391 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...
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.

 No, there aren't. No games let you customize your apperance, pick dialogue choices that meaningfully alter the experience and story, experience deep interpersonal relationships (like romances) besides RPGs. If there were, I'd be playing them.

[In Exile]

slimgrin wrote...

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

This isn't IWD, though. That game let you create a party - that's clearly where you have creative control over the whole party. But in this game, you control 1 character. You have the perspective of 1 character. The life you live is that of the 1 character. The other characters are separate from you. There may well be gameplay mechanisms, but that's a different matter.

[Ryzaki]

filaminstrel wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Armour isn`t a fashion advice, its more about safety. Realism will go straight out the window as soon as I see Isabella battling a fire breathing dragon, in her push-up bra, instead of her wearing something that might actually protect her.

To be a little fair, I'm not sure metal armor would be great protection against a fire breathing dragon. It'd cook you like an oven, I would think.

True that.

...We need some enchanted armors stat.

[In Exile]

Aphetto_LC wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

The static outfits will get very very static when one wishes to re-play the game a few times too.

It is clear that Bioware is not intending DA2 to have replay ablility.

But everyone replays for different reasons. I replayed DA:O 20 times. With... a male human mage/warrior. That's it. Same character. Mostly with the same decisions. And it was super awesome and fun, because what made me replay the game was 1) the story and 2) the gameplay. I don't play games to see different content. In fact, I tend to get annoyed by games like that. So replayability is very relative.

[Ryzaki]

Wait...does this mean it'll probably be possible via mods to change their clothes? Oh god I hope so.

[Nerevar-as]

tdawg7669 wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Armour isn`t a fashion advice, its more about safety. Realism will go straight out the window as soon as I see Isabella battling a fire breathing dragon, in her push-up bra, instead of her wearing something that might actually protect her.

I dont really like this decision either. However realism goes out the window the second you see a fire breathing dragon at all. Dragon Age by definition is not about realism.

Realism doesn´t mean IRL. But don´t worry, by that part of the game she´ll probably have steel + fire proof tattered shirt armor.

Anyone else thinks this will be as ME where we get companions´ individual abilities as bonus? If so, at least I hope class restrictions apply.

[In Exile]

Nozybidaj wrote...
That aside I'd still like to see a reason for being able to choose skills and tactics and even beyond that how this doesn't apply to Hawke.  If the point is that having static outfits maintains the vision and integrity of the character as the deve's envisioned them, how does choosing their skills and tactics not fall in to that?  I would assume at this point the companions having "unique" talent trees is actually going to be doing this, but the comments in the thread seem to say that "choosing their skills, weapons, tactics, etc., is okay, but oh no, not their outfit".  How is that not completely contradictory?

For me, it's like this: full party tactical combat is fun as hell. So that should be in. Auto-level gimps characters, and that isn't fun. So it needs to be out. Having lots of reactive content in game and unique apperances is fun. So that should be in.

The only reason I can give is that some features I enjoy and some I don't, and they're fundamentally justified by my enjoyment. The only thing I have a broader philsophy for is: (1) gameplay and story segregation; and (2) the dialogue system.

[Kyda]

 Let’s
see... I sort of think it is a good thing that they have their unique
clothing... I usually leave Morrigan with her outfit, but for me it depends on
the class. It was fine for a mage, since you are not expecting them to get
physical (unless you were playing an AW) but when it comes to chars that are
supposed to get in the middle of the fight (like rogues or warriors) I think
that them wearing no pants or too revealing clothing is just silly... so I
guess their unique clothing should at least be somehow realistic for what they
do...

[Aphetto_LC]

In Exile wrote...

Aphetto_LC wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

The static outfits will get very very static when one wishes to re-play the game a few times too.

It is clear that Bioware is not intending DA2 to have replay ablility.

But everyone replays for different reasons. I replayed DA:O 20 times. With... a male human mage/warrior. That's it. Same character. Mostly with the same decisions. And it was super awesome and fun, because what made me replay the game was 1) the story and 2) the gameplay. I don't play games to see different content. In fact, I tend to get annoyed by games like that. So replayability is very relative.

That is fine for you, but for the broader appeal (Bioware's target) if your companions look the same and are built the same way, the game will get boring, just like Mass Effect 2. 

Modifié par Aphetto_LC, 05 novembre 2010 - 07:48 .

[mellifera]

In Exile wrote...

Aphetto_LC wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

The static outfits will get very very static when one wishes to re-play the game a few times too.

It is clear that Bioware is not intending DA2 to have replay ablility.

But everyone replays for different reasons. I replayed DA:O 20 times. With... a male human mage/warrior. That's it. Same character. Mostly with the same decisions. And it was super awesome and fun, because what made me replay the game was 1) the story and 2) the gameplay. I don't play games to see different content. In fact, I tend to get annoyed by games like that. So replayability is very relative.

Yup, and they're also removing all the choices and dialogue and interaction too...

Except they aren't. And you can replay the same character however many times like In Exile, or, you know, you play a different one. Up to you.

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...
Morrigan dresses sensually and reveales a lot of herself in a seducitve fashion. That is who she is, because she uses her sexuality as a weapon. Throwing on Arcane Warrior armour on her because the player thinks that's better for whatever reason is essentially overwriting the writer.

Isn't that going a little far? Morrigan could wear armor in combat situations and slink around seductively in noncombat ones without violating this.

[Ryzaki]

Morrigan's also very practical. I'm sure she'd take being alive over being sexy given the choice.Plus she gets less ugly injuries that way.

...And frankly all Morrigan's so called "seduction" never actually resulted in anything other than that "Tis cold in my tent" convo which made me cringe.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 05 novembre 2010 - 07:54 .

[AlanC9]

Well, going way OT here, but it's funny that Morrigan gets a rap for being manipulative, not to mention seductive. She doesn't understand humans well enough to manipulate them, and she's pretty upfront about it. Hell, she barely seems to have theory of mind.

[Ryzaki]

AlanC9 wrote...

Well, going way OT here, but it's funny that Morrigan gets a rap for being manipulative, not to mention seductive. She doesn't understand humans well enough to manipulate them, and she's pretty upfront about it. Hell, she barely seems to have theory of mind.

True. I frankly always believed that Morrigan thinks she's manipulative and seductive and she really isn't.

But yeah...off topic.

Anyways I wonder if they'll actually wear the rings and the like we equip on them now? 

[daverath]

Aphetto_LC wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Aphetto_LC wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

The static outfits will get very very static when one wishes to re-play the game a few times too.

It is clear that Bioware is not intending DA2 to have replay ablility.

But everyone replays for different reasons. I replayed DA:O 20 times. With... a male human mage/warrior. That's it. Same character. Mostly with the same decisions. And it was super awesome and fun, because what made me replay the game was 1) the story and 2) the gameplay. I don't play games to see different content. In fact, I tend to get annoyed by games like that. So replayability is very relative.

That is fine for you, but for the broader appeal (Bioware's target) if your companions look the same and are built the same way, the game will get boring, just like Mass Effect 2. 

Do you have stats on that? I remember seeing some of the playing stats on ME2 and being astounded at how many people played through it more than once. I know I did multiple playthroughs 90% because of the different classes 5% to see the other gender and 5% to kill as much of my party as possible. In DA:O I did multiple plays to see different origins, play a different class, and use the characters I never used the first time through. The fact that I could swap out one ugly set of armor for another on a character had no effect on it. Considering all of the armor looked pretty much the same within it's class of light/med/heavy that didn't mean much.

I would argue that if your companions look good (as opposed to being either ugly or gimped in DAO) and are characterized better with more animations, the game won't get boring as fast.

[Nerevar-as]

Ryzaki wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Well, going way OT here, but it's funny that Morrigan gets a rap for being manipulative, not to mention seductive. She doesn't understand humans well enough to manipulate them, and she's pretty upfront about it. Hell, she barely seems to have theory of mind.

True. I frankly always believed that Morrigan thinks she's manipulative and seductive and she really isn't.

But yeah...off topic.

Anyways I wonder if they'll actually wear the rings and the like we equip on them now? 

Whether we´ll see items on then? Didn´t seem so. Few games bother with that, and DA falls short on more significant things (IMHO) such as customize height or build.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

I agree with you fully. The problem is that sometimes players disagree on what is enjoyable. And sometimes, that disagreement is over a dichotomy. My choice means you can't have your choice. And when it comes to stuff like that, we won't ever be able to agree, and you telling me your version has lots of choice doesn't mean it's the same kind of thing I ever wanted.

Yes, except in this particular situation my ability to swap outfits on the companions doesn't render you unable from leaving these iconic outfits on through the whole game.

Although i suppose there can be difference of views here depending if you look at it from functionality angle (swap outfits or not, both ways are supported) or as "ideology" so to speak (allow swapping the outfits or exclude it from game entirely)  If it's the latter then i agree there can be no compromise, but i don't know why you'd choose to view if from this angle rather than the functionality one, since ideology still boils down to functionality in the end.

In the broadest sense, to be able to "fill-in" content, there has to be a gap to fill in.

(..)

Well, for this to work the only think that a merchant - PC interaction can be is the inventory menu. If instead of this, we had a cutscene where a party member asked for a particualr type of armour, and you could agree or not and that was the end of it, then the entire scene above is impossible.

Hmm i don't quite see how your argument works here. Because ultimately there is a gap here to fill-in. Your theoretical example of "what if there was cutscene" is just alternative way to fill in what the game is in fact missing. As such, until it's actually implemented there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the concept another player uses "team role-play" as their own approach to filling this gap?

And even if your theoretical cutscene was implemented, it wouldn't prevent the player from swapping gear on companions as result of say, make-believe conversation between characters on that very subject.

I am opposed to fan fiction, as I put it, because it means there can't be content in the game that will contradict the ability of the player to invent content. This means that a lot of the interaction simply is not in the game. For me, that's not a fun game.

I think that's reversing the result and cause -- it's not player's ability to fill in the gaps that causes gaps in the first place, it's the presence of gaps that makes player come up with their own content. I really don't think there's lack of such cutscene in the game because some dev said "but hey guys we can't put this in because then people won't be able to imagine characters having conversations about what gear they want" -- it certainly didn't prevent them from turning Hawke into voiced character, for example... even though players would up to now "fill in" for the protagonist's voice.

There is also another, unaddressed aspect here -- this is, aside from ability to "fill in the gaps", ability to change some elements of companions' designs allows the player to tweak these characters into someone else. (if we subscribe to the view that choice of outfit reflects on character/backstory of the wearer) Do you consider it a negative as well, and if so, why?

In the specific sense for DA2, it's like this. If Isabella could wear any armour, even if she had unique starting armour it would quickly become crap. If I wanted her to keep her unique appearance, I would have to deal with a gimped character (like in KoTOR). This is a highly aversive situation for me and not very enjoyable.

That relies on presumption Isabela's iconic outfit remains static throughout the game and impossible to upgrade on par with other armours, which at least in DA2 doesn't seem to be the case.

In other words, this is quite unrelated to ability to equip different armours -- if the iconic outfit remained indeed static, then she's still going to "quickly become crap" compared to Hawke who isn't stuck with iconic appearance. Except with being unable to change that outfit you're stuck with that relatively crappy Isabela performance. I don't see how it's preferable in any way. And no, i don't think solution would be to force Hawke into static "iconic outfit" so then everyone can be "equally crap", either.

Modifié par tmp7704, 05 novembre 2010 - 08:08 .

[kyuubifred]

i don't mind the companions having their own clothes. i liked being able to change everyone's armor in Origins, but then we were living in the woods and had to share... well... everything. in this case it makes more sense not to just hand over your old armor when you're done with it, seeing as your companions probably have their own wardrobes at home.



the only problem for me is that is sounds like there will only be one outfit for each character (barring possible DLC).... for... 10 years. which is just as bad as giving Leliana Zevran's hand-me-downs.

....yeah.



the possible benefit of that is that the NPCs might have their own slightly different body types to go with their unique armors, since different armor alters your body shape anyways. i'm curious about the Hawke siblings, though... Beth was clearly shown in two different (fairly generic-looking) outfits, so does she not have her own custom gear...?



character-specific skills sound pretty cool, too. so long as they aren't awesome enough to make Hawke jealous.

[In Exile]

Aphetto_LC wrote...

That is fine for you, but for the broader appeal (Bioware's target) if your companions look the same and are built the same way, the game will get boring, just like Mass Effect 2. 

I have no idea what the broad market wants. I assume it's either an MMO or a mutliplayer shooter, though.

yukidama wrote..

Yup, and they're also removing all the
choices and dialogue and interaction too...

Except they aren't.
And you can replay the same character however many times like In Exile,
or, you know, you play a different one. Up to you.

?

I don't quite follow you...

AlanC9 wrote...
Isn't that going a little far? Morrigan could
wear armor in combat situations and slink around seductively in
noncombat ones without violating this.

I'm pretty sure armour is something you'd have to know how to wear to get use out of.

AlanC9 wrote...

Well, going way OT here, but it's funny
that Morrigan gets a rap for being manipulative, not to mention
seductive. She doesn't understand humans well enough to manipulate them,
and she's pretty upfront about it. Hell, she barely seems to have
theory of mind.

I was trying to be PC. When I said seductive, I basically meant Morrigan's idea of it, which is generally show some skin and home for the best. She's capable of pushing the buttons of horny men, and that's about it.

[Luigitornado]

Rawgrim wrote...

Armour isn`t a fashion advice, its more about safety. Realism will go straight out the window as soon as I see Isabella battling a fire breathing dragon, in her push-up bra, instead of her wearing something that might actually protect her.

Should have stopped there, lol.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

Morrigan dresses sensually and reveales a lot of herself in a seducitve fashion. That is who she is, because she uses her sexuality as a weapon. Throwing on Arcane Warrior armour on her because the player thinks that's better for whatever reason is essentially overwriting the writer.

Essentially, yes it's overwriting the writer. However i don't think it's necessarily a negative thing per se, not in a game which works as "choose your own adventure" story to begin with.

Regarding this example in particular -- it can be waved away very easily as Morrigan learning (once she comes out of her Wilds and gets more exposure to human society) that covered up sexuality can be frequently as effective as showing everything she has as "hello". Or just figuring out that there's small chance she will be using her seductive skills on genlocks in Deep Roads, but much bigger chance these genlocks will try to poke her with sharp arrows and sticks.

Things don't have to be put explicitly in the game by the writer to make sense or remain coherent.

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...

For me, it's like this: full party tactical combat is fun as hell. So that should be in. Auto-level gimps characters, and that isn't fun. So it needs to be out. Having lots of reactive content in game and unique apperances is fun. So that should be in.

Except in Origins, you could have your unique appearances and still have fun, and I could have my customization and have fun.  Win-win.  In DA2, you still have your fun, and I don't.  I get that you're okay with that, but don't tell me it's not a step down from what we had in Origins.

[AbounI]

In the inventory screens, what's the meaning of the small golden stars?
Is it  a symbol for the quality of the item, like the tier (1to7)?

Modifié par AbounI, 05 novembre 2010 - 08:31 .

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Yes, except in this particular situation my ability to swap outfits on the companions doesn't render you unable from leaving these iconic outfits on through the whole game.

I addressed this before, and that's the static character of the armour. Better armours are available quickly. The choice between being gimped or not is not an awesome choice (see KoTOR).

Although i suppose there can be difference of views here depending if you look at it from functionality angle (swap outfits or not, both ways are supported) or as "ideology" so to speak (allow swapping the outfits or exclude it from game entirely)  If it's the latter then i agree there can be no compromise, but i don't know why you'd choose to view if from this angle rather than the functionality one, since ideology still boils down to functionality in the end.

From a functionality standpoint, I would rather have 3 unique armours with a custom mesh over 15 generic armours that any character can wear. It's an issue of allocating zots. I think what DA2 is doing is bad, because it seems via comments made by Mike Laidlaw that we are largely stuck with 1/2 outfits like in ME2. And it especially sucks when these items are incoherent (like only having Shepard in power armour and all the other women dressed  like they're going out to a club).

To boil it down, what I am arguing is that what I want is a highly invested attempt by Bioware to design 3 unique armours for each of (say) 8 companions. That means 24 unique items. I prefer this over 40 generic items all characters can wear.

This is what I mean by our position not being compatible - we want different bits of resource allocation, as a result of our ideology.

Hmm i don't quite see how your argument works here. Because ultimately there is a gap here to fill-in. Your theoretical example of "what if there was cutscene" is just alternative way to fill in what the game is in fact missing. As such, until it's actually implemented there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the concept another player uses "team role-play" as their own approach to filling this gap?

There isn't anything wrong with doing it. I just don't. So for you, it's a chance to play the game. For me, there's just no content. I am aware there are limited resources in the game. Rather than have a detailed loot tree, I would rather get this one scene. This is the argument I am trying to outline.

And even if your theoretical cutscene was implemented, it wouldn't prevent the player from swapping gear on companions as result of say, make-believe conversation between characters on that very subject.

For one, if my cut-scene was implemented it would mean my system was, so there wouldn't be generic companion gear. There would only be the option to either upgrade the outfit or no, and if you did, you would get a new unique mesh (and some new unique content) or your PC's RP choice would lose you that mesh. There ought to be follow-up content too, that creates conflict between the PC and NPC because you just told them to F off and not get their new threads.

Essentially, I want the game to be very up-front about the interaction and have that drive the game. That's what an RPG is to me.

I think that's reversing the result and cause -- it's not player's ability to fill in the gaps that causes gaps in the first place, it's the presence of gaps that makes player come up with their own content.

No, with the PC, it absolute is this way. Why is there such a complaint over VO? Becaue it prevents the player from filling in content. Why do some developers refuse to introduce VO? Specifically because it allows for content to be filled in.

I really don't think there's lack of such cutscene in the game because some dev said "but hey guys we can't put this in because then people won't be able to imagine characters having conversations about what gear they want" -- it certainly didn't prevent them from turning Hawke into voiced character, for example... even though players would up to now "fill in" for the protagonist's voice.

I am not arguing that the causal link is there from the standpoint of the developer. Let me try to say this another way:

We could have a game that is hypothetically overarching, but very little content is shown. Like, for example, Duncan travelling with your PC to Ostagar. Ostensibly there was a true and ostensibly the two of you spent some time toghether and interacted. But this was never shown.

I would rather have all of the Deep Roads cut for a 20 minute walking interaction with Duncan to flesh out his character. Essentially, what I am trying to say is that I am willing to sacrifice some gameplay for cinematic dialogue interaction, which I consider as important to the game being fun.

There is also another, unaddressed aspect here -- this is, aside from ability to "fill in the gaps", ability to change some elements of companions' designs allows the player to tweak these characters into someone else. (if we subscribe to the view that choice of outfit reflects on character/backstory of the wearer) Do you consider it a negative as well, and if so, why?

Yes. I think it detracts terribly from the game.

Let me take Fallout:New Vegas, as an example. To me, that game is dead. All interaction just happens with set piece characters that send you on fetch quests, but you spend most of your time as an empty puppet doing. The world reacts to you only in the most rudementary ways based on the reputation you build.

To some people, what actually happens is some kind of mental adventure, where all of this interaction I don't see happens inside their head. Okay, sure, great. I'm glad people have fun doing that. But I don't.

It's not about a lack of imagination. It's that my imagination is better. I want a character that's absolutely tied to the world, not some nameless courrier with no family, no friends, no background and no lovers. To feel like this is what I have, the game needs to react to things I do, to things I say, in a very meaningful way above the endquest choice I make.

IWD is a dead game because you just have a unit of plot moving to kill enemies and progress to the endgame. Torment is brilliant because the entire game is about interacting with everyone around you.

That relies on presumption Isabela's iconic outfit remains static throughout the game and impossible to upgrade on par with other armours, which at least in DA2 doesn't seem to be the case.

Well, in DA2 it doesn't seem to be the case armour changes at all, which honestly sucks.

In other words, this is quite unrelated to ability to equip different armours -- if the iconic outfit remained indeed static, then she's still going to "quickly become crap" compared to Hawke who isn't stuck with iconic appearance. Except with being unable to change that outfit you're stuck with that relatively crappy Isabela performance. I don't see how it's preferable in any way. And no, i don't think solution would be to force Hawke into static "iconic outfit" so then everyone can be "equally crap", either.

The armour upgrades its stats over time. It just doesn't change. I've outlined my solution above.