391 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...
Isn't that enough of a reason to allow the player adjust NPCs to their liking?

Well, what do you mean?

I mean if that is a factor in how enjoyable the game is to the player, then removing something which does positively contribute to player's enjoyment results in less enjoyable game. And that's after all the primary reason why the games are made and played in the first place -- to provide enjoyment. 

I do not think a game should ever be designed in a way that supports fan fiction. If it happens to, and people enjoy doing that, that's great. But if Bioware can invest zots in very unique NPC clothing, then should at the cost of destroying any ability to write fan-fiction. At least in my view.

Can you elaborate on why do you think a game should actively remove the player's ability to "write the fanfiction" as you put it? I.e. what exactly is there to gain from it, especially for the person who is ultimately the person that's supposed to be entertained by it, i.e. the player?

[Ryzaki]

Bah. I just hope we don't end up with stupidity like Garrus' busted armor. That was just sheer laziness on BWs part.

And I shall miss the beauty of Morrigan in heavy armor. She looks absolutely stunning.

It's her face that made her beautiful not those rags she was wearing. And frankly on the face front DA2 leaves a lot to be desired. No wonder they need unique clothing.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 novembre 2010 - 06:58 .

[DarthCaine]

Rawgrim wrote...

2 different outfits is alot less than say...20 in the previous game.

erm, there were only like a couple of different models. All the others were just reskins.

[Maria Caliban]

tmp7704 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

The reason that you have to control the party in DA:O is that technology isn't good enough for you to not control it. The human player has to make up for the software's flaws. That's a meta-game issue though unless 'incompetent AI' is a defining part of what makes an RPG.

The very same argument works for why the player is given ability to put gear on characters, too.

ME 2 manages to bypass that entirely. Fallout: NV never has to control companions during combat and you don't level them.

I'd have no problem with BioWare making a game where you didn't decide what your followers wore, how they leveled up, or how they fought other than the basic tactical decisions a leader might make.

The only reason I find DA:O combat okay is because I imagine that the group is simply implementing a series of maneuvers they've already gone over. After all, most fights use the same tactics.

That said, i'm not looking forward to bickering with AI team on who gets to use the purple ring that dropped off the boss.

That's why I always make sure the PC has high Speech.

[pitchblaq]

Addai67 wrote...

But there's nothing in Alistair's character that says he's a sword and shield wielder only.  There's no character reason why he should be.

I wasn't paying too much attention, but I don't remember any two-hander Templars. But I could be mistaken.

In either case, there's a disparity in design between the two games when you consider how independent your followers are supposed to be now. Wearing whatever they want simply fits with the idea that, when they're not with you, they're living their lives. Hawke doesn't tell them where to sleep, where they're allowed to wander, and evidently, what kinds of clothes they wear.

[Rawgrim]

You could ress Morrigan up in several robes, some leather armours, medium armours, fullplate, chantry robes, and whatsnot. Thats more than 1 outfit I belive.

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...

And I disagree that this should ever be allowed. The player ought not to have any creative input in any character but the PC.

If you feel that way, there are plenty of games out there that only allow you to control one character.  Have at it.  We're talking about Dragon Age.

[Rawgrim]

Bioware did call it a party-based rpg after all. So one should be able to do stuff with the party, and not just have them around for chat.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Lord_Valandil wrote...

Aigyl wrote...
Companions's inventory is ME2'd.

Damn it.

This pleases me as much as the actual change does.


WEEE!

[Fishy]

Rawgrim wrote...

You could ress Morrigan up in several robes, some leather armours, medium armours, fullplate, chantry robes, and whatsnot. Thats more than 1 outfit I belive.

Stop bullying Morrigan

[Maria Caliban]

Addai67 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

And I disagree that this should ever be allowed. The player ought not to have any creative input in any character but the PC.

If you feel that way, there are plenty of games out there that only allow you to control one character.  Have at it.  We're talking about Dragon Age.

Oh, the old 'you like something different than me so you should just play a different game.' I can do that too.

We're talking about Dragon Age II, a game where companions have a set of clothing or armor they prefer. There are plenty of games where that's not the case. Have at them.

[Maverick827]

Yay, now I can begin to work on the GUI for the equipment manager portion of my DA2 character builder!  

I have no idea what's going on in that talent screen, though, so I guess that will have to wait a while.

(This is what I do for fun when I don't have any new games to play, don't judge me)

As far as the companion outfits are concerned, as long as there are a decent amount of alternatives, perhaps even at the point of recruitment (varying in looks and stats) then I for one welcome the changes.  The ME2 style was almost perfect, but the lack of stats and variation is what set it back.

Modifié par Maverick827, 05 novembre 2010 - 07:04 .

[DarthCaine]

Rawgrim wrote...

Bioware did call it a party-based rpg after all. So one should be able to do stuff with the party, and not just have them around for chat.

You do do something with them, you control them, choose their abilities, how they level up, how they fight etc. So it's more like in a JRPG now

[ErichHartmann]

Addai67 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

And I disagree that this should ever be allowed. The player ought not to have any creative input in any character but the PC.

If you feel that way, there are plenty of games out there that only allow you to control one character.  Have at it.  We're talking about Dragon Age.

I'll bite.  Some of the best RPGs I have ever played focused on one character.  If you haven't played Planescape Torment or The Witcher then I can't help you understand.

[Ryzaki]

I find this hysterical considering how BW was talking about JRPGs not too long ago.

[bzombo]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

bzombo wrote...

Aigyl wrote...

In Exile wrote...

When they say that the inventory for the party members is ME2d, do you mean that we have no options to customize them, or that their armour is unique, and we can only swap the companion specific armour in and out? Because that was the system I expected us to get, so I'd like to see if that's the case.

You can't change their armour, but you can enchant them with runes.

The screenshots show that you can give them belts, neck-pieces, and rings just like DA:O.

They also each have their own unique talent trees.

Edit: Oh, and Hawke's inventory is pretty much identical to Origins's system.

part ok, part depressing. i liked changing everyone's armor around. now armor is static except for hawke. at least hawke can be customized. still kinda sucks, though. this is the first negative for me.

bethany shows in at least 2 different outfits as far as we know, and people say it's because of the exaggerated sections, i'd like to for you to see the sections of the rise to power trailer where isabela shows, whe she is on screen you can also see hawke sporting his spiky armor, this would mean that:

the current isabela outfit we've seen is the exaggerated one

or

there are at least 2 different outfits for each follower.

if there is some way to change armor then that would be better, even if it's one set of special armor that is found/bought/created later in the game. hopefully it is some kind of armor that makes sense for the npc. a warrior wearing generic clothes? stupid. having a special piece of armor just for that warrior that they wear? i can understand that even if it's not my preference.

[Rawgrim]

So you can chose how they level up. Meaning you decide what they learn to do. How they kill, and whatsnot. But you can`t put an armour on them?

[tmp7704]

Maria Caliban wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Thank goodness for that. The inability to make Morrigan someone's dress up doll can only be a good thing.

She's still a dress-up doll. Except only one guy gets to pick what she wears.

Just because you see a character as being nothing more than a collection of stats, doesn't mean everyone else does.

There's no need for straw mans here.

Ultimately i see the character as product of someone's imagination. If the outcome of author's imagination is something i find for whatever reasons ridiculous, it tends to break my suspension of disbelief. Which isn't a welcome effect.

As such, i find your comment how being stuck with the stock appearances "can only be a good thing" rather arbitrary and failing to take other views into account.

[DarthCaine]

Rawgrim wrote...

So you can chose how they level up. Meaning you decide what they learn to do. How they kill, and whatsnot. But you can`t put an armour on them?

Maybe they don't like you choosing their clothes. Party members have feelings too

[Fishy]

Rawgrim wrote...

So you can chose how they level up. Meaning you decide what they learn to do. How they kill, and whatsnot. But you can`t put an armour on them?

i just find it weird and immersion breaking if morrigan talk about her magery in full plate armor while swing a two-handed sword.

Modifié par Suprez30, 05 novembre 2010 - 07:09 .

[Ryzaki]

Suprez30 wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

So you can chose how they level up. Meaning you decide what they learn to do. How they kill, and whatsnot. But you can`t put an armour on them?

i just find it weird and immersion breaking if morrigan talk about her magery in full plate armor while swing a two-handed sword.

...?

You forget Aracane Warrior was a mage class? 

[Rawgrim]

Yes its kind of wierd, but its still an option. Less options = less of a game.

[ashwind]

Rawgrim wrote...

So you can chose how they level up. Meaning you decide what they learn to do. How they kill, and whatsnot. But you can`t put an armour on them?

Make sense, why would Isabela take fashion advice from Hawke? Hawke cant even keep his/her face clean or hair tidy 

[slimgrin]

In Exile wrote...

And I disagree that this should ever be allowed. The player ought not to have any creative input in any character but the PC.

An odd stance, given this is a party based rpg. Besides, Laidlaw said there would be ways to enhance and upgrade their armor.

[AlanC9]

tmp7704 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

The reason that you have to control the party in DA:O is that technology isn't good enough for you to not control it. The human player has to make up for the software's flaws. That's a meta-game issue though unless 'incompetent AI' is a defining part of what makes an RPG.

The very same argument works for why the player is given ability to put gear on characters, too.

Sure, but it isn't a winning argument. If player control of skill development and item loadout is something that you only put up with because you have to, then DA2's approach is a halfway measure towards an improved game.

You have to see player control of NPC development as good in itself for this argument to work, and Maria obviously doesn't.

I'm not going to go as far as Maria did. WRT DAO mage spells only , it would be quite reasonable for Morrigan or Wynne to work on additional abilities in consultation with other party members, and this might as well be done by the player. The various warrior and rogue paths could have been autoleveled if Bio had understood the system better when they designed autoleveling.