1080 réponses à ce sujet

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Collider wrote...

The benefit would be maintaining the companion's personality visually.
I honestly doubt playing dress up is something so vitally important to the enjoyment of the general audience.

Its far more than playing "dress up" as has been explained more than once in this thread already. You folks who can't be bothered with the statistical side of CRPG's need a new arguement.

[upsettingshorts]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Wait, so if I am to understand this correctly, they've pretty much gone all Mass Effect 2 on the equipment for companions?

Visually? More or less.  But they've retained the player's ability in customizing the effectiveness of their gear through items like accessories, and upgrades.  The outfits in Mass Effect 2 were completely static and any bonuses - such as through the Research station - were vague enough to be nearly meaningless.

[Morrigans God son]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Wait, so if I am to understand this correctly, they've pretty much gone all Mass Effect 2 on the equipment for companions?

Yes. Sadly.
If I wanted Mass Effect I'd play Mass Effect, which I won't because I dislike it.
From most things I've heard about DA2, I'll dislike it too.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Wait, so if I am to understand this correctly, they've pretty much gone all Mass Effect 2 on the equipment for companions?

Visually? More or less.  But they've retained the player's ability in customizing the effectiveness of their gear through items like accessories, and upgrades.  The outfits in Mass Effect 2 were completely static and any bonuses - such as through the Research station - were vague enough to be nearly meaningless.

Didn't you argue before the upgrades made some huge difference in ME2?

[mellifera]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

yukidama wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Yes.  Amd I complained about that quite a lot.  I thought we should have been able to have any party member act as the party's spokesperson in conversation.

But...no matter what I do, I can't make Leliana a mage, or spec Morrigan as a rogue. I don't have full control over them. I have control only over what the devs gave me to begin with.

No but you could make her an assassin if you wanted to, or a ranger for some animal companion goodness. I still cannot fathom in the slightest why people would encourage removal of choice from an RPG.

I don't think it's being advocated for as much as people accepting that this is what BioWare did and finding benefits in it. I don't think they're going to change this because it's not ideal. It's not my favorite, but I'll accept it.

Why accept something that didn't need changing in the first place though? The only advocates for it are a very small minority, yet Bioware had no problem at all catering to them. Most likely because it meant less work for the art department, and a chance to sucker post point of sale cash for DLC outfits.

I can't believe I'm still this pissed off about it hours later, but since Origins was prolly my most favorite game in years thats prolly a good reason why.

Ugh. 

I accept it because firstly I don't see it as a gamebreaker and secondly because if they think that it works for their game they're not going to compromise that over some complaints on the forum of people who haven't seen how well it works (or doesn't) within the context of the game. I dunno, making individual outfits for NPCs seems like a lot more work than making a few templates and arbitrarily retinting them.  If this means more armor DLC... well, you don't have to purchase it. They're still a business, and as an individual you have a choice not to purchase their product.

Origins is probably one of my favorite games ever, but they're not changing Origins. I am fairly content with Origins staying where it is if they want to move beyond that. Then again, I don't like Origins for the fighting.

Modifié par yukidama, 06 novembre 2010 - 02:02 .

[Addai]

Karl45 wrote...

How am I supposed to do my naked party playthrough now!?

It'll feel awkward if my Hawke is the only naked one...

No Naked Barbarian Varic. 

[Druss99]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

ErichHartmann wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Why accept something that didn't need changing in the first place though? The only advocates for it are a very small minority
Ugh. 

What are you basing this on? And don't say forum posts because nobody here reperesents everyone who bought DAO.

Ya know, most people I know that are into RPG's, generally enjoy as much customization in their games as possible. I don't think I've ever heard someone I know, aside from a few people on these forums say "Hey it'd be great if they remove companion gear just so I can relate to a party member's super cool unique sleezy looking I look like a **** outfit!"

The people you know that are into RPG's don't represent everyone who bought DAO or who will buy DA2. So you can't claim to have the majority on your side.

[upsettingshorts]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Didn't you argue before the upgrades made some huge difference in ME2?

I was talking about specific weapons having different performance characteristics and thus either lending themselves to or demanding different playstyles.  Given DA:2 isn't twitch and we're not talking about weapons, that argument of mine doesn't apply here.

Upgrades like "gives your party more shields" were so hard to see the effect of that while I'm sure they did what they purported to do, they were nearly impossible to see. Especially since total shield strength was never displayed anywhere in the GUI.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 novembre 2010 - 02:05 .

[Collider]

You folks who can't be bothered with the statistical side of CRPG's need a new arguement.

Do we? I think putting more emphasis on story rather than raw gameplay is enough. Everyone has their own thing. Many people play Bioware games for the story. If all I was looking for was statistical combat, I'd honestly look elsewhere, to the games that do it better.



That doesn't mean that Bioware games have to have only one or the other, but it means for me, I can excuse Bioware games for prioritizing story because quite simply, that's what they're about. It's what sets them apart from other games. RPG combat is nothing new and you can find it in a plethora of other games. Interactive stories with interesting characters, plots, and choices & consequences? They're much more rare.

[slimgrin]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Wait, so if I am to understand this correctly, they've pretty much gone all Mass Effect 2 on the equipment for companions?

Visually? More or less.  But they've retained the player's ability in customizing the effectiveness of their gear through items like accessories, and upgrades.  The outfits in Mass Effect 2 were completely static and any bonuses - such as through the Research station - were vague enough to be nearly meaningless.

Didn't you argue before the upgrades made some huge difference in ME2?

I sincerely hope the upgrades make more of a difference than they did in ME2.  The skill progression in that game was way to limiting for my taste. 

[FieryDove]

David Gaider wrote...

There are benefits to what we've done, just as there are drawbacks. We happen to like these benefits as they affect the game we're making (as opposed to the imaginary one some people wish we would make), and we still have plenty of choices for the player to contend with.

If you make the imaginary game I will buy it.

[mellifera]

Addai67 wrote...

Karl45 wrote...

How am I supposed to do my naked party playthrough now!?

It'll feel awkward if my Hawke is the only naked one...

No Naked Barbarian Varic. 

Ffffffffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu--


*canceling preorder RIGHT NOW*

[Saibh]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

No but you could make her an assassin if you wanted to, or a ranger for some animal companion goodness. I still cannot fathom in the slightest why people would encourage removal of choice from an RPG.

Sure--you could develop the resources they gave you. You can do that now.

But I can't make Leliana a warrior. Why not? I can put a shield and sword in her hands, and she uses it just as well as a warrior with no Talents or Skills. Why can't I specifically teach her to be a warrior, then? What's restricting me? 

This is just consistency. If Varric is good with his crossbow and has never touched a two-handed sword before, there's no reason he should know how to use it.

It's not my favorite change, but I understand it and I understand its uses.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

yukidama wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

yukidama wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Yes.  Amd I complained about that quite a lot.  I thought we should have been able to have any party member act as the party's spokesperson in conversation.

But...no matter what I do, I can't make Leliana a mage, or spec Morrigan as a rogue. I don't have full control over them. I have control only over what the devs gave me to begin with.

No but you could make her an assassin if you wanted to, or a ranger for some animal companion goodness. I still cannot fathom in the slightest why people would encourage removal of choice from an RPG.

I don't think it's being advocated for as much as people accepting that this is what BioWare did and finding benefits in it. I don't think they're going to change this because it's not ideal. It's not my favorite, but I'll accept it.

Why accept something that didn't need changing in the first place though? The only advocates for it are a very small minority, yet Bioware had no problem at all catering to them. Most likely because it meant less work for the art department, and a chance to sucker post point of sale cash for DLC outfits.

I can't believe I'm still this pissed off about it hours later, but since Origins was prolly my most favorite game in years thats prolly a good reason why.

Ugh. 

I accept it because firstly I don't see it as a gamebreaker and secondly because if they think that it works for their game they're not going to compromise that over some complaints on the forum of people who haven't seen how well it works (or doesn't) within the context of the game. I dunno, making individual outfits for NPCs seems like a lot more work than making a few templates and arbitrarily retinting them.  If this means more armor DLC... well, you don't have to purchase it. They're still a business, and as an individual you have a choice not to purchase their product.

Origins is probably one of my favorite games ever, but they're not changing Origins. I am fairly content with Origins staying where it is if they want to move beyond that. Then again, I don't like Origins for the fighting.

I played ME2, I saw how it worked. It sucked, plain and simple. Jack running head long into battle wearing next to nothing not only looked silly, but made very little sense.

Good on the art team getting an easy go of it though, nice for the bean counters at EA to sucker people out of money with DLC clothing as well. 

I'm sorry, this is not a design decision that I think should be encouraged.

[David Gaider]

FieryDove wrote...
If you make the imaginary game I will buy it.

Deal! I'll make an imaginary game, and you can pay me with imaginary money-- and you'll have lots of imaginary fun with it, I'm sure. Or at least Sylvius will, as most of the fun he has with games appears to be imaginary anyhow.

[MDarwin]

So BW finally decides to get back to their "roots"? With (Re)implementing the NWN style Sidekick inventory? Wow, that's a big "leap" forward! Or isn't it?        

[Kilshrek]

Hot topic, this.



Anyone who has played Planescape Torment will be familiar with this inventory system, to be sure. If DA 2 is as awesome as PST, although perhaps it'll have a boatload more combat since thats what people like these days, I'm a happy gamer.



But anyway, from what I've heard the system sounds like PST, perhaps someone else would agree?

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Saibh wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

No but you could make her an assassin if you wanted to, or a ranger for some animal companion goodness. I still cannot fathom in the slightest why people would encourage removal of choice from an RPG.

Sure--you could develop the resources they gave you. You can do that now.

But I can't make Leliana a warrior. Why not? I can put a shield and sword in her hands, and she uses it just as well as a warrior with no Talents or Skills. Why can't I specifically teach her to be a warrior, then? What's restricting me? 

This is just consistency. If Varric is good with his crossbow and has never touched a two-handed sword before, there's no reason he should know how to use it.

It's not my favorite change, but I understand it and I understand its uses.

Sure its consistancy I suppose, but its also removing alot of choice from the game. Which isn't something they needed to do, unless David would like to share those valid reasons he says they had for doing it.

[Perfect-Kenshin]

I've gotta say, I DO NOT like what I'm hearing at ALL. When I customize my companions stats via equipment, I want to actually SEE a difference. I mean hell, if looks don't matter, you may as well give Hawke the EXACT same restrictions.

Here's the deal, DEVS. If you don't want to give us the ability to customize our companions with any armor throughout the game, that's fine and I understand why you'd want to do that, but I implore that you don't restrict us to having our companions wear the outfits YOU want them to wear at ALL TIMES. How about we get at least a LITTLE bit of customization. Maybe allow Isabella to wear up to a maximum of 3-4 different outfits in EACH cycle of the game. You can pick out the outfits, but obviously, we (and I think I speak for mostly everyone hear) want to how SOME control over the visuals. Hardly anyone liked this in Mass Effect 2, so I don't know why you thought it'd be a good idea.

Modifié par Perfect-Kenshin, 06 novembre 2010 - 02:12 .

[addiction21]

FieryDove wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

There are benefits to what we've done, just as there are drawbacks. We happen to like these benefits as they affect the game we're making (as opposed to the imaginary one some people wish we would make), and we still have plenty of choices for the player to contend with.

If you make the imaginary game I will buy it.

I would to and most likely enjoy it very much for what it is. As it stands know I will also most likely get DA2 and I could very well enjoy it for what it is. Just speculation since  neither exist at this point in time for me to play.

[Morrigans God son]

Welcome to the club Perfect-Kenshin.

[upsettingshorts]

David Gaider wrote...
Deal! I'll make an imaginary game, and you can pay me with imaginary money-- and you'll have lots of imaginary fun with it, I'm sure. Or at least Sylvius will, as most of the fun he has with games appears to be imaginary anyhow.

Actually, the way I joke about Sylvius' playstyle is to say that if my ideal CRPG experience is akin to watching a movie, his is very much like opening up Microsoft Word and simply writing his own story.

[Maria Caliban]

MerinTB wrote...

You can take all the freaking time in the world before making your move against a chess master, Upsettingshorts.  You go ahead and prove that it'll make the game less challenging because there's no clock or no reflexes involved.

This is incorrect. In tournament level chess, you have a time clock, and you actually have to punch after every move. It's usually something like 40 moves in 2 and a half hours.

[David Gaider]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Explain what those benefits are then? Because I'd certainly like to hear it.

On the contrary, I doubt you'd hear it at all. Selective hearing appears to be your specialty.

Read this thread David, I'm not the only one not impressed by this by a long shot. Thanks for singling me out though.

I didn't suggest you were the only one, and I'm not blind. I'm very capable of seeing exactly how you operate, Ms. Jinstar. You and everyone else are free to be as "not impressed" as you like-- just keep it civil, thanks.

[Ryzaki]

I don't mean to be mean but if a character needs an outfit to stand out well...something went wrong in the writing process.

Edit: No this is not towards Gaider.

...My post just had the misfortune of being right underneath his.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 06 novembre 2010 - 02:16 .