This Forum has been archivedVisit Discussions
There is a matter I'd like to bring to your attention regarding our current situation with images of various DA2 equipment. There are quite a few articles that still need pictures, especially the Gloves sections, but currently no set style or standard of depicting exists. This is a problem of consistency, that can confuse editors willing to add quality pictures we need. I know I was kinda confused. Here is an example of greatswords:
1. An inventory view, as found in Bassrath-Kata (greatsword) article.
- While the image focuses solely on the weapon itself, I find it not that particularly illustrative especially in cases of proportions to a character's model, or to put it simply: how big the weapon is?
2. Weapon drawn, as found in Blade of Mercy (Fenris) article.
- While solving the problem of proportions and even providing an opportunity to illustrate the weapon in detail (note the close-up of the pommel), I believe this style of images still lacks in resolution.
- While arguably the most illustrative one, it also provides a very close view of the character equipped with the weapon, which some may find as too distractive.
4. "Hybrid" style, as found in The Empress's Point article.
To date we do not have a set standard of image styles, and as long as an image meets the requirements of image guidelines, it is good to be added to an article.
Please voice your opinion on whether you support the existing "free style" images or do you feel the need to set a particular style for images for the sake of consistency?
- If it's a set style, then which one?
- Keep in mind that in-game images are still preferred to concept art, which is best left for the Gallery section of an article. -Algol- (talk) 13:47, March 4, 2013 (UTC)
Although not greatswords, there are also a couple of other styles to consider:
5. Action shot - Bow of the Golden Sun. Pros: Provides a dynamic look. Cons: May result in pictures of varying consistency and quality
6. Model shot - Spellweaver. Pros: Professional looking. Cons: Not easy for all editors to achieve. Doesn't always indicate scale.
- Although I think style 5 has resulted in some great shots, I think my money has to be on style 3. It provides a clear depiction of the weapon and should be easy for enough for all PC editors to provide. Loleil Talk 00:10, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Loleil. Personally I would prefer style 3 too, which is perhaps best illustrated by pictures of mauls, such as Oath-Breaker, The Subtle Brute or Demonslayer. Clear detailed view, easily visible scale, relatively easy to make, opportunity to add additional close-ups on pommels/hilts/etc.
Also gloves. Since certain DA2 gloves, like Alchemist's Protective Handguards have the right glove different from the left one, I think a set style needs to be just like in the very same article.
The next thing about consistency is consistency with DA:O pictures. As DA2 and DA:O are different games in terms of graphic component, I believe we shouldn't necessarily set a general standard for both DA:O and DA2 items. One for DA:O and another for DA2 would suffice. Or wouldn't it? :) -Algol- (talk) 08:03, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
- Nice job -Algol-! I do feel strongly that the images should be consistent, but I believe that standards could be made for DA:O and DA2. That way, we're consistent but not artificially constrained. I don't have a preference either way and I think that we should go with standard that is most widely adopted. -- 21:42, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
- For Origins, the most commonly used style from what I can see is 6, closely followed by style 3 and for DA II I think style 2 would win the "most used" race with 3 also being used a bit. So let's make 3 our gold standard for weapons going forward. For gloves, I'm happy to use the Protective Handguards style as the norm.
- 6 is the best, but personally I cannot achieve this. However on the other hand replacing item pages which feature the 6 with lower grade pictures just for the sake of consistency is just wrong.
- My idea is to wait for Dragon Age III to be released and based on what we can do there, to release a set of guidelines which will essentially be the acceptable ways to feature the image of an item. These guidelines will be more than one of course but they will still allow some sort of consistency. Hence, a middle solution to this issue. 09:32, March 6, 2013 (UTC)
- 1) Waiting for DA3 to be released means sitting a year or so without pictures :)
- 2) How would you draft the "grandfather clause", Loleil?
- Great progress with those images Algol! I was thinking of something like this for the guideline,
When uploading new weapon images, editors are expected to use insert description and link of style here. However, as this guideline was implemented after the release of the first two Dragon Age games, existing weapon images are not expected to adhere to this standard.Loleil Talk 04:02, March 7, 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you! :) Happy to help. As of now, we have almost all rogue items with very few exceptions (I'll fix those a bit later), and I'm moving to warrior.
- I think this guideline is a good idea! How would we try it out? Just implement it, or wait for some community input? (if any)
- For the invisible gloves I think I would leave the infobox empty, but maybe add a picture of the default gloves in a gallery with a note explaining how the gloves appear.
Looks like there really isn't any further feedback, so I guess it's time to modify the guidelines, no? :)
Meanwhile on the wiki:
- All current DA2 Warrior equipment has images now.
- Almost all current DA2 Rogue equipment has images now, except for the thrice-damned Invisible Gloves I still don't know what to with, and also this thingy: Hunter's Vest. It never dropped to me and it couldn't be added with console by neither of two mods I tried. The item ID seems legit, but still something is off. Everything else has images though.
I'm moving to mage, though this should be much faster and easier, as mage was the most represented class in terms of images, before the warrior took the crown just recently :)
- Very nicely done Algol! I will go ahead and make the additions for weapons and gloves (come to think of it, we may as well use this opportunity to come up with guidelines for boots, chest-pieces, and helms too). Hopefully someone will be able to add the Hunter's Vest, and I still think that adding an image of the default and note should suffice for the Invisible Gloves . Loleil Talk 08:55, March 15, 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you :) About the Invisible Gloves: wouldn't it be more logical to add a picture of Hawke's bare hands in accordance to existing gloves images style? Because that's how the Invisible Gloves actually look in-game: bare hands.
- Should the character's head be excluded from the image, like in Warden Scout's Tunic, or should it be present like in most of the other images? While the former example concentrates solely on the tunic and solves the recommendation of not using a customized character's face (sorry for that with my former pictures...), I feel it is kinda wrong from purely aesthetical point of view, for the lack of a better term.
- Another thing I'd like to point out is that we should probably make a guideline NOT to show any other armor pieces on the character, except for the chest piece itself. Look at the Beregrand's Breastplate: the chestpiece has knee-pads and elbow-pads, and so do many others. If the character was wearing boots and gloves, it would be confusing for the viewer to figure out whether the kneepads or elbow-pads belong to the chestpiece, or to the boots and gloves respectively. A similar thing occurs with helmets on.
- As for boots, I used the most simple depiction and it also seems to have become the most common one: a simple front view, like in Quickflight or Rat Red's Longboots. However, there are different styles, as in Rough Leather Boots or Apostate's Boots, which are similar to the recommended style for gloves images. I, for instance, do not have any opinions as to which style is better and only have to add that for the same reasons as for chestpieces, a guideline must be made for a character not to wear a chestpiece, so kneepads wouldn't look like part of the boots. Unless, a close up shot not depicting the kneepads at all is made.
- And as for helmets, the most common one to date is, again, a simple close up frontal shot of the helmet, like in Garahel's Helm or Chevalier Silverite Helm. There is also the Mask of the Imperium, where I believe that a close up shot is, perhaps, a little bit too close up... But I leave it to your judgment.
- Also there is a different and very interesting style as in The Helm of Marterel, but it also seems to be the only helmet with such style. The back of the helmet does have a detail worty of being included in the image, but am not sure how many other helmets have such details... Again, what do you think? -Algol- (talk) 11:54, March 15, 2013 (UTC)
I like my chestpieces with character face and with gloves and boots (with helmet if it is from the same set). Naked hands and legs with armor just look wrong. I also prefer screenshots from the cutscenes, e.g. Robes of the Pretender (but with better lighting :)).
I can't pick a single style for the helmets that I like most, it depends on the item. [[The Helm of Marterel] is my early attempt, a better version can be found here - The Long Sight, also here - Rock-Knocker. For the most helmets, however, single frontal or half-turned shot is enough.
On a more general note, I don't think there should be too many restrictions. I mean, if the image has a high quality and you can see all the details, I don't really care whether the uploader used default Hawke or not. – mostlyautumn • talk • contribs • 14:24, March 16, 2013 (UTC)