1080 réponses à ce sujet

[Ortaya Alevli]

AlanC9 wrote...

RifuloftheWest wrote...
Did you leave her in Chantry robes? If not, did it bother you to impose XYZ armor on her and found it immersion breaking?

Actually, some folks over on the build boards advocate this -- they say that armor is never worth the stamina cost for an archer, since if you're playing properly the archer shouldn't ever be targeted anyway. I don't buy it myself, but it seems to be a viable style.

They say that? Yeah, right. The Felon's Coat. +6 DEX and combat stamina regeneration, among other bonuses. Certainly not worth it.

[Aermas]

Valatorn's Armor is amazing for anyone who can wear it

[AlanC9]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Actually, some folks over on the build boards advocate this -- they say that armor is never worth the stamina cost for an archer, since if you're playing properly the archer shouldn't ever be targeted anyway. I don't buy it myself, but it seems to be a viable style.

They say that? Yeah, right. The Felon's Coat. +6 DEX and combat stamina regeneration, among other bonuses. Certainly not worth it.

Sure, Felon's Coat makes nonsense of the position. OTOH, that item can get locked away from you before you have enough cash to buy it, depending on how you spend and what order you do things in.

[Jorina Leto]

So the poor Carver will alwasy wear this useless clothes

instead of actual usefull armor? Even when his sister/brother has enough Plate Armors in her/his inventory to equip an entire army?

This doesn't make sense at all.

[soteria]

Sure, Felon's Coat makes nonsense of the position. OTOH, that item can get locked away from you before you have enough cash to buy it, depending on how you spend and what order you do things in.

Besides, archers don't have many buttons that are worth pressing. I'd find it questionable to wear robes just to avoid the stamina penalty even without gear like that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

It's not jumping to a conclusion. We had this debate before. My claim is that if we allow for off-screen content, the only thing that could justify the absence of wildly insane scenarios (Duncan is alive, the archdemon is a shapeshifting asari, the Warden is the son of Shepard who crash landed on Ferelden) is preference. There is literally no reason not to suppose anything if your only standard for experience is the idiosyncracy of what the PC believes to be true.

Yes.  I agree entirely.

And as such, you're jumping to conclusions by rejecting these as possible approaches to gameplay.

I reject post hoc justifications. There is nothing wrong with starting from an arbitrary position and deriving a system, but once you've established your key axioms, any further post hoc arbitrary presuppositions are just wrong.

Once again, I agree.  But you're starting from an unnecessarily restrictive arbitrary starting position.

The first time you play the game, you know nothing about Alistair's personality.  Maybe he's a nice guy.  Maybe he's insane.  Maybe he's the slavering minion of Yog-Sothoth.  I'm saying there's nothing that prevents this this from being true on every playthrough.

In Exile wrote...

Our argument is that there are no preferences unless they are shown. Morrigan has no attitude toward armour unless an attitude toward armour is expressed.

And I ask again, why do you believe that?

I'm advocating a position of uncertainty.  You're advocating the opposite.  It is your position that requires justification.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 07 novembre 2010 - 09:13 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

soteria wrote...

But if you look at DAO, the statistical value of the accessories, and even the runes, was quite small relative to the armour itself.

You never saw a +16 armour rating on a belt, for example.

That's true for armor rating, but not as much for stat bonuses, health/stamina regen, and other bonuses. Compare how a character performs with and without Andruil's Blessing, Key to the City, Lifegiver, and your choice of amulet. There's quite a large difference between the strength of mundane and exceptional accessories.
There's no getting around that we'll have fewer options for customizing a companion's gear, though. It will be hard to judge just how much that will actually affect me until I play.

If you're trying to make Isabela your tank, I suspect it will have quite a large effect.

[soteria]

If you're trying to make Isabela your tank, I suspect it will have quite a large effect.

There's no reason to think that would have ever been any more effective than it was in Origins. I imagine anyone who tried to make Zevran or Leliana their tank would have been disappointed as well.

[Ortaya Alevli]

AlanC9 wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Actually, some folks over on the build boards advocate this -- they say that armor is never worth the stamina cost for an archer, since if you're playing properly the archer shouldn't ever be targeted anyway. I don't buy it myself, but it seems to be a viable style.

They say that? Yeah, right. The Felon's Coat. +6 DEX and combat stamina regeneration, among other bonuses. Certainly not worth it.

Sure, Felon's Coat makes nonsense of the position. OTOH, that item can get locked away from you before you have enough cash to buy it, depending on how you spend and what order you do things in.

It can be locked off for anyone, no matter their disposition towards the idea of equipping their archers with armor. I'd say it's not an argument that greatly reinforces such a position. Not to mention Felon's Coat isn't the only armor piece that grants helpful bonuses for archers. For example, Return to Ostagar had Repeater Gloves, which was the bomb. Battledress of the Provocateur ain't that bad, either.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

And as such, you're jumping to conclusions by rejecting these as possible approaches to gameplay.

No, I'm not. It all follows from my central axiom regarding video-games, which is that any feature of a philsophical system for games must satisfy a condition of coherence relative to the setting as presented by the writers.

A standard of evidence based exclusively on the mind of the player violates this. Hence I reject it. Quite simple.

Once again, I agree.  But you're starting from an unnecessarily restrictive arbitrary starting position.

Not at all. I derive it from a set of axioms. The axioms are, of course, completely arbitrary. They are general principles I believe make all games enjoyable. They are complete idiosyncratic, but that is the nature of any axiom. The important part is that my beliefs are justified from these axioms.

The first time you play the game, you know nothing about Alistair's personality.  Maybe he's a nice guy.  Maybe he's insane.  Maybe he's the slavering minion of Yog-Sothoth.  I'm saying there's nothing that prevents this this from being true on every playthrough.

What we know are things regarding the setting, the cosmology, and what is allowable within. The experience of the player as the only meaningful standard of evidence violates coherence with the setting.

I'm advocating a position of uncertainty.  You're advocating the opposite.  It is your position that requires justification.

Right, but I've already illustrated this.

And I ask again, why do you believe that?

The only acceptable standard of evidence is reality as presented in the game. I believe this because this is a direct consequence of what I choose to accept as evidence.

Put another way, suppose I was a theist. I could justify my position by allowing special revelation from God available only to me as a justifiable standard of evidence. It is just being contra Witgenstein and saying internal standards are acceptable.

In fact, my position is Witgenstein's position on evidence in this case, where I insist that nothing can be evidence in a game unless it is universally accesible, so special experiences of the player cannot be valid unless they consist with other meta-game knowledge.

[Sylvius the Mad]

soteria wrote...

There's no reason to think that would have ever been any more effective than it was in Origins. I imagine anyone who tried to make Zevran or Leliana their tank would have been disappointed as well.

Not at all.  Leliana could be a very effective tank.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

No, I'm not. It all follows from my central axiom regarding video-games, which is that any feature of a philsophical system for games must satisfy a condition of coherence relative to the setting as presented by the writers.

A standard of evidence based exclusively on the mind of the player violates this. Hence I reject it. Quite simple.

But your axiom unnecessary (arbitrary, foundationless, call it what you like).  And If you changed it to read "consistency" rather than "coherence", you'd suddenly be able to play as I do.

Since it's an axiom, you could literally choose whatever axiom you prefer.  That you've chosen the one you have is a wilful limitation of your gameplay options.

What we know are things regarding the setting, the cosmology, and what is allowable within.

Why do you think we know these things?  Where did you learn them?  I don't recall seeing any detailed lore within the game's documentation.

The only acceptable standard of evidence is reality as presented in the game. I believe this because this is a direct consequence of what I choose to accept as evidence.

Right.  Your choice.  I was asking you to justify your choice, because I think it's arbitrary.

And as you've just admitted, it is.

Put another way, suppose I was a theist. I could justify my position by allowing special revelation from God available only to me as a justifiable standard of evidence. It is just being contra Witgenstein and saying internal standards are acceptable.

In fact, my position is Witgenstein's position on evidence in this case, where I insist that nothing can be evidence in a game unless it is universally accesible

No, you're creating new rules of evidence (coherence) that are not universally accepted, and thus not universally accessible.

[RifuloftheWest]

AlanC9 wrote...

Actually, some folks over on the build boards advocate this -- they say that armor is never worth the stamina cost for an archer, since if you're playing properly the archer shouldn't ever be targeted anyway. I don't buy it myself, but it seems to be a viable style.

If there are those that see benefit in keeping Leliana in her Chantry robes, good for them. Regardless, of the reason - whether they find the trade off with stamina to be too costly, or if they think Leliana would never wear anything else - it is completely their choice.

Although, I personally do not see how a 7% fatigue hit for wearing leather armor could significantly factor in stamina maintenance. Setting aside Felon's Coat or Shadows of the Empire, Wade's Superior Drakeskin gives a pretty good fatigue reduction bonus and provides decent dex attributes.

Anyway, to bring this back to be more on topic - the disadvantage to DA2's system - if we were to continue to use Leliana as an example, would be that we could never see Leliana in anything but her Chantry robes.

I think that if the devs added more than one set of armor/clothing for the followers, or at the least provided a visual change as the outfits get upgraded, then that would vastly add to the direction this change has taken us. This of course, would not include any additional outfits via DLC.

Modifié par RifuloftheWest, 08 novembre 2010 - 12:57 .

[crimzontearz]

why.......why does Carver look asian in that shot???

[addiction21]

crimzontearz wrote...

why.......why does Carver look asian in that shot???

Because DA2 is a JRPG, or have you not heard?

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But your axiom unnecessary (arbitrary, foundationless, call it what you like).  And If you changed it to read "consistency" rather than "coherence", you'd suddenly be able to play as I do.

No, I wouldn't, because our concept of coherence and consistency are not the same. I will always use what the writers produce as a reference point. This is a souce of enjoyment for me. This is why I play games; If I wanted to produce my own content, I would simply do so.

Since it's an axiom, you could literally choose whatever axiom you prefer.  That you've chosen the one you have is a wilful limitation of your gameplay options.

But I do have the axiom I prefer; what you do not seem to be able to appreciate is that I believe that these axioms produce the ideal system.

You have to understand, I subjectively value things differently than you do. What you see as limitations, I don't. To me, they are horrible consequences that must be rejected, and so the system exists to reject them.

Put another way, consider the issue of the brain in the vat. In practice, it is impossible for me to demonstrate that I am not a brain in a vat. If I choose to construct a system that takes it as an axiom I am not a brain in the vat, it is because that pressuposition leads to undesirable consequences.

EDIT:

In fact, I want to take the analogy further. If I was a brain in a vat, reality would be unknowable and uninteractable. What I am experiencing would not be real, and I should have no reason to believe it's real. My only options are either existential paralysis or acting as if I was not a brain in a vat, i.e. taking as an axiom that I am not a brain in a vat.

This is the same with games. Were I to allow anything in the game, the game would be in a state of paralysis. I could be strapped to a bed being tortured with drugs in an insane asylum and the entire game could be my halucination. Absolutely anything would be possible and could not be rejected. This state is highly undesirable, so I present axioms to avoid it.

Why do you think we know these things?  Where did you learn them?  I don't recall seeing any detailed lore within the game's documentation.

From following the development of the game, and from the game as it is introduced to you. There are basic truisms of the genre, as well. For example, if it is fantasy, it is not science fiction (unless the designers tell you this). So by convention, I can rule out any aliens.

The biggest issue we will have, of course, is with the word know. I will alway argue I know significantly more things that you will grant, because you and I have different theories of knowledge.

Right.  Your choice.  I was asking you to justify your choice, because I think it's arbitrary.

And as you've just admitted, it is.

But this is an ultimate rule - there's no justification for it. It's like Witgenstein's analogy to the standard metre (the old one, that use to be in Paris). Asking what made it a metre was nonsence; it was simpyl the standard of comparison, what was used to justify other things but itself was not justifiable.

Foundational rules for a system can't be justified.

No, you're creating new rules of evidence (coherence) that are not universally accepted, and thus not universally accessible.

Universally accepted =! universally accesible. That something can be accepted does not mean it will. All that it requires is that none of my processing is hidden from you.

At any rate, now we are debating different things. The coherence rule is external to the system and an ultimate rule. It is arbitrary and unjustifiable. Within the setting, the standard of evidence for what is real and what is not isn't.

Modifié par In Exile, 08 novembre 2010 - 12:44 .

[In Exile]

RifuloftheWest wrote...
Joking aside, I'm curious as to how you handled this with your playthrough(s) of DAO. Let's take Leliana: when we first meet her she is in Chantry robes and has one dagger. If we were to go strictly with what is presented in game, we have no idea what kind of armor she would prefer.  Over the course of getting to know her, we find out she likes shoes, has talent with a bow, can use a dagger but we never really get any definitive indication as to what kind of attire she prefers to wear in combat (other than Chantry robes).

Did you leave her in Chantry robes? If not, did it bother you to impose XYZ armor on her and found it immersion breaking?

I realized my internet apparently cut out my reply here, after seeing you respond to Alan C9.

My answer here is that when the game denies me RP content (such as allowing characters to pick their own uniform within the context of the game), then I consider that aspect segregated from the "story".

So Leliana does not "pick" clothes in any meaningful sense. I give her the best class-available armour based on whatever power-gaming leveling philosophy I am using because the inventory in this context is solely in what I consider gameplay and not story and so does not involve characters as people at all.

Let me give you a different example of what I mean. Duncan's Shield is a gift you can give Alistair. Asala is a gift you can give sten. They will equip it after you give it to them. I would never remove the item even if a better item was available. There is story justification for them to use it, and thus their use of it is no longer gameplay but story.

The same applies to Zevran and his Dalish equipment as gifts, as it turns out.

[Addai]

ErichHartmann wrote...

tez19 wrote...

AT LEAST GIVE US SHEATHS WITH CONSTANT OUTFITS, THE WITCHER 2 HAS SHEATHS!

Yes, because Geralt only needs to use two swords the entire game.  Who said DAII will only have constant weapons? *hears crickets*

If Isabela is only allowed to wield daggers, then she's either going to wield dagger type A or dagger type B.  Which means even Geralt had more weapon flexibility than she will.

[AlanC9]

soteria wrote...

Besides, archers don't have many buttons that are worth pressing. I'd find it questionable to wear robes just to avoid the stamina penalty even without gear like that.

Yeah, I agree. Though honestly, I don't think gear makes all that much difference to Leliana's survivability, except for a +DEX or DEF outfit that can put her over the threshold for getting hit.

[RifuloftheWest]

In Exile wrote...

I realized my internet apparently cut out my reply here, after seeing you respond to Alan C9.

My answer here is that when the game denies me RP content (such as allowing characters to pick their own uniform within the context of the game), then I consider that aspect segregated from the "story".

So Leliana does not "pick" clothes in any meaningful sense. I give her the best class-available armour based on whatever power-gaming leveling philosophy I am using because the inventory in this context is solely in what I consider gameplay and not story and so does not involve characters as people at all.

Let me give you a different example of what I mean. Duncan's Shield is a gift you can give Alistair. Asala is a gift you can give sten. They will equip it after you give it to them. I would never remove the item even if a better item was available. There is story justification for them to use it, and thus their use of it is no longer gameplay but story.

The same applies to Zevran and his Dalish equipment as gifts, as it turns out.

I was wondering if you had become so caught up with your discussion with Sylvius that you had missed my question.

If I understand correctly, your answer would seem to imply that you are completely comfortable giving Leliana any type of armor so long as it is consistant with her class. Going back to Morrigan, this would not work with anything other than mage robes due to her being a mage. Or perhaps just strictly the "wilds" type robe since her attire is so unique that it falls under story as opposed to gameplay.

Your methodology allows for segregation between story and gameplay allowing for things like equipping party members without necessarily feeling any break in immersion.

For me, my method also results in remaining immersed, but allowing for fan fiction like addendums. Like a Warden romancing Leliana shopping in the Orzammar Commons and thinking that she would really like that Orlesian made cuirass, then purchasing it as a gift to her.

Things like Duncan's shield, Asala, Dalish gloves, Antivan boots become significant story driven items but some of my playthroughs handle them differently. Sometimes Alistair is so keen on retaining something of Duncan's that he stores the shield for fear of damaging or losing it during battle. Sometimes, Zevran puts the gloves away or takes off the boots in case darkspawn filth diminishes that unique Antivan leather smell. Asala - well, Sten usually wins in keeping his sword lol.

I know you're not interested in things like that and find them wrong. I just wanted to understand a little more on how you experience DAO and compare handling things like how Leliana ends up in something other than Chantry robes.

Modifié par RifuloftheWest, 08 novembre 2010 - 02:03 .

[In Exile]

RifuloftheWest wrote...

I was wondering if you had become so caught up with your discussion with Sylvius that you had missed my question. 

That may suggest I have better things to do than discuss a video-game 4 months away from release on the internet. That's really giving me too much credit.

If I understand correctly, your answer would seem to imply that you are completely comfortable giving Leliana any type of armor so long as it is consistant with her class. Going back to Morrigan, this would not work with anything other than mage robes due to her being a mage. Or perhaps just strictly the "wilds" type robe since her attire is so unique that it falls under story as opposed to gameplay.

I think giving Morrigan armour without a story recognition is too much visual detachment from the original character concept, so unless she had remarked that the notion of an arcane warrior was intriguing, I would not spec her that way.

In general, to me, this is not a role-playing choice. So it is not that I choose for Morrigan what to wear. It is that for this part of the game, Morrigan is an inhuman stat puppet that exists only for the purpose of killing darkspawn in combat.

Your methodology allows for segregation between story and gameplay allowing for things like equipping party members without necessarily feeling any break in immersion.

Essentially, yes, but the difference is that I don't look at it as role adoption.

For me, my method also results in remaining immersed, but allowing for fan fiction like addendums. Like a Warden romancing Leliana shopping in the Orzammar Commons and thinking that she would really like that Orlesian made cuirass, then purchasing it as a gift to her.

Right, I can understand your perspective. It's just completely alien to me in the sense that I could not play the game that way.

Things like Duncan's shield, Asala, Dalish gloves, Antivan boots become significant story driven items but some of my playthroughs handle them differently. Sometimes Alistair is so keen on retaining something of Duncan's that he stores the shield for fear of damaging or losing it during battle. Sometimes, Zevran puts the gloves away or takes off the boots in case darkspawn filth diminishes that unique Antivan leather smell. Asala - well, Sten usually wins in keeping his sword lol.

To me, these are not possible expressions for the characters. Alistair chose to wear the shield; that's the end of that.

I know you're not interested in things like that and find them wrong. I just wanted to understand a little more on how you experience DAO and compare handling things like how Leliana ends up in something other than Chantry robes.

It's not that I find them wrong so much as they are just not something I want as part of my game. A game that expects me to use my imagination to fill in content is essentially a dead and empty game for me. This is why what Bioware is doing is so attractive to me. A game like Fallout, in contrast, is very empty. A game like IWD is just dead.

I'm happy to share, though.

Modifié par In Exile, 08 novembre 2010 - 02:41 .

[Nico Nic]

Is DA2 a rpg oO ? No Armor Change for companions ???



Bioware .. where did u go ? oO

[Kileyan]

How big would, it isn't realistic and roleplay outrage have been if they had combined the best of both worlds(to me). Your party members would keep the unique look that bioware thinks is cool, but you'd be able to equip them with the stat armor of your choice?

for example: any light armor equipped on a rogue looks like their stock look. We get the option to custom equip them, but they don't all look like a generic leather armor npc with a unique head attached to them.

Modifié par Kileyan, 09 novembre 2010 - 12:26 .

[Havokk7]

Kileyan wrote...
..if they had combined the best of both worlds(to me). Your party members would keep the unique look that bioware thinks is cool, but you'd be able to equip them with the stat armor of your choice?

Still poor.
Bioware might think the look is cool but I think the look is lame, stupid and silly.
For example (from ME2), Garrus' armour (we have an entire starship's engineering resources - fix the hole, wilya!), Grunt's armour (booorrrring), Jack's outfit (inappropriate to a professional mercenary group, impractical).

Modifié par Havokk7, 09 novembre 2010 - 11:07 .

[Gorionsson]

Terrible news. Very,very poor.



And for the developer response that one changed feature does not matter,... well, things add up don't they. Customization is a big part of the roleplaying experience for some people.