Deadfire color scheme

[Ravn7]

Deadfire color scheme. I think there's some problem here, because... it doesn't correspond with theory of evolution.

 

And what exactly do I mean by that?

 

Human perception of beauty was determined by evolution. Essentially people prefer things that are good and healthy for them - in the specific environment they evolved in. And humans evolved in Africa tens of thousands years ago. Back then it looked more like contemporary Greece. Or California. The colors, green plants, water, sky, some sand and much sunlight. In comparison, Deadfire lighting is definitely darker. The same goes for UI. And sunlight is very important for humans. Lack of sunlight can even cause depression, like it's the case with autumn depression. Thus it's obvious evolution made humans prefer brighter environment. It draws people. It's just more pleasant to look at and be there.

 

Of course it would be impossible to change all the graphics now but some adjustments to the lighting and overall color scheme are probably still a viable option. Like adjustments in the beginning of the game. It may be a good idea, because the beginning is the part that is the most often shown on Twitch and YT.

 

 

---

 

 

And here's a short talk about evolution of perception of beauty on Ted Talks.

 

Edited April 3, 2018 by Ravn7

[Alot]

Which one?

 

Which of the substances on this list did you consume prior to making this thread?

 

---

 

But on a more serious note: Why do you think that your perception of Deadfire's colour scheme is adequately representative of public perception at large? Because as far as I can tell, your post seems to rather heavily rely on that particular assumption.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Alot

[JerekKruger]

It's funny how many things I find beautiful which go against what evolution has dictated I should find beautiful. Almost like beauty might be a little more complicated than "a picture of our ideal environment".

[Wormerine]

Evolution is a bigger scam than gods. 

[Ravn7]

It's funny how many things I find beautiful which go against what evolution has dictated I should find beautiful. Almost like beauty might be a little more complicated than "a picture of our ideal environment".

Evolution is all about statistics. Most people prefer quite similar things (to certain degree of similarity). But preferences may vary, some percentage of population like something different than most. It's natural.

 

And humans' preferences are shaped by environmental factors (although this ability also comes from evolution). Not only inherited preferences. Current trends or fashion and childhood experiences are a major factor here. But some things don't change. People won't start to prefer uneatable food like grass or sand over more natural food. And prefer cloudy skies - in the long run - over blue skies. It would make them feel tired sooner. Low light levels may look cool for some time but not for long. Green color of well watered plants will look better than dying plants and so on. And RPGs are games you play for many hours.

 

 

Edited April 3, 2018 by Ravn7

[JerekKruger]

Evolution is all about statistics. Most people prefer quite similar things (to certain degree of similarity). But preferences may vary, some percentage of population like something different than most. It's natural.

 

A lot of the things I am referring to are widely regarded as great works of art, so I'm dubious that I am in some sort of minority here.

 

And humans' preferences are shaped by environmental factors (although this ability also comes from evolution). Not only inherited preferences. Current trends or fashion and childhood experiences are a major factor here. But some things don't change. People won't start to prefer uneatable food like grass or sand over more natural food. And prefer cloudy skies - in the long run - over blue skies. It would make them feel tired sooner. Low light levels may look cool for some time but not for long. Green color of well watered plants will look better than dying plants and so on. And RPGs are games you play for many hours.

 

 

I simply don't believe that, and I don't believe it because I think it's based on an overly simplistic application of evolutionary psychology to a concept we don't really understand. Yes, it's a very neat theory but neatness doesn't imply truth.

[Ethics Gradient]

I'm not trying to fan the flames of the debate or anything, but what exactly are you proposing?  Brighter colors?  More contrast?

 

I wouldn't be too concerned about how the early part of the game looks.  I don't think we're starting off anywhere near Tikawara anyway.

[Ravn7]

 

Evolution is all about statistics. Most people prefer quite similar things (to certain degree of similarity). But preferences may vary, some percentage of population like something different than most. It's natural.

 

A lot of the things I am referring to are widely regarded as great works of art, so I'm dubious that I am in some sort of minority here.

That also applies to art. Watch the video in the first post.

 

And there is always a possibility to make some professional studies. Look here - although it's just a simple poll, very far from perfect but it corresponds with hypothesis: https://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37566 (it's 94% now). It's very interesting that Blood and Wine was very praised for it's graphics but it seems it was about Greece-like environment, not bad color scheme. It just could be even better.

 

 

 

I'm not trying to fan the flames of the debate or anything, but what exactly are you proposing?  Brighter colors?  More contrast?

 

I wouldn't be too concerned about how the early part of the game looks.  I don't think we're starting off anywhere near Tikawara anyway.

Mostly I propose brighter color scheme. So it seems like there was more sunlight. Actually, Obsidian devs need only to look outside the window.

 

I have no way to compare but it seems to me D:OS was more popular on YT before release. Good and pleasant colors might also be a factor there. At least it's possible. Of course Deadfire graphics stands out for itself. It doesn't need to be that dark just for the sake of being original.

[MoonWolf]

I have issues with basically everything you sort of haphazardly vomited out in your post. And many reasons why in a fantasy world none of this even has to matter.  However nobody enjoys the sphaggetti post from hell that throws out 50 arguments. So I'm going to just zero in on a critical point you seem to have ignored.

 

Real humans don't follow your argument for why the colour scheme of the Deadfire is wrong. Actual living humans have lived and continue to live basically everywhere that will sustain human life. Swamps, deserts, polars regions where half the year its mostly just dark, land where its overcast all the time and rains a lot, etc, etc, etc.

 

You're not going to find credible research on the migration patterns of ancient humans based on grass greenness and if the water is the right shade of blue. You're right, lack of sunlight can cause depression. But people still live in the north of Finland, Sweden and Norway regardless.

 

Now if you had come with the the simple point that you don't like the colour pallete, sure. I can understand that, perfectly valid feeback that. However the idea that clearly nobody would ever live here because the colours and wrong and therefor Obsidian just has to change it because this Ted Video on the Evolutionary Psychology of Art Appreciation said so.

 

No. Just no.

Edited April 3, 2018 by MoonWolf

[Ravn7]

I'm quite sure I've already answered most of you arguments in my other, so I won't repeat myself.

 

Sure, people live in Finland (although suicide rate is extremely high). But do they think it looks nicer than California? Where do people prefer to go for holiday? And so on.

 

You can always find some screenshots that look similar but have different color schemes and make polls (just not here because it's always better to exclude any fanboys).

 

Now if you had come with the the simple point that you don't like the colour pallete, sure. I can understand that, perfectly valid feeback that.

Oh, and I wouldn't bother to express my personal opinions - in this case - if I didn't think most others might feel the same.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Ravn7

[Wormerine]

Sure, people live in Finland (although suicide rate is extremely high). But do they think it looks nicer than California? Where do people prefer to go for holiday? And so on.

Why would anyone go to spend holiday in California? :I why does going for holiday has anything to do with Deadfire? It’s not a vacation resort simulator. Call of Duty locations aren’t places anyone would want to spend their holidays at, and yet for many years it has been a top seller.

 

But even so, that’s beside the point. Why do you think a brighter, more colourful scheme would fit Deadfire’s world better? It’s hardly an otimistic world. Deadfire is full of conflict, fight for colonies, with a resurrected god rampaging around. Do you think a brighter colour palette would express this kind of world better?

 

I am pretty sure Obsidian artists can make decisions without making polls on what random people’s favourite vacation resorts are.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Wormerine

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

Even if this theory is valid, it's not clear that it *doesn't* apply to Deadfire. Hell, the starting beach is plenty pretty.,

 

Edit: 

 

Yeah I watched the video and all it really does is assert that there may be a biological basis for beauty. Ok, sure, but that doesn't get you anywhere by itself; the guy doesn't have a theory of aesthetics, he can't say that X is pretty and Y isn't because biology, he just says "if yo think thing is beautiful, there may be biological reasons for that."

 

His theory explains causation but it isn't descriptive; nothing in that Ted video can be used to judge if X is beautiful or not (except perhaps for values of X that are equal to "stone hand axe.")

 

You also can't use that theory to reason backwards; if X thing IS beautiful in your perception, you can't therefore argue that it's biologically beautiful universally (because you might be the only weird fluke who thinks that). All it can really do is outline why, if  almost everyone thinks something is beautiful, why that might be.

 

It's a why theory, not a which or a what or a how theory.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Dr. Hieronymous Alloy

[Ethics Gradient]

If only the artists at Obsidian could get a chance to visit beautiful California for some relaxing inspiration!

Oh.  Right.  
 
I don't disagree that some color palettes are more vibrant or pleasing than others, but the argument that it needs new schema hinges on whether Deadfire is strictly a work of art, or a creative medium to explore a logically-developed fantasy world.  Sure, many of the structures in Tikawara appear fairly drab, but I can almost bet the creative team spent a few days researching and debating the natural resources of a beach-dwelling society, and let design flow from there.
 

Yeah I watched the video and all it really does is assert that there may be a biological basis for beauty. Ok, sure, but that doesn't get you anywhere by itself..

I caught that too.  The video seems at a loss to explain design that may not be evolutionary in nature, but are constrained by their environment or history.  If that video was all you knew about art, it would seem wildly improbable that humans have been living in Rome for the last couple thousand years when the bulk of architecture is still dirty white or shades of gray.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Ethics Gradient

[Ravn7]

he can't say that X is pretty and Y isn't because biology, he just says "if yo think thing is beautiful, there may be biological reasons for that."

 

It's like ordinary science. You make hypotheses and then do studies that can confirm (or rather falsify) them. This guy in the video based his statements on statistical studies of people's preferences and then provided evolutionary explanations.

 

Theory of evolution states that organisms become best adapted for utilizing resources of their environment. If you know where a species evolved you may easily find out what they need and like the most and then do appropriate studies. I'm not really sure if there are mathematical models specifically created for aesthetics. There are mostly tons of studies about sexual preferences, like female shapes, faces and so on.

 

But you can find some studies in Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?hl=pl&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=aesthetics+evolution&btnG=

 

I'm not an expert on the subject and certainly have no idea about art. I've been only interested in theory of evolution for quite a while now.

 

 

Why would anyone go to spend holiday in California?

Maybe people like to spend holiday in places similar to California because it's hot and women are scarcely dressed?

 

It’s not a vacation resort simulator.

 

That's certainly true :D

 

Why do you think a brighter, more colourful scheme would fit Deadfire’s world better?

 

I've never said anything about it. But I did say that evolution is all about statistics. Most people prefer similar (to some extent) things. Like most men prefer women. And it won't change.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Ravn7

[sharpmath]

 

he can't say that X is pretty and Y isn't because biology, he just says "if yo think thing is beautiful, there may be biological reasons for that."

 

It's like ordinary science. You make hypotheses and then do studies that can confirm (or rather falsify) them. This guy in the video based his statements on statistical studies of people's preferences and then provided evolutionary explanations.

 

Theory of evolution states that organisms become best adapted for utilizing resources of their environment. If you know where a species evolved you may easily find out what they need and like the most and then do appropriate studies. I'm not really sure if there are mathematical models specifically created for aesthetics. There are mostly tons of studies about sexual preferences, like female shapes, faces and so on.

 

But you can find some studies in Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?hl=pl&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=aesthetics+evolution&btnG=

 

I'm not an expert on the subject and certainly have no idea about art. I've been only interested in theory of evolution for quite a while now.

 

 

Why would anyone go to spend holiday in California?

Maybe people like to spend holiday in places similar to California because it's hot and women are scarcely dressed?

 

It’s not a vacation resort simulator.

 

That's certainly true :D

 

Why do you think a brighter, more colourful scheme would fit Deadfire’s world better?

 

I've never said anything about it. But I did say that evolution is all about statistics. Most people prefer similar (to some extent) things. Like most men prefer women. And it won't change.

 

Nothing that you've said has made any sense. Just because people, possibly, may "evolutionary" prefer bright sunny skies and pleasing colors, doesn't mean that every piece of fiction is going to be set in a place like that. At the start you said something along the lines of you play an RPG for a long time, so why would you want it to be in a depressing place, but you're playing a game set in a kind of crappy world. Why should everything be sunshine and rainbows? This is probably the weirdest post chain I've ever seen.

[PatrioticChief]

I actually think this theory is fascinating but as it applies to a fantasy video game I don't see the point. 

Edited May 7, 2018 by PatrioticChief

[KaiG]

Your post is built upon the assumption that Obsidian want their environments to look as beautiful and pleasing as possible. Sure, they probably want some of their environments to look like that, but this isn't a paradise simulator. Maybe their art directors want there to be a darkness to the setting?

[Mikeymoonshine]

Obsidian tend to go for darker murkier colour paletes. It's their style and they have managed fine with it so far, I do agree that D:OS and 2 being so pretty and bright with beautiful contrasting colours helped those games but I think being good games helped them more.

 

For example the Dragon Age series, DA2 and 3 are much more colourful than DA: Origins with it's muddy and to be honest quite ugly textures but Origins is the higher rated game and it sold very well. I also don't think the brighter colours really made the second 2 games look any better, in fact I think DA2 actually looks worse than Origins.

 

Deadfire should probably be brighter and sunnier than POE:1 because of the setting and from what I have seen from the beta it is. There are still plenty of games that aren't and still manage to do well.

[JerekKruger]

Why was this thread resurrected?

[Ravn7]

Nothing that you've said has made any sense. Just because people, possibly, may "evolutionary" prefer bright sunny skies and pleasing colors, doesn't mean that every piece of fiction is going to be set in a place like that. At the start you said something along the lines of you play an RPG for a long time, so why would you want it to be in a depressing place, but you're playing a game set in a kind of crappy world. Why should everything be sunshine and rainbows? This is probably the weirdest post chain I've ever seen.

The color scheme is something you see all the time, thus it can have an influence on the way you feel. Subconsciously affecting your mood. In brighter environment, similar to California, people just feel better.

 

Just look at a recent article from Scientific American. It's about trees in urban areas but the principle is the same.

 

rapidly accumulating evidence that urban trees help reduce blood pressure and heart rate, decrease stress and elevate mental engagement and attentiveness as well as improve a sense of safety, comfort and overall happiness, along with other social and physiological benefits.

 

Trees. It seems like nothing. But it actually works and impacts people's feelings.

 

When it comes to video games, they can have varied environment. Not only bright or only dark. But having a setting like a tropical archipelago and not utilize its aesthetic potential is a wasted chance in my opinion.