Dragon Age: Inquisition

I

Idiotfool

Still Mildly Glowing
I just saw part of a preview for this. It looks like it's going to be worse than The Old Republic. Same stupid Dev shots where they talk about how phenomenal and game-changing the world will be. They mention a "tight, Biowaresque story" and "player freedom" which are very disparate concepts.
 
Not sure why you start a thread about a game you already seem to dislike, but I digress.

One has to understand something; Bioware doesn't do games for the people usually congregating on this here site, or those who crave old-school RPGs and/or favour Obsidian and Kickstarter projects ala Wasteland 2 above all. They have their own audience now, that has different expectations. I would personally say I don't like some of things they go for, but I favour other things. Lose some, gain some, that's change for you.

That being said, actually Inquisition is shaping up to be pretty damn good if you ask me. It's pretty clear they're taking their time for this one, unlike Dragon Age II, and their more obvious inspiration is Origins rather than the sequel. Race selection is back, for example, hell they even added in the Qunari. New engine will (hopefully) make the combat less clunky, and they said they used the skill system in DAII which was actually pretty solid on its own. It also allows implementation of a semi-open world, actually in a Fallout 1 and 2 style, in the form of several large maps connected by travel points, hopefully they'll make them less linear than in Origins. Well, they add in horses, so I guess the size of the areas must justify it.

Apart from that, information is scarce, but that's to be expected more than a year before release. But so far, it sure as hell looks nothing like TOR.
 
Er.. I won't call them stupid. Origins was a masterpiece. I love it & I still play it even today. Just because Dragon Age II was bad it doesn't mean the next game is going to suck. If there's anyone who is able to resurrect the series, I'm sure they're already in the process. Instead calling Bioware stupid, call Bethisda stupid instead for raping Fallout 3. I guess you haven't played Origins. I suggest you go & play Origins first & then see the similarities betwee the 1st & the upcoming game. It's not going to suck AT ALL. I have this weird feeling that Wasteland 2 would endup sucking real bad & fans killing the unwashed spammer. I just hope I'll be wrong. Just don't wanna see that game suck. On the other hand, Dragon Age III is going to nail it.. No fear at all..
 
Played and liked origins when it first came out, though the main point about it for me was the combat - i liked the combat and how you could wonder to harder areas if you wanted, other aspects of the game were... decent enough. The new game seems to go back to a similar combat scheme, which is very nice, but the animations which they brought back from the second title is not a treat for the eyes, they suck. I'm not sure why they even chose that direction, since i'm sure they could do much better.

The game as overall though, i'm pretty sure it will tread the same old bioware path. What i mean is that they do games that are similar to Stephan King books, cocktail music and white bread. They always keep a decent enough level of quality, but it never goes beyond that, these games never surprise you with unexpected decisions, dialogue, choices, game mechanics, puzzles, art direction, sound track. You pretty much know that there will be some cliche plots, homosexual characters, linear maps, a few simple skills and some bland lore. All that pep talk from the developers is just that, pep talk, as i only see them making the same kind of games for forever, without trying to come close to something which may be called a piece of gaming "art", even if only in double quotes.
 
Akratus said:
There is such a thing as shitty art you know.
Click to expand...

Lil bit of a random hi-five, but, hi-five for this!
I hate when people go "that's not music" or "it's not art"
It is art one simply does not approve of.

If not shitty, art can also be simplistic, trivial, childish etc, but still be art.
 
Objecting everyone & criticizing everything they say isn't a good habit. You don't have to agree to what I say & I don't need your permission to post what I think. I did learn to listen to what others have to say. At least I think I did. Origins isn't a masterpiece, to you. Not to me. I know a lot more would agree that Origins was one of the best ever by Bioware. You don't like it? Fine. I just posted my opinion on the thead. Nobody asked you to crit my post. Please do follow the point of the thread and stop being a jack-ass.
 
Akratus said:
Every game is art. There is such a thing as shitty art you know.
Click to expand...

For me, art is a skillful expression of creativity that stems from passion. So from that perspective there aren't a lot of games that meet that criteria (Fallout 1,2 for me). For an obvious anti-example: NBA live series, that is made by people who don't like basketball, don't know much about it, and don't care for raising the bar. Also, safe projects that never further an interesting idea, even if it is a great one, before checking it's validity in the often false leading "has been proved to be marketable" checkbook.
 
AskWazzup said:
Akratus said:
Every game is art. There is such a thing as shitty art you know.
Click to expand...

For me, art is a skillful expression of creativity that stems from passion. So from that perspective there aren't a lot of games that meet that criteria (Fallout 1,2 for me). For an obvious anti-example: NBA live series, that is made by people who don't like basketball, don't know much about it, and don't care for raising the bar. Also, safe projects that never further an interesting idea, even if it is a great one, before checking it's validity in the often false leading "has been proved to be marketable" checkbook.
Click to expand...

It's your personal idea to add a mark of quality into your classification of art. The arguments you put forth have something to do with quality, but not really anything with whether they are art or not. There's no reason to put the two together.

zegh8578 said:
Akratus said:
There is such a thing as shitty art you know.
Click to expand...

Lil bit of a random hi-five, but, hi-five for this!
I hate when people go "that's not music" or "it's not art"
It is art one simply does not approve of.

If not shitty, art can also be simplistic, trivial, childish etc, but still be art.
Click to expand...

It's not random at all. I get you completely and feel exactly the same way. Consider yourself hi-fived.
 
Akratus said:
It's your personal idea to add a mark of quality into your classification of art. The arguments you put forth have something to do with quality, but not really anything with whether they are art or not. There's no reason to put the two together.
Click to expand...

Well, you criticize my definition, which is fair, but you don't provide a definition yourself, so your statement doesn't have much to stand on for now.

To be fair, defining art is pretty hard (and i do not claim i have it figured out), since there is a whole lot of things that the definition would depend upon, but if not delving to deep into that, i think Yes, the artist has to be skillful in his craft, because without it , you are depending on luck, that is if you have a grand idea in your head, but cannot materialise it, then you are playing on chance occurrence (which i found out when dabbling with my "projects"). However, as i stated before, one also has to posses passion for the subject, since passion is fuel for ideas and expressivenes. And finally, the work of art may come about by perception, reason, or logic, but it has to have a structure (can be structure of chaos, or structure of logic), and interesting structure, one which has the capacity to go beyond the everyday thinking. Now this is also where it gets sketchy, since an interesting structure is as interesting as the observers mental skill to be able to recognise that structure and the interesting part about it.

So if someone is generating a project that is compliant and not striving out of interest and passion to go beyond, or at least near the bar that was set before, or to tackle new grounds, for me it is not a piece of art. It might still be good, but it will lack that sting. Games by bioware i think of decent or good but they do not surprise, or tickle my mind the same way that i find the games which are nearer to that definition.

Now my thoughts on this, i will confess, have some fallacies that i see myself, but i am not articulate enough, or have a good enough understanding on the subject to fix them. So i will be glad if someone else might help with their critique, as i am interested to have a deeper understanding on the topic of art too, even if it is not that much connected to the topic of the thread :lol: .
 
I would be careful with calling games "art" or placing it on the same level. If alone for the fact that a hell lot people worked on it, and not all do the same tasks. Its a huge project after all. Do you call the coding monkey that hates his job and doesn't even really care about what he is coding as long he gets his salary so he can continue to vegetate in his one room apartment some kind of artist? Exaggerated yes. But I guess you know what I mean.

Without a doubt, games contain a lot of creativity. But a lot of jobs and products require that, yet people usually don't go so far as to call it "art".

Making games is more about design then art really. They create a product. Never forget that. There is a difference, albeit its not black and white. Where does it stop to be art? At which point do you talk about design? If there is something people like andy warhol proved then that design and art have a fluent blending.

But I don't think that games are really there yet. Are there games that could be seen as masterpiece? Sure. But its a huge industry. Some games are special. Just like how some cars are special. But is the car industry some form of "art" industry? No it isn't. The same is true for games.
 
Crni Vuk said:
I would be careful with calling games "art" or placing it on the same level. If alone for the fact that a hell lot people worked on it, and not all do the same tasks. Its a huge project after all. Do you call the coding monkey that hates his job and doesn't even really care about what he is coding as long he gets his salary so he can continue to vegetate in his one room apartment some kind of artist? Exaggerated yes. But I guess you know what I mean.

Without a doubt, games contain a lot of creativity. But a lot of jobs and products require that, yet people usually don't go so far as to call it "art".

Making games is more about design then art really. They create a product. Never forget that. There is a difference, albeit its not black and white. Where does it stop to be art? At which point do you talk about design? If there is something people like andy warhol proved then that design and art have a fluent blending.

But I don't think that games are really there yet. Are there games that could be seen as masterpiece? Sure. But its a huge industry. Some games are special. Just like how some cars are special. But is the car industry some form of "art" industry? No it isn't. The same is true for games.
Click to expand...

While i mostly agree, but if i'm not mistaken, game studios back in the day were much smaller, even for bigger games no? And there were a lot of passionate game designers who were creating games that still in many aspects are better than the current breed, so even though they made money, for some of them it was not the main objective (at least that is what i understood from what i heard and read). So even though we still lack great ideas implemented with sophistication, they were still great ideas and works which grown out of them, that are at least near the term "art". Say. Torment. What do you think ?
 
Guys...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art

Games are art, because they fullfill a wish to aesthetically please or entertain.
Crni, it definitely doesn't stop being art as soon as money comes into the picture, a majority of all art is comissioned and paid for. A lot of art has more than one author.

Giving strict rules as to what constitutes art and what does not is a dangerous game to play.
We might just as well begin to define un-art, and degenerate art. You know? Bad road.

Art is art - what you're discussing is wether or not it is fine art or wether or not you enjoy the art, or whatever.
But to say "it is not art" is the same as when people go "hiphop/metal/country/folk is not music" just because they don't like it.
 
zegh8578 said:
Guys...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art

Games are art, because they fullfill a wish to aesthetically please or entertain.
Click to expand...

Well, by that logic most things are art. You can be pleased and entertained by many things or persons. For instance a strip dancer, or a prostitute. And some things which should in theory do that, do this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f3HDsgLV68[/youtube]

Can you call this art? This is neither creative, neither interesting, neither having any goal, or thought behind. It might be entertaining, but in a way that it was not created for, by accident, like when someone slips on a banana peal and everyone is entertained. It would not be art, it would be an occurrence.
 
AskWazzup, what is so hard to understand?

So, let me get this straight. You're claiming that it can only be art if you, AskWazzup, approve of it. If you don't, then it's not art. If you do - then it's art.

If the art is bad - then it's bad art.
Who on earth came out to decide for everyone that art is only art if it impresses people, and gives them something valuable? Why is art the one thing that can only be good, and never be bad?

Again, compare with people who decide what is and what isn't music, just because it doesn't fit their taste.
 
AskWazzup said:
While i mostly agree, but if i'm not mistaken, game studios back in the day were much smaller, even for bigger games no? And there were a lot of passionate game designers who were creating games that still in many aspects are better than the current breed, so even though they made money, for some of them it was not the main objective (at least that is what i understood from what i heard and read). So even though we still lack great ideas implemented with sophistication, they were still great ideas and works which grown out of them, that are at least near the term "art". Say. Torment. What do you think ?
Click to expand...
I am sure there are a lot of people that really love their jobs and what they do, I sure love what I am doing. But that still doesn't change the fact that its a "job" first and art/creative work later, if anything. Games are products after all. I guess graphic design and creating games are very similar in that part, because both can be very "artistic" but it is also at the same time a very harsh and complex business. You just have always to keep in mind that you do a product first, usually for a client. You have to make someone happy with your work, someone who usually doesnt understand a lot about what you do. Like cocking a dinner or dish for a guest.

To see it as art though and not as work can be dangerous. A lot of people that have the experience tell me that working with "artists" can be quite difficult, often enough they are not open to criticism or well, the kind of criticism that gets thrown around in graphic design, they have what you would say, an attitude. But when you create a "product" of some sorts, offering a service, then this attitude really has no room. You have to be ready to throw out weeks of work if you have to even if you are completely convinced from the quality of your work. Try to explain that to some artist. Because someone is paying you for doing that work they want maybe solutions for a problem. If you buy art, then you buy a statement, eventually. Or you love that particular style or the personality from the artist. But you can not demand from him to change his style to satsfiy YOUR needs.

I think that is one important difference here between art and design. Like working as illustrator or grapic designer or when you create games. If you do some art, then there is really only one person that you have to satisfy and that is your self, more or less, thats why pretty much everything can be art while not everything can be design. Once you do design work like with games or something comparable, then you have to keep rules in mind, working with limitations, suddenly stuff like marketing, communication, design goals, typograhy etc. become important, stuff that doesnt play any role at all in art where you only use the stuff YOU like. I mean do you believe someone like Van Gogh or Picasso really made something with a "target audience" or "tonality" in their mind?

You know you dont have to be even a great artist to be a designer. In fact, there are many pretty good graphic designers that cant draw for their life. I guess there was a lot more freedom around games in the past. But well.

zegh8578 said:
Games are art, because they fullfill a wish to aesthetically please or entertain.
Crni, it definitely doesn't stop being art as soon as money comes into the picture, a majority of all art is comissioned and paid for. A lot of art has more than one author.

Giving strict rules as to what constitutes art and what does not is a dangerous game to play.
We might just as well begin to define un-art, and degenerate art. You know? Bad road.

Art is art - what you're discussing is wether or not it is fine art or wether or not you enjoy the art, or whatever.
But to say "it is not art" is the same as when people go "hiphop/metal/country/folk is not music" just because they don't like it.
Click to expand...
Uhu, attention please! We have a google expert here! :p

I don't mean that as offense, just a little joke. I am actually working in the field of (graphic) design and I have some education here. Not to mention I do as well art and I think that some of it is at least good enough to be shown around - > click me!

enough of the self-adulation, I am sure not "the" designer, there are a lot of very talented people out there. But it is interesting that when you listen to people like Syd Mead or Feng Zhu who are kick ass designers and concept artists, then they really don't talk about their stuff like as it would be the kind of traditional art. Again, they have usually clients that want a specific work from them, be it architecture, or vehicles or solutions for certain problems. They have a lot of creative freedom, but if you really see al that design work as art, then you could as well see the guy whos drawing machines as engineer as "artist".

You know the term "art" is useless today. It really is. At leats as definition. Because it is some kind of umbrella which can be used for a lot of things. Because in the end everything can be art, but not everything is art. I say this again, there is work that contains a hell lot of creativity and it is impressive and all that shit. But you don't have to satisfy your self. You have to satisfy the client. You create a product. Art per definition, is about freedom. Even if you work for a client, when you do it as artist then he is buying "your work" for a reason, when you go to a designer then you buy a craftsman, this idea about buying "art" is a rather modern definition, see, the idea that there are artists and craftsmen is not very old, in the past artists have been seen as craftsmen, just like any carpenter or bricklayer/mason and they had just like them their own guilds. And one thing was common for all them. They had to satisfy the needs of their clients. And this is very important to keep in mind when you do design work for example. Its one of the fundamentals they teach you.

Look, I know its a complicated topic and there is no clear line that you can draw you know, but its a fact that there is somewhere a difference between art, design etc. or we would not call illustrations illustrations and design design but simply "art". A lot of stuff can be described as art. Thats obvious. But in many cases artistical values have less priority, which becomes very clear when you create for example advertisements.
 
Ugh. The ''are video games art'' discussion. The only way we'd going even more in circles is if we brought up religion.
 
Right, I think we all get each others point of view regarding it, so, no need to run in circles then ;]

Hey, how about we discuss the meaning of life?

Here is my take on it:
[spoiler:e04d876761]Gotcha! And that's the meaning of life![/spoiler:e04d876761]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top