Dragon Age 2

[Amentep]

I do think DA is pretty ugly, not so much the level design, but the characters and animations. Just barely passable when it first came out, going to look worse than FONW when this thing hits the streets and the engine is not even that old.

 

One thing that I really dislike on a lot of Bioware games is the inability to address the head and neck right. It crops up a number of times in different games, but reached new records of hideousness IMO with Morrigan blowing out the candle in DA1

 

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't get the complaints about the artwork or design for DA1 or 2; and I assume that there is something about it that causes people to be so passionate about it. For my purposes both styles seems to work (I only have experience with DA1, but honestly I see nothing wrong with the DA2 artwork and screen images I've seen so far).

It's called Bioware and it's the rpg forum equivalent of dumping gasoline on a fire.

Hey, I *like* Bioware. I've certainly purchased their games over the years. Yes, I skipped ME 1/2 and some of the NWN xpacs, but I spent a lot of time playing Dragon Age. I mean, if I've concentrated on the art, it's because that's the topic about which we know most. ...And, frankly, if you think it's all great, good for you. Seriously, no biggie. I'm not trivializing your tastes, but I think dismissing the discussion because you don't find any beef doesn't really add much to it.

 

As more things come out about Dragon Age 2, a title I plan on purchasing, then I'm sure we'll broaden the discussion.

 

I advanced an opinion about artwork in games and what I hoped to see in Dragon Age 2. I'll probably continue to act in the same way about other facets of the game as they come to light.

 

I'm wasn't trying to dismiss the discussion about the artwork; just pointing out that I don't understand the passion about it that others have. Yet it seems like a major hot topic - maybe its the lack of information on the rest of the title, but somehow I don't think it is, since threads about the look of DA ran throughout the runup to release on that title.

[Cantousent]

I agree completely. I think it's the hot topic because there's nothing else going. I mean, for me personally, I suffer from defending my positions more vigorously than I care about them in the first place sometimes. For me, while I want to like what I see, there's a certain minimum level past which I won't care about the art direction or graphics nearly so much as gameplay mechanics and story.

[Slowtrain]

Its a hot topic, as it always is, because games are primarily still a visual medium. How they look is extremely imporant to a lot of people. I don't happen to be one of them, simply because I've been around long enough to not make the knee-jerk association between looking good and being good*. A huge percentage of gamers are unable to make this distinction. Same thing is going on with the DX3 thread as well.

 

 

*edit: Or vice versa looking bad and being bad.

Edited November 23, 2010 by Slowtrain

[Hell Kitty]

I certainly enjoy a game more if it looks good*, but what looks good has more to do with art style and my own tastes than technical wizardry. I always preferred the pixel art of Monkey Island to the hand-drawn scans of Monkey Island 2, and I don't have a problem with mostly monochromatic colour schemes.

 

I don't happen to be one of them, simply because I've been around long enough to not make the knee-jerk association between looking good and being good*. A huge percentage of gamers are unable to make this distinction.

 

I think there may be too much assuming going on by you in some cases. I recall one time at the Lair when I praised the graphics in Far Cry after playing the demo and you went off your nut as if my commenting only on the graphics in that one post meant that I only cared about the graphics. Also, when someone watches a game trailer and says it "looks good" they may not necessarily be referring to the graphics.

 

*Same goes for a game that sounds good. The voice acting in the Gothic 4 demo was so bad it had a hugely negative effect on how I felt about it, and I'm not too cool and jaded to admit that.

[Orogun01]

I certainly enjoy a game that has an unique visual style, but it's not necessarily a deal breaker if it doesn't. DA1 had a lot things that worked, I actually found the character models agreeable and it has some of my favorites monster designs. My personal distaste with DA2 is that they scrapped all that work visually and replaced with utter crap.

[Gromnir]

Its a hot topic, as it always is, because games are primarily still a visual medium. How they look is extremely imporant to a lot of people. I don't happen to be one of them, simply because I've been around long enough to not make the knee-jerk association between looking good and being good*. A huge percentage of gamers are unable to make this distinction. Same thing is going on with the DX3 thread as well.

 

 

*edit: Or vice versa looking bad and being bad.

 

crock.

 

am gonna call bs.

 

some o' the same folks complaining 'bout da art is the same folks who applaud or ignore age o' decadence art. is bs. is loads o' reasons to blast bio games, but art is kinda a weak option for vilifying... and it is more than a little hypocritical coming as it does from certain parties. keeps in mind that Gromnir is more than a little disappointed with the wacky dominatrix half-armour look for the da2 main character and for flemmeth, but da2 looks not noticeably worse than did da or many other crpgs we care to mention.

 

take out tactical overhead view and streamline combat is enough to annoy Gromnir to the point where we will wait for a bargain-bin release, but the present focus 'pon art is mostly bs from hypocrites.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Cantousent]

I remember flaming Might and Magic... IX? I think nine was the last one. Anyhow, aside from everything else, the graphics were horrible. The were placed in front of the clouds so that clouds would scroll by but you could still see the stars. The devs had licensed the engine and it seems to me they just didn't have the skill/support to use it properly. Very disappointing and I went rabid enraged nerd over it, mostly because I loved the series and I knew it would be the last for the foreseeable future. ...And I felt pretty guilty for being such a **** about it.

 

Anyhow, I don't tend to fixate on graphics, but I definitely don't fall into the 'graphics don't mean anything' camp. If a game is ugly, I'm probably not going to be as interested in it. Like Hell Kitty, if that makes me shallow or something, so be it. I also prefer good music, voice acting that doesn't make me cringe, and female characters who have a pleasing form. I don't demand that everything be perfect, but who can honestly say they don't prefer good graphics to bad graphics all things being equal?

[Pop]

Really the most annoying thing to me about DA2, over everything else, is the Qunari appearance retcon. Was that really necessary? Was Sten a pretender or something? I don't know if I prefer teutonic giants to horned giants but in any case it would be nice if there was some modicum of resemblance.

 

Anyway, going back through DA1 and I feel I may have been a bit hard on it my first time through (beat it then dropped) - a large part of it is that I cut Xevran's (is that his name) throat before he ever had a dialog with me, and part of it is that I'm a warrior this game - I tended towards spellcasters in every other Bio fantasy game but this seems to be the opposite of that prior trend. The game is a lot more fun as a fighter.

[RPGmasterBoo]

The disappointing thing about DA2 is how it looks considering the amount of money pumped into it. Otherwise its not particularly better or worse than most other RPG's.

 

If the Witcher 1 and 2 can look damn good and be made by a small company there is no excuse for BW not to hire some quality artists.

[Humanoid]

My concerns about graphics are primarily about interface scaling if anything - not being able to see any more at 25x16 as compared to 10x7 is more disappointing to me than any perceived shortcomings in the game world itself. I guess we'll see a decent bump when next gen consoles standardise at 1080p. Once we reach that then I imagine it'll be a hard cap of sorts for a good while.

 

That hard cap on display hardware for consoles might be good news for Intel and to a lesser extent AMD with the imminent launch of Sandy Bridge/Fusion - creeping closer to the point that onboard sound hit a decade ago.

[Maria Caliban]

Mechanical stuff from Dev:

 

 

Stars:

 

An item with no properties that is appropriate to your level will be 2 stars. If it's lower, it will be 1 star (or 0, if really bad). If it's a weapon or something not really usable/appropriate for your class, it will be less stars as well. Lets assume an appropriate ring that can be used by any class. Your "star" score is 2.0.

 

Each additional item property on the item adds to that number, but the amount it adds is based on the assumed utility to the class examining it. This is an entirely arbitrary number which acts as a general guide. Let's use Strength as an example. Strength is important for a Warrior, so each Strength property adds 1.0 to the star rating. For Rogues and Mages, Strength is less important, so it only add 0.25. A ring with a power level 2 Strength property on it would have 4 stars for a Warrior, but only 2.5 stars if examined by a Rogue or Mage. When you level up, that same ring might not be as useful anymore. It might then appear as only 3.5 stars for the Warrior, and 2 stars for the Rogue and Mage. You'd have to find a new, better 4 star ring.

 

Those numbers are just an example of how the system works, and not real game content. It's not intended to be perfect, but an average player should find it useful. Specific builds may find utility in using items that have a lower star rating, but whose properties are much more suited to their specific role/style of play.

 

 

 

Armor:

 

Armor works a bit differently than it did in DAO. DAO's system was that your armor value is directly subtracted from damage dealt to you. This led to later situations where Warriors would have tons of armor and Mages/Rogues had little. In order for Warriors to be hurt, enemies would have to do tons of damage, but that same damage amount would completely destroy the other classes in a few hits.

 

The armor system that we have now is that each piece of armor adds to the Armor property on your character. Against a creature of your level, a given Armor score absorbs a certain percentage of the damage done against you. For example, a full suit of Heavy armor at first level could give a Warrior 40 Armor. This amount of armor against a normal level 1 creature will absorb 80% of the physical damage it does. The chest piece might give you 20 Armor, the helm 10, the gloves 5 and the boots 5 (for example). The Warrior might then equip a shield, boosting his Armor up to 60. He now absorbs 85% of the physical damage done to him. When he levels up, though, an Armor score of 60 will only absorb 82% of the damage done by a normal level 2 creature. Finding better equipment will allow him to keep the amount of damage he absorbs high. These numbers are all examples, of course.

 

Different classes of armor have different ranges for the amount of Armor they give and the requirements for using them, but they all function in the same way. Your character sheet tells you what your total Armor score is, and also the percentage of physical damage that that score will absorb against a normal equal level creature.

[RPGmasterBoo]

O.o

[Gorth]

Level scaling for armor...

 

Talk about outgrowing the old clothes.

[Cantousent]

I actually would rather they just made the warriors better able to (for lack of a better term) hold aggro. I don't mind playing a squishy mage if my warrior can keep the heat off of me. Having put the smack down in Arthas in WoW, I can say that it's also the responsibility of the mages and rogues to watch their damned aggro, but the point of having a game with tanks is that they need to keep the baddies on them and not on the squishies.

[Hassat Hunter]

Wow, that sounds... horrible.

 

And it totally doesn't explain how it's an improvement, since warriors would still have higher than mage/rogues anyway.

[Cantousent]

I figure you must mean warriors would still have higher *dps* than mage/rogues? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think you must have accidently left out a word.

 

If mages and rogues don't have higher dps and if they have just as much survivability as warriors, what's the point in the first place? I think mages and rogues should have higher dps overall while the warriors should be more durable. That's the point of having a party based system as opposed to having a system where every class can fulfill the role of any other class.

 

On the other hand, upon rereading your post, maybe you're talking about the suggested change. To me, it really depends on how dramatic the change is. Certainly, they want to level the field a bit. They might not want to make mages as durable as warriors, simply not complete pushovers. If that's the case, I'm not entirely unhappy with the change.

 

As far as the star ratings goes... ugh. I can just imaging gearscore for DA2. That would definitely not be an improvement. At least you won't have to worry about folks checking your gearscore. Players should take the time to test builds and gear combos. The less direction they receive, the less constrained they'll be. Hell, there's already too much dependency on number crunching in DAO in some quarters.

 

I'll have to revisit these ideas after I've actually had at least a little sleep, though. I'm not even sure I understand them all properly.

Edited November 23, 2010 by Cantousent

[Slowtrain]

II think there may be too much assuming going on by you in some cases. I recall one time at the Lair when I praised the graphics in Far Cry after playing the demo and you went off your nut as if my commenting only on the graphics in that one post meant that I only cared about the graphics. Also, when someone watches a game trailer and says it "looks good" they may not necessarily be referring to the graphics.

 

 

Yup, good points. Especially since I now consider Far Cry is a game where the graphics add to the gameplay, they become part of the gameplay, so to speak. Which was really the first time I ever felt that in a game.

 

As far a sound goes, I do wish that sound, especially environment/ambient sound was given a lot more importance in game development. It's one of those things that it's hard to use to sell a game though, so it doesn't get as much priority as it probably deserves.

 

One thing I do like about this form is that people here are less prone to the "looks good - is good" fallacy. Which is one reason I find the reactions in the DX3 thread surprising.

[Slowtrain]

some o' the same folks complaining 'bout da art is the same folks who applaud or ignore age o' decadence art.

 

 

*shrug*

 

we've been down this road before. Different expectations and so forth about what developers can do with the resources they have. It may not be "fair", but success breeds expectations.

[meomao]

Wow, that sounds... horrible.

 

Care to explain why? I mean... the whole concept of Thaco in old D&D was armor class scaling to level.

 

I don't see a huge step forward or inward, simply they have changed from absolute number to relative numbers so they can scale the damage in a more balanced way for all classes (just like 99% of RPGs after D&D).

 

Rules are abstactions. A rule is bad if it do not work as intended or if it's broken.

[Morgoth]

The disappointing thing about DA2 is how it looks considering the amount of money pumped into it. Otherwise its not particularly better or worse than most other RPG's.

 

If the Witcher 1 and 2 can look damn good and be made by a small company there is no excuse for BW not to hire some quality artists.

Agreed. DA2 does a really bad job graphics wise, and considering it's only 4 months away from shipping I have doubts it will improve much. Can't find the groove with it's art direction, it just doesn't click with me. That's what happens when you rush a product.

 

Witcher 2 otoh has this beautifully mix of fantasy and medieval-Transylvania looks.

[Slowtrain]

SO what are you guys saying? If the graphics are bad then the game is (will be) bad?

 

Forget even that "good graphics" is pretty subjective anyway.

[Morgoth]

SO what are you guys saying? If the graphics are bad then the game is (will be) bad?

 

Forget even that "good graphics" is pretty subjective anyway.

No, but we'd expect more from a sizeable company like Bioware. Graphics that bad and unpolished is maybe an indicator that it's rushed, hence a bad game. Of course I could be completely wrong, but still...

[The Transcendent One]

yep you are very right,dragon age 2 feels is being rushed and to me the quality of dragon age 2 is very bad from what i have seen.

Edited November 23, 2010 by The Transcendent One

[Oner]

"Interesting" armor mechanics, tho I wonder what the purpose is, boss fights will still be against 500 hp magi as always.

[Amentep]

SO what are you guys saying? If the graphics are bad then the game is (will be) bad?

 

Forget even that "good graphics" is pretty subjective anyway.

 

To me, as long as the graphics serve properly to convey the story & game-user interface than the graphics are at least serviceable (a neutral stance). If the graphics actually either do not convey the story properly or create difficulties between the user and the game then they are bad. If the graphics enhance the story and further the game-user connection then they're good.

 

Anything beyond that is arguing about aesthetics, IMO.

 

Personally I haven't seen anything in the stuff for DA2 that looks to be "bad" in the sense that it doesn't look capable of properly conveying a story or creating difficulties with me as a player playing the game.