1080 réponses à ce sujet

[Cutlasskiwi]

Meltemph wrote...

It'll sure be awesome seeing companions in the same outfit over the span of the decade the game takes place in. Because clearly that makes so much sense to never change your clothes else you magically lose your identity.

Assuming there is no change at all, there are many who would prefer a unique look and suspend disbelief that they are not washing and changing their clothes regularly... however when it comes to something like this, I don't really understand why people take the "reality" approach, when even in DAO, you only changed the armor once in a great while(relatively).

I don't really see how one is more "realistic" then the other and trying to give companions identities through clothing is a fairly common practice among a lot of visual medium products. Losing the lack of customization, to me, is a much more legitimate complaint, then "the reality of it", specially with games like this, when there are so many other things to pick apart if you go that rout.

This! It's not like you would change your clothes every new day in DAO either. At least I didn't. 
I like this idea and I'm excited to see what BioWare has come up with. In my opinion they are superior when it comes to creating great characters and if they want to keep their characters in their clothes, fine. 

[Meltemph]

Bringing Sephiroth up is funny in a way though, considering just how recently BioWare was openly mocking JRPGs for the choices they make in their development. Yet they are making pretty much the same choices here with their latest own production.

Maybe, but I doubt them openly mocking JRPG's as a whole, is the same as ignoring everything a JRPG does and regard the genre as bad in every way.



Besides, in what way were they mocking them? What specific complaints were there? Was it directed as all encompassing? Either way, using "they made fun of JRPGs" as a reason does not really strike me as really saying much of anything, other then maybe try and insinuate a bit of hypocriticalness on their part, but without context of their "openly mocking" I don't see how one could draw that conclusion or what it really has to do with the decision as it stands.

[grregg]

Nighteye2 wrote...

(...)

So, the main reason is to cut costs by saving on animation?

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Honestly, right now, with all the comments and info we got on that case, I only see one reason for that change:

It saves time for the coders.

That's it. And that's a pretty sad reason.

Guys, somehow I thought that the fact that games are made with a finite budget and, as a consequence, a deadline is widely known. You never heard of that?

I'm sure BioWare would love to do full armor customization with unique body models but the realities of software development are such that you have to compromise somewhere. It's not like DA:O was free of these compromises. We did get full armor customization at the price of limited body models.

I can understand if you prefer 'full customization' side of the this trade off, but I think it is a valid compromise to make and not an abomination unto RPG as some people make it out to be.

[crimzontearz]

grregg wrote...



I'm sure BioWare would love to do full armor customization  

no

they pruposefully chose to go the planescape torment route with this one..and it's ok....

[FellowerOfOdin]

As I stated, I still hope that the decision was mainly forced by EA and not by Bioware themselves...I highly doubt that a former top-RPG developer suddenly decides to alienate core gamers, it's more like EA will have told them to GET MOAR CASUAL GAMAZ.

[upsettingshorts]

grregg wrote...

I can understand if you prefer 'full customization' side of the this trade off, but I think it is a valid compromise to make and not an abomination unto RPG as some people make it out to be.

If you think customizing the equipment of your companions is a major part of RPG gameplay, you're well within your rights to label it an abomination unto RPG.

If you don't, you won't.

It was never one of my biggest priorities, so my problems with it are mainly aesthetic.  Having fixed appearances for companions chosen by developers means I get to judge them on aesthetic grounds.  If the outfits look cool to me, I'm not going to complain too much.  If I get a "this is silly and patronizing" vibe from them like I do some of the ones in Mass Effect 2, then I'll probably complain about them.  Bioware made a design decision that opens up their design of the character's exclusive and fixed armor/clothing to more artistic scrutiny than they would otherwise if there was simply an option for us to change it.

So, basically, if you're part of the first group you're going to have gameplay problems with it.  It is essentially a key feature removed from the game.

If you're part of either group, then you might be perturbed, might not, simply based on how the outfits look.  But regardless of how you feel about the feature or lack thereof - you will have an opinion on the armor/clothes your companions wear especially after a few hours of playing with them.  How much you care?  Up to you.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 novembre 2010 - 05:42 .

[errant_knight]

grregg wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

(...)

So, the main reason is to cut costs by saving on animation?

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Honestly, right now, with all the comments and info we got on that case, I only see one reason for that change:

It saves time for the coders.

That's it. And that's a pretty sad reason.

Guys, somehow I thought that the fact that games are made with a finite budget and, as a consequence, a deadline is widely known. You never heard of that?

I'm sure BioWare would love to do full armor customization with unique body models but the realities of software development are such that you have to compromise somewhere. It's not like DA:O was free of these compromises. We did get full armor customization at the price of limited body models.

I can understand if you prefer 'full customization' side of the this trade off, but I think it is a valid compromise to make and not an abomination unto RPG as some people make it out to be.

While I agree with you that there have to be tradeoffs--which is why people should be careful what they wish for--it also has to be noted that no one made them ditch Origins, and the remaining DLC or possible expantion, and put out DA2 in a little over a year. Perhaps they could have achieved what they wanted without removing so much choice, if there hadn't been such a rush to get it on the market.

[Ensgnblack]

What concerns me is that with the toolset up in the air and not being able to fully customize companion armor, I am unable to adjust my party as I see fit.



Let me explain. In DAO, with the respec mod, I was able to make Ohgren my tank, or Sten my tank, and not have AListair. Or I was able to ditch Wynne and have Morrigan heal. After the initial playthrough of the game, this sort of model was very positive for me as I could experience new character interaction and different party make up. I know this problem is dependant on having a mod, which is not what the true game is about. This for me affects replay, rather than the initial playthrough, but in addition to this, there is the problem of unused armor now:



Now, when I find tank armor and I am not a tank...I cant use it. Same with mage armor when I am melee. This means many items will go to vendors, instead of on companions. I do not like this change. I respect why Bioware thinks this is good from a RPG standpoint, or even some gameplay standpoints, but I see many things about it that I do not care for.

[AlanC9]

Wyndham711 wrote...

But even so, they could modify the characters' body models when they wear their unique clothes, and then they would revert to a kind of default form when 'standard' armor is equipped.

That isn't a solution to anything -- anyone who thought the DAO bodies were a problem would find that to be even worse. It works for you, sure, but that's because you didn't have a problem in the first place.

[tmp7704]

Meltemph wrote...

Besides, in what way were they mocking them? What specific complaints were there? Was it directed as all encompassing? Either way, using "they made fun of JRPGs" as a reason does not really strike me as really saying much of anything, other then maybe try and insinuate a bit of hypocriticalness on their part, but without context of their "openly mocking" I don't see how one could draw that conclusion or what it really has to do with the decision as it stands.

The specific quote was (http://www.destructo...n--155782.phtml)

"The fall of the JRPG in large part is due to a lack of evolution, a lack of progression," BioWare co-founder Greg Zeschuk told Destructoid last week. "They kept delivering the same thing over and over. They make the dressing better, they look prettier, but it's still the same experience".
"My favorite thing, it's funny when you still see it, but the joke of some of the dialogue systems where it asks, 'do you wanna do this or this,' and you say no. 'Do you wanna do this or this?' No. 'Do you wanna do this or this?' No. Lemme think — you want me to say 'yes.' And that, unfortunately, really characterized the JRPG."

so, we have BioWare keep evolving their product alright, but they evolve it in the very direction that's supposedly stagnant and delivered over and over already by the competitors. And for all the mirth they get from seeing no-choice dialogue systems, apparently this is fine after all as long as the choice is if you'd want your companions look like A or B.

[upsettingshorts]

Bioware certainly isn't stagnant so I really don't buy that there's any hypocrisy in that particular statement. You can argue till you're blue in the face about whether a change represents a progression or a regression, but you can't argue that Bioware does not change.

Of course Bioware is going to call their changes evolution.  Because it has a positive bias associated with it.  But he's talking about stagnation.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 novembre 2010 - 05:46 .

[rexil]

Cutting Costs to Increase Profits.

[pizoxuat]

Wait, does this mean that Bethanny is going to be wearing that silly chain apron for most of the game? Oh lawd.

[AlanC9]

grregg wrote...
I'm sure BioWare would love to do full armor customization with unique body models but the realities of software development are such that you have to compromise somewhere. It's not like DA:O was free of these compromises. We did get full armor customization at the price of limited body models.

I'm not sure I believe this. I think it's quite possible that Bioware has decided that loot and armor and all that just isn't worth it.

[tmp7704]

AlanC9 wrote...

Wyndham711 wrote...

But even so, they could modify the characters' body models when they wear their unique clothes, and then they would revert to a kind of default form when 'standard' armor is equipped.

That isn't a solution to anything -- anyone who thought the DAO bodies were a problem would find that to be even worse. It works for you, sure, but that's because you didn't have a problem in the first place.

It could work as pretty sensible compromise imo, actually -- if someone chooses to swap the "iconic character appearance" for generic outfit, odds are they indeed don't have that much problem with reverting to default form because they attach higher value to being able to just customize appearance in the first place. Or maybe they even welcome that effect if the particular unique body model bothers them to begin with. While at the same time people who value higher the "iconic unique appearance" remain unaffected as their characters retain that unique look.

[ladydesire]

The way I see it, not being able to change companion outfits is a major immersion breaker for a lot of players, myself included. The reason? Because seeing someone like Isabella in that outfit taking minimal damage from attacks isn't going to make sense; being able to put her in armor fitting for the sort of combat isn't simply a mini-game for us; it's part of having the game seem like something that we are living in.

[tmp7704]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Bioware certainly isn't stagnant so I really don't buy that there's any hypocrisy in that particular statement. You can argue till you're blue in the face about whether a change represents a progression or a regression, but you can't argue that Bioware does not change.

Of course Bioware is going to call their changes evolution.  Because it has a positive bias associated with it.  But he's talking about stagnation.

I'm not arguing BioWare doesn't change, i'm rather laughing at the directions they pick.

"Romans suck, all they do is build roads everywhere. We on the other hand, keep being innovative and improve our transportation methods all the time. And our next improvement.... we'll build roads all over our country! Progress!"

Modifié par tmp7704, 06 novembre 2010 - 05:51 .

[MerinTB]

Meltemph wrote...

Bringing Sephiroth up is funny in a way though, considering just how recently BioWare was openly mocking JRPGs for the choices they make in their development. Yet they are making pretty much the same choices here with their latest own production.

Maybe, but I doubt them openly mocking JRPG's as a whole, is the same as ignoring everything a JRPG does and regard the genre as bad in every way.

Besides, in what way were they mocking them? What specific complaints were there? Was it directed as all encompassing? Either way, using "they made fun of JRPGs" as a reason does not really strike me as really saying much of anything, other then maybe try and insinuate a bit of hypocriticalness on their part, but without context of their "openly mocking" I don't see how one could draw that conclusion or what it really has to do with the decision as it stands.

From the Escapist - http://www.escapistm...I-is-Not-an-RPG

BioWare Austin writing director Daniel Erickson has called Final Fantasy XIII out on its validity as an RPG.
Taking to Strategy Informer,
Erickson said: "You can put a 'J' in front of it, but it's not an RPG.
You don't make any choices, you don't create a character, you don't live
your character... I don't know what those are - adventure games maybe?
But they're not RPG's."

From Dark Diamond - http://darkdiamond.n...-over-and-over/

“They kept delivering the same thing over and over. They make the
dressing better, they look prettier, but it’s still the same experience”
said Greg Zeschuk, BioWare Co-founder.

From the Escapist - http://www.escapistm...s-of-Stagnation

"My favorite thing, it's funny when you still see
it, but the joke of some of the dialogue systems where it asks, 'do you
wanna do this or this,' and you say no. 'Do you wanna do this or this?'
No. 'Do you wanna do this or this?' No. Lemme think -- you want me to
say 'yes.' And that, unfortunately, really characterized the JRPG."

Hint: If character creation cannot define what an RPG is, sure as heck dialog choices can't either.  <_<

[upsettingshorts]

tmp7704 wrote...
I'm not arguing BioWare doesn't change, i'm rather laughing at the directions they pick.

"Romans suck, all they do is build roads everywhere. We on the other hand, keep being innovative and improve our transportation methods all the time. And our next improvement.... we'll build roads all over our country! Progress!"

I think Bioware's perspective is that their creative decisions got them, as a company, where they are today.  I doubt they view the notion that they should start navel gazing and doubting their own choices now as a particularly valid one.

They didn't become one of the most respected video game developers in the West by worrying about the reaction of people on their forums.

That and I'm not sure the implication that the changes DA:2 are making are as simple as or motivated by their similarity to JRPGs.  But then, I know next to nothing about them so I'm going to stay out of getting into that debate specifically.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 novembre 2010 - 05:54 .

[Logabob]

@ ladydesire:

You must have been very annoyed with Morrigan, then.



Combat is so heavily abstracted in DAO/2 that I have a hard time being immersed in it whether the characters are in full plate or naked.

[Meltemph]

so, we have BioWare keep evolving their product alright, but they evolve it in the very direction that's supposedly stagnant and delivered over and over already by the competitors. And for all the mirth they get from seeing no-choice dialogue systems, apparently this is fine after all as long as the choice is if you'd want your companions look like A or B.

I guess people read into things with what they personally see I guess. All I get from that is that they think JRPG's are the way they are is because they never change and the dialog is always a non choice, choice.

To insinuate that they are moving into a "stagnant and over delivered" approach because of choice of how they deal with companion equipment/body meshes, does not strike me as being objective or level headed, in regards to what the changes actually are.

I mean, you are almost sounding like you are saying that character customization is not stagnant and over delivered(I know that is not what you are saying, but it would be very easy to flip the argument on itself).

It is apparent others prefer character companion customization over uniqueness if they had to make the choice, but I don't see any benefit to try and downplay the desire for people wanting companions to have a distinct look.

I don't see what is so hard about saying, I prefer companion customization over uniqueness. I think it is safe to say if you could have both everyone would be in agreement, but obviously they can not or are unwilling to divert that kind of resources(time/money) at that.

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

[Wulfram]

"My favorite thing, it's funny when you still see

it, but the joke of some of the dialogue systems where it asks, 'do you

wanna do this or this,' and you say no. 'Do you wanna do this or this?'

No. 'Do you wanna do this or this?' No. Lemme think -- you want me to

say 'yes.' And that, unfortunately, really characterized the JRPG."

Having just played through the mage Origin in DA:O, this is pretty funny.

[upsettingshorts]

Wulfram wrote...

Having just played through the mage Origin in DA:O, this is pretty funny.

Huh?  Jowan is going to attempt to escape, and you are going to "help," but the nature of your involvement can be fundamentally different.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

MerinTB wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Bringing Sephiroth up is funny in a way though, considering just how recently BioWare was openly mocking JRPGs for the choices they make in their development. Yet they are making pretty much the same choices here with their latest own production.

Maybe, but I doubt them openly mocking JRPG's as a whole, is the same as ignoring everything a JRPG does and regard the genre as bad in every way.

Besides, in what way were they mocking them? What specific complaints were there? Was it directed as all encompassing? Either way, using "they made fun of JRPGs" as a reason does not really strike me as really saying much of anything, other then maybe try and insinuate a bit of hypocriticalness on their part, but without context of their "openly mocking" I don't see how one could draw that conclusion or what it really has to do with the decision as it stands.

From the Escapist - http://www.escapistm...I-is-Not-an-RPG

BioWare Austin writing director Daniel Erickson has called Final Fantasy XIII out on its validity as an RPG.
Taking to Strategy Informer,
Erickson said: "You can put a 'J' in front of it, but it's not an RPG.
You don't make any choices, you don't create a character, you don't live
your character... I don't know what those are - adventure games maybe?
But they're not RPG's."

From Dark Diamond - http://darkdiamond.n...-over-and-over/

“They kept delivering the same thing over and over. They make the
dressing better, they look prettier, but it’s still the same experience”
said Greg Zeschuk, BioWare Co-founder.

From the Escapist - http://www.escapistm...s-of-Stagnation

"My favorite thing, it's funny when you still see
it, but the joke of some of the dialogue systems where it asks, 'do you
wanna do this or this,' and you say no. 'Do you wanna do this or this?'
No. 'Do you wanna do this or this?' No. Lemme think -- you want me to
say 'yes.' And that, unfortunately, really characterized the JRPG."

Hint: If character creation cannot define what an RPG is, sure as heck dialog choices can't either.  <_<

Hell  Between ME/M2 and Dragon Age 2, both of those titles lack character creation, so how is Bioware better or making more "legitimate" RPG's than any Square or whoever making JRPG's at this point?

Then when you add Bioware's been essentially using the same story structure/plot structure for years how is that not stagnant setting aside?

Hello pot meet kettle.

[tmp7704]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I think Bioware's perspective is that their creative decisions got them, as a company, where they are today.  I doubt they view the notion that they should start navel gazing and doubting their own choices now as a particularly valid one.

They didn't become one of the most respected video game developers in the West by worrying about the reaction of people on their forums.

I don't think it's about being worried about reactions of people on the forum. The part to worry about is -- if the competition you make fun of is supposedly in financial trouble because they keep delivering the same stuff to the point it stops selling, is it then really smart to deliver the same thing that --according to your own belief-- your potential customers are already fed up with because they got too much of it from other sources?