being distinct but I thought they were unrealistically muscled and bulky.

Modifié par cJohnOne, 11 mars 2013 - 05:17 .

[SongstressKitsune]

I rather like DA2's art style. My only issue with both games was the hair in the character creator, and that's entirely because I like long hair on my characters and there really weren't any truly "long" (and I mean beyond the shoulders/down the back) options other than the same style as Leandra - and for some reason it was weird to me for my Hawke to have the same style as his/her mother.

But yeah, really enjoyed DA2's art style. Ferelden was definitely too brown for me; Kirkwall felt more colorful and vibrant and alive.

[Fortlowe]

I'm replaying it now just after replaying DAO, and I was struck by how much better looking DA2 was. The game has it faults but the art direction just isn't one of them. Using Eclipse again and only taking eighteen months to develop it on the other hand....

[Twisted Path]

I hated the look of DA2 along with just about everything else it did but as this message board proves the game seems to have had it's fans.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Was it cartoony? I just thought it was awfully plastic faced.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Fortlowe wrote...

I'm replaying it now just after replaying DAO, and I was struck by how much better looking DA2 was. The game has it faults but the art direction just isn't one of them. Using Eclipse again and only taking eighteen months to develop it on the other hand....

The graphics are better. The art is more colorful and so images pop more. I don't like the art overall, but the game is easier on the eyes.