387 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

I would argue RPGs rely more on setting, writing and atmosphere than any other genre. A shooter doesn't emphasize my role like an RPG does. They benefit from immersion, they don't thrive on it. Immersion is a vague term, but I don't know a better one. When a game nails the visuals, art design, voice acting, weather effects, sound design etc. That's sensory immersion.

 

A shooter puts me in the role of that soldier/whatever.

I consider it important for almost any game, but I find it most important if I'm in a first person perspective.  If you're someone that greatly values character customization (I'm not) for example, then things like hairstyles (and having them look good) are more important.

 

I also think RPGs are more complex than shooters, and as such it's easier for shooters to place that level of focus on graphics because it comes with less opportunity costs.

 

 

It may just be we have different things we consider vital to an RPG experience.  The Witcher 3 could look identical to The Witcher 2 and it wouldn't really affect my interest level in the game.  The Witcher 2 already looks pretty good IMO.

 

 

I mean, DAO was hardly a good looking game when it came out, but I preferred it over many other games I played at that time.

[spirosz]

I don't care. I am getting both games and will enjoy both equally. 

 

Stop being the perfect costumer. 

[spirosz]

I mean, DAO was hardly a good looking game when it came out, but I preferred it over many other games I played at that time.

 

Aren't you suppose to say that though?

 

[Dutchess]

 

Well, I'm not too familiar with Bioware's development, but did they change their engine for DA:I, not that is an excuse, but it's a viable reason to their view on developing their art style for the game.  

 

And the issue of visiting an old area, it has changed over the years, no?  

 

So did CDPR. The TW1 engine is not the same as the one they use for TW3.

 

Yes, areas can change, but there should still be some level of consistency, or it is simply a different area.

 

 

 

 

Redcliffe's buildings used to be made of wood, the Chantry and the castle excepted. Now we suddenly have remains of stone everywhere. I honestly don't see anything that reminds me of the old Redcliffe.

 

Now, Witcher 1 vs. Witcher 3:

 

[Aaleel]

This is kind of what I'm talking about.  This really looks like someone set up some toys in their yard and took a picture.  The aesthetics and the art style are just off to me.  Either looks like toys or some sort of animated movie for kids.  You have rated M material and a PG art style almost. 

 

 

DA:O didn't have stellar graphics but they were darker and grittier than the following games.  Like this one from DA2, once again looks like lego toys I swear if I hit one the head would pop off.

 

[ReadingRambo220]

And yes, The Witcher looks pretty stellar and I wouldn't be surprised if their game had a tech edge over ours.


But for my own biases, graphics have been in the "good enough" stage for a quite a while now and despite my bias, I still think DAI looks pretty darned good too.

It must be the age difference (I'm 32) but I've never held graphics up to a high standard that a lot of the younger generation seems to. I regularly go through phases of booting up my old games like Ultima 7 Fallout 1 & 2, and Baldurs Gate, and they fulfill my gaming pleasures as much as, if not more so, than many current gen games.

I still have my old SNES and Genesis, and dust them off to play classics like Super Metroid, Chrono Trigger, and an old genesis game named Warsong I still love to this day.

The only gaming generation I have a hard time with is the first 3d games. They simply look really bad when compared to the old school look and modern graphics.

Gameplay is king in my eyes, graphics are simply icing on the cake.

[LinksOcarina]

Doesn't matter, both look fine to me.  Much needed improvement for Dragon Age, but the improvements have been steady since 2009 anyway, which is a plus. 

[In Exile]

They confirmed her hair will be black, don't worry. Another reason TW3 is a huge step up from TW2 - CDPR is using the latest third party software to render the world, animate stuff, load areas etc. I'm not sure how much third party software Bioware has access to in creating a cross generational game.

 

Presumably, whatever FB3 has licensed to make it work. I believe Bioware has commented in the past the licensing costs of third party software are a significant roadblock to modding tools, so presumably there is quite a lot of use here.

 

I would argue RPGs rely more on setting, writing and atmosphere than any other genre. A shooter doesn't emphasize my role like an RPG does. They benefit from immersion, they don't thrive on it. Immersion is a vague term, but I don't know a better one. When a game nails the visuals, art design, voice acting, weather effects, sound design etc. That's sensory immersion.

 

Would you argue that, for example, TW1 is less immersive than DA:I, because the graphics in TW1 will be inferior to a max-out PC DA:I? That's where this is going. Art design, sure, that's one thing. But visuals, voice acting, weather effects, etc. - all of that is objectively better as we move forward in time compared to old games. Is a game more immersive than a book? Is a movie necessarily more immersive than a game, because it's actually realistic? 

[Darth Death]

I have a feeling this thread isn't gonna survive long...

You'd be wrong, surprisingly. 

[SwobyJ]

Maybe DAO was just a legend and DA2 was just a story.

 

Boom. It looks different because larger environments with more detail and texture don't matter in a broadly-described legend.

[LinksOcarina]

Maybe DAO was just a legend and DA2 was just a story.

 

Boom. It looks different because larger environments with more detail and texture don't matter in a broadly-described legend.

Or, they have a better graphics engine.

 

I'm sorry guys, I hate to break the role playing, but thats pretty much the reason why.

 

As for consistency...well...yeah that can be done a bit better I think, but in the grand scheme of things its pretty insignificant.

[SwobyJ]

Or, they have a better graphics engine.

 

I'm sorry guys, I hate to break the role playing, but thats pretty much the reason why.

 

As for consistency...well...yeah that can be done a bit better I think, but in the grand scheme of things its pretty insignificant.

 

Well DA2 was literally A story.

 

Like, a story being told. Edited. Self-referenced within the game content.

 

So that was that. A lot of the sex and violence and waves of enemies can very easily be understood as Varric embellishing Hawke's exploits, whether players like that idea or not.

 

But yeah DA:O is whatever. I mean, I notice NPCs looking at the 'camera' a lot while talking, but that's it. *shrug*

[Allan Schumacher]

This was Redcliffe castle in DAO

 

 

This is Redcliffe castle in DAI

 

 

I find it hard to believe they would level and rebuild an entire castle from the ground up, even in 10 years.

 

 

Part of the challenge is overcoming the immense shortcomings of the DAO engine.  I don't mind an updated look at the Redcliffe castle (I'm not someone that notices the throne room being the same in The Witcher either) or other areas we've visited, because frankly the DAO engine is antiquated and levels had to be created much more in mind of "The level size can't be too big or else."
 

 

Technology compromises artistic vision all the time.  Dragon Age Origins had one character rig.  For a game franchise that focuses on characters (from a game studio that focuses on characters...) this places artificial constraints on what can be done.  Things have to end up looking pretty samey, which is pretty absurd for the focus on characters.  I mean, we could cut Sten out of DAO altogether since we couldn't do horns, but I think that DAO would be weaker without Sten.

 

There's other consistency issues that don't bother me as much either, and the Witcher has those too (some characterizations and so forth).

 

 

Now, having said that... I'm not you.  So if they are problems for you then that's the case that it is.  I am more amenable to critiques about general aesthetic (i.e. if you're not happy with the elves, or the qunari, or what have you) concerns.  But at the same time, some places in DAO and DA2 don't even respect Euclidean space very well (or at all).  So fundamentally some areas that get revisited will need to be changed because in DAO the interiors of them are actually larger than the exteriors.

[Allan Schumacher]

Aren't you suppose to say that though?

 

 

I know you're being cheeky, but some probably wonder.  I don't feel as though I have to say that my game is better than others.  Fortunately I was able to play DAO "as a fan" since I started so late in the project, though, so I'll never be able to make a fair comparison again for a game that I work on (which is unfortunate).

[Allan Schumacher]

booting up my old games like Ultima 7 Fallout 1 & 2, and Baldurs Gate

 

Evidently we are kindred spirits (I'm hoping Planescape: Torment rounds out the list? <.<)  hehehe

[Enigmatick]

Evidently we are kindred spirits (I'm hoping Planescape: Torment rounds out the list? <.<)  hehehe

I wonder if we'll have a DAI vs Pillars of Eternity graphics thread soon

[Osena109]

I think am gonna like Dragon age  inquestion more   i won't need     dual  gtx  Titans to make run right  am  mid level gammer  with  low end pc

[Deflagratio]

One thing I like about the Witcher series is that it maintains a coherent art style, unlike the DA series. 

 

 

Not sure what you mean by this.

 

The series as a whole has held a consistent tone and style in art? Or the individual games adhere to their chosen style better? (Or both?)

 

 

Either way, The Witcher does have a lot of internal consistency. I just find it's look to be dreadfully boring though. The "Modern Warfare" of RPGs in terms of how bland it is visually.

 

Also, personal pet peeve in The Witcher, for a master Monster-Hunting swordsman, Geralt handles his blade in-game like an amateur. Overswinging and telegraphing way too much. Sure, in Dragon Age, you've got spinny energy bolt dagger jumpkicks, but DA:I isn't exactly trying to be taken seriously on the same level as The Witcher.

 

 

I think am gonna like Dragon age  inquestion more   i won't need     dual  gtx  Titans to make run right  am  mid level gammer  with  low end pc

 

There's a lot I could criticize CDprojekt Red for (Clashing combat mechanics and encounter design being No1), but optimization hasn't been one... Hell, the Witcher II advanced ran amazing on Lol360 and blew every game out of the water visually on the platform.

[LinksOcarina]

Not sure what you mean by this.

 

The series as a whole has held a consistent tone and style in art? Or the individual games adhere to their chosen style better? (Or both?)

 

 

Either way, The Witcher does have a lot of internal consistency. I just find it's look to be dreadfully boring though. The "Modern Warfare" of RPGs in terms of how bland it is visually.

 

Also, personal pet peeve in The Witcher, for a master Monster-Hunting swordsman, Geralt handles his blade in-game like an amateur. Overswinging and telegraphing way too much. Sure, in Dragon Age, you've got spinny energy bolt dagger jumpkicks, but DA:I isn't exactly trying to be taken seriously on the same level as The Witcher.

 

I don't know why you would take either game seriously, it is a fantasy after all.

 

Plus Witcher is much more...juvenile at times if you ask me, although that does boil down to personal taste more than anything else. 

 

The internal consistancy is nice, but I am also pragmatic, I know why BioWare changed things, to make it better. I respect that more than being shackled to a specific aesthetic design game-in, game out. But most gamers are determinist like that, it has to be a specific way or else it doesn't make sense anymore. 

[Deflagratio]

I don't know why you would take either game seriously, it is a fantasy after all.

 

Plus Witcher is much more...juvenile at times if you ask me, although that does boil down to personal taste more than anything else. 

 

The internal consistancy is nice, but I am also pragmatic, I know why BioWare changed things, to make it better. I respect that more than being shackled to a specific aesthetic design game-in, game out. But most gamers are determinist like that, it has to be a specific way or else it doesn't make sense anymore. 

 

 

Internal consistency only matters to me if it's the same game.

 

I never understood this obligation that every game location has to look the same between games. I'm doubly confounded when people complain about "Revisiting already seen areas" which look entirely different, then Praise The Witcher 3 for it's "Series Consistency".

 

Personally, I prefer the risk of changing the art style with every iteration, instead of stagnating in the same tired visual design like The Witcher. For a game that takes years to put out, The Witcher looks more iterative than it's development time suggests.

 

 

I feel obligated to point out that when I say "The Witcher" I'm excluding The Wild Hunt, since I haven't played it or seen a lot of it. I'm hopeful most of my series' bugbears are addressed though, except maybe the art is still way too washed out with not enough contrast.

[KotorEffect3]

Graphics aren't what determines whether or not I am interested in a game.  Don't get me wrong nice graphics are nice but pretty much any modern game is going to be decent looking with the technology that is available.  It's the setting itself that interests me the most.

[spirosz]

It tends to come down to whatever floats your boat.  They're both going to be two different animals when they're both out.  Going to be interesting. 

[TKavatar]

Part of the challenge is overcoming the immense shortcomings of the DAO engine.  I don't mind an updated look at the Redcliffe castle (I'm not someone that notices the throne room being the same in The Witcher either) or other areas we've visited, because frankly the DAO engine is antiquated and levels had to be created much more in mind of "The level size can't be too big or else."
 

Technology compromises artistic vision all the time.  Dragon Age Origins had one character rig.  For a game franchise that focuses on characters (from a game studio that focuses on characters...) this places artificial constraints on what can be done.  Things have to end up looking pretty samey, which is pretty absurd for the focus on characters.  I mean, we could cut Sten out of DAO altogether since we couldn't do horns, but I think that DAO would be weaker without Sten.

 

There's other consistency issues that don't bother me as much either, and the Witcher has those too (some characterizations and so forth).

 

Now, having said that... I'm not you.  So if they are problems for you then that's the case that it is.  I am more amenable to critiques about general aesthetic (i.e. if you're not happy with the elves, or the qunari, or what have you) concerns.  But at the same time, some places in DAO and DA2 don't even respect Euclidean space very well (or at all).  So fundamentally some areas that get revisited will need to be changed because in DAO the interiors of them are actually larger than the exteriors.

 

I understand that DAO was antiquated and some areas need to change for the better. But do those areas need to be redesigned so drastically to the point where it looks completely unrecognisable? Did Redcliffe castle really need to lose it's rounded towers for blocky ones?

 

Not sure what you mean by this.

 

The series as a whole has held a consistent tone and style in art? Or the individual games adhere to their chosen style better? (Or both?)

 

Either way, The Witcher does have a lot of internal consistency. I just find it's look to be dreadfully boring though. The "Modern Warfare" of RPGs in terms of how bland it is visually.

 

Also, personal pet peeve in The Witcher, for a master Monster-Hunting swordsman, Geralt handles his blade in-game like an amateur. Overswinging and telegraphing way too much. Sure, in Dragon Age, you've got spinny energy bolt dagger jumpkicks, but DA:I isn't exactly trying to be taken seriously on the same level as The Witcher.

 

Consistency would be a better term, yes. There were no major redesigns (other than Triss getting a boob job), and the atmosphere was still gloomy and crapsack. TW2 was just more colourful but that was about it.

 

Consistency between sequels is a big deal for me. How am I supposed to accept that these games take place in the same universe if everything keeps getting redesigned?

[SolVita]

So did CDPR. The TW1 engine is not the same as the one they use for TW3.

 

Yes, areas can change, but there should still be some level of consistency, or it is simply a different area.

 

Now, Witcher 1 vs. Witcher 3:

But aren't  those two Witcher screenshots from two different throne rooms - first one from Temeria, second one - from Nilfgaard? (I might be wrong, because I'm not closely following TW development but from the trailer it looked like Geralt was speaking with Emgyr Var Emreys, Emperor of Nlfgaard)

[Schreckstoff]

I don't know why you would take either game seriously, it is a fantasy after all.

Plus Witcher is much more...juvenile at times if you ask me, although that does boil down to personal taste more than anything else.

The internal consistancy is nice, but I am also pragmatic, I know why BioWare changed things, to make it better. I respect that more than being shackled to a specific aesthetic design game-in, game out. But most gamers are determinist like that, it has to be a specific way or else it doesn't make sense anymore.

The Witcher can be really juvenile for instance when Gerald said he'd come back to that woman he saved in the Griffin demo, my first thought was that he's going to bang her. Gerald really hits on anything that moves.

Another thing that is interesting for a dark and gritty kinda realistic medieval setting hygiene is surprisingly good in TW but that's a compromise they simply have to take because few want to play a game were everyone's pretty fugly, dirty and has rotten teeth.

Lastly TW2's last act was just horrible a complete disaster and the end fight simply ludicrously bad (Nit the optional epilogue one).

Regarding consistency, stuff like making Ashley into a playboy bunny was stupid but reimagining the world a game plays in due to the advancements in tools is absolutely ok.