861 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Good point. Still, my opinion regarding the system will be up in the air until I've seen them whether I find out next week or after I've quite literally recruited every character in the game.



At some point, what they all look like is going to be part of the equation for everybody, I think.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't think I care how the outfits look. That they're static is going to annoy me regardless.

But they'll annoy me a lot more if those static outfits are a statistical straightjacket. If not they'll only be a minor annoyance.

[upsettingshorts]

What if they're static AND you hate how they look? If they can only make your opinions of them worse, then they're still part of the equation, right?

I mean for me if they look good and I'm a big fan of them I'll be indifferent.  If I can modify them statistically with any significance, I might end up in the "pro" camp.  But that's probly what it would take.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 novembre 2010 - 07:59 .

[Ziggeh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...We can't change companion outfits.  We're only going to be able to change the stats of their armour by equipping upgrades.

Upgrades which will change them aethetically as well, despite the common "one constume for 10 years" position. Now obviously it depends on the extent, which they haven't detailed, but even a small amount will mean actively more cosmetic changes than DA:O

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
We don't yet know whether those upgrades are relevantly similar statistically to different armour types.

True, some clarity on that would be nice, but what else is there in terms of progression? Assuming for the moment that it is, the fact that it's multiple ugrades suggests to me a good deal more customisation than item A versus item B etc

I'm not saying people are clearly wrong, but that it entirely depends upon extent. That both of the common derisive positions rely on people making negative assumptions about that extent and then claiming it as inferior, despite the fact that it contains the potential to be a good deal more customisable in both areas, if one were making positive assumptions. People are deciding that the system is bad because they've decided that the system is bad.

[Ziggeh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I don't think I care how the outfits look. That they're static is going to annoy me regardless.
But they'll annoy me a lot more if those static outfits are a statistical straightjacket. If not they'll only be a minor annoyance.

The outifts aren't static, he mentions the "boots above the knee" thing, which is the lead into the discussion they have about upgrading this one piece over time.

Also, on the statistical side, from the transcript, again talking about changes to this piece of gear:

“Do I want to go into more of a combat stance, do I want to push up my
dexterity, what kind of stats do I want to apply?”  And as soon as you
start applying enchantment slots, you have another realm available.

[maxernst]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

What if they're static AND you hate how they look? If they can only make your opinions of them worse, then they're still part of the equation, right?

I mean for me if they look good and I'm a big fan of them I'll be indifferent.  If I can modify them statistically with any significance, I might end up in the "pro" camp.  But that's probly what it would take.

It would be nice if you could walk into the armorer's shop and say, "I want silverite armor for Wesley" and he'd fashion some armor in Wesley's personal style in silverite to replace his old set.  I don't really mind not having total control of their inventory--they are individuals with their own opinions, after all.  But it would be annoying if it's like the old Fallout games where your companions died more and more often as the game progressed because they're armor didn't improve and the enemies got more powerful.

Modifié par maxernst, 10 novembre 2010 - 08:33 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

The outifts aren't static, he mentions the "boots above the knee" thing, which is the lead into the discussion they have about upgrading this one piece over time.

But I can't completely change the look - I'm stuck with whatever style BioWare chooses for that character.

Also, on the statistical side, from the transcript, again talking about changes to this piece of gear:

“Do I want to go into more of a combat stance, do I want to push up my dexterity, what kind of stats do I want to apply?”  And as soon as you start applying enchantment slots, you have another realm available.

Right, but how big a difference can we make with those.  Are those incremental differences, or can we drastically change the nature of the armour?  For example, is any change we can make to Isabela's armour as significant as switching between Light and Massive armour in DAO?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

What if they're static AND you hate how they look? If they can only make your opinions of them worse, then they're still part of the equation, right?

I mean for me if they look good and I'm a big fan of them I'll be indifferent.  If I can modify them statistically with any significance, I might end up in the "pro" camp.  But that's probly what it would take.

I don't think I'll ever be in the "pro" camp, but you're right that they'll be worse if they look dumb.

I really didn't like Jack's outfit in ME2, for example, and to make her playable was the only reason I bothered to learn how to mod ME2.  If I dislike the DA2 outfits that much, yes, that would be a huge problem.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Something tells me Isabela will never be a tank-type character. Of course this has to do with what has been mentioned about classes also, and their restrictions to certain fighting styles. So, it doesn't especially suprise me if DA 2 doesn't let us monkey about with items on NPC characters.



I appreciate the idea of wanting to give each character a style and look but I would rather that effort be spent on the dialogue and writing, and not venture too much into forcing the character to fit a very narrow strategic role.



I guess we'll have to see what the final result is.

[Ziggeh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...

The outifts aren't static, he mentions the "boots above the knee" thing, which is the lead into the discussion they have about upgrading this one piece over time.

But I can't completely change the look - I'm stuck with whatever style BioWare chooses for that character.

Also, on the statistical side, from the transcript, again talking about changes to this piece of gear:

“Do I want to go into more of a combat stance, do I want to push up my dexterity, what kind of stats do I want to apply?”  And as soon as you start applying enchantment slots, you have another realm available.

Right, but how big a difference can we make with those.  Are those incremental differences, or can we drastically change the nature of the armour?  For example, is any change we can make to Isabela's armour as significant as switching between Light and Massive armour in DAO?

The answer to both of those is the same: It depends on the extent.

My point is precisely the lack of information, that the system he outlines isn't inherently more or less costumisable, either aethetically or statistically, than the one in Origins, it's entirely dependant on implementation and that making outright statements, such as "it's static" is making assumptions about information we don't have.

[Archereon]

JohnEpler wrote...

Bear in mind, folks, that we are able to look at your post history and discover when you're painting a caricature of the opposing side simply to give your own side of an argument a strawman to rail against.

This would qualify as trolling.

Let's keep things civil and avoid turning this into Yet Another Console Versus PC thread.

I may have missed this post but,

if you want to look through my post history, you'll see that I've been against static companion inventory starting with its incorperation into ME2.

[Sir JK]

Lotion Soronnar wrote..
Since when does different models prevent different animations? All meshes will share a specific skeleton (for a group), and so you CAN make Sten fight like Sten, regardless which system you use.

And I hate what I hear about DA2 system.
Why on earth should I be restricted from giving a companion any clothing items that he should logicly be able to equip?

I'm not talking giving a dwarf elf armor - that makes sense for the dwarf not to wear.
I'm talking about your rouge not being able to equip heavy armor, simply because he's a companion or rouge...despite having enough STR to equip it.
I hate any unnecessary artificial limitations on anytihng. And this one IS unnecessary.

The problem with DAO was not the re-sking of a mesh - the resking were good and diverse (thanks to normal maping). the problem was that you really only had 1 mesh per armor type. 2 or 3 would have given the game a lot more diversity.

Furthermore, I liked how you could dress up your companions in ME1 and DAO. And I equipped my whole team in matching armor in ME1 (Ursa armor with cammo apttern) and loved it.

The thing is Lotion, is that little problem that they all use the generic bodies. Like Dave said, they are just resizes (and not kept proportional) of one another. And while you are correct, there is a base skeleton, the animations still have to be attached to the model. Every model. To clarify: It's not enough to push a button and then it's done.
What you have to do is essentially move the entire model to follow the animation. Adjust it, mold it, prepare it, attach it... one part at a time. A process that consumes a lot of time, ends up not working at all half the time and generally produces a fair few headaches.

Your suggestion means that they'd have to apply those unique animations to every armour model in the game. They wouldn't have to make 1 Sten-set of animations. But one for every piece of armour he can wear, including none.
With a fixed outfit, they'd only have to make one. With custom outfits they'd have to make as many as there are equippable armours. Since that's how many models there'll be.

[Vaeliorin]

AlanC9 wrote...
I suspect we'd have rather different opinions on exactly which of Obsidian's projects were gold.

Of things they've done as Obsidian?  KOTOR2 and Mask of the Betrayer.  But I'm one of those people who thinks KOTOR2 was much better than KOTOR1.

Arcanum as Troika (I haven't played Bloodlines, as I really dislike the modern-era Vampire: The Masquerade setting) and Planescape:Torment, Icewind Dale (never finished IWD2...it bugged out on me back in the day, and I was so frustrated I've never finished it), Fallout and Fallout 2 as Black Isle.

[John Epler]

Archereon wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

Bear in mind, folks, that we are able to look at your post history and discover when you're painting a caricature of the opposing side simply to give your own side of an argument a strawman to rail against.

This would qualify as trolling.

Let's keep things civil and avoid turning this into Yet Another Console Versus PC thread.

I may have missed this post but,

if you want to look through my post history, you'll see that I've been against static companion inventory starting with its incorperation into ME2.

You are most certainly not the person I was referring to, don't worry!

[In Exile]

Vaeliorin wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
I suspect we'd have rather different opinions on exactly which of Obsidian's projects were gold.

Of things they've done as Obsidian?  KOTOR2 and Mask of the Betrayer.  But I'm one of those people who thinks KOTOR2 was much better than KOTOR1.

I appreciate what they did with KoTOR2. But at the same time, it was just like they took a hammer to the setting. Star Wars isn't dark and tragic; that isn't the setting. Not to mention the huge swaths of character derailment that happen in a game that tells you why you did things. There are things to admire in there, but it wasn't appropriate for the setting.

And honestly, I felt Mask of the Betrayer was pretty much KoTOR 2 redux, at least thematically.

[Maria Caliban]

Players who prefer to change their companion's outfits are 3x more likely to kick a puppy.

Last year, a black minivan in Southboro California was responsible for running over people on four different occasions. Archereon owns a black minivan. Can you feel safe with him on the street? What about YOUR CHILDREN?

[TuringPoint]

They've actually said this doesn't translate to Hawke, and they've shown us screenshots comparing companion and Hawke's inventory screens. There's been a podcast discussing this.

[Brockololly]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Right.  They made this "big announcement" but it contained only superficial information.

And that superficial information is divisive.

WELCOME to BioWare Marketing 101 !!!!

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Something tells me Isabela  will never be a tank-type character. Of course this has to do with what  has been mentioned about classes also, and their restrictions to certain fighting styles. So, it doesn't especially suprise me if DA 2 doesn't let us monkey about with items on NPC characters.

I appreciate  the idea of wanting to give each character a style and look but I would  rather that effort be spent on the dialogue and writing, and not venture too much into forcing the character to fit a very narrow strategic  role.

I guess we'll have to see what the final result is.

Visually, I'll have a bigger problem with tank type characters- take Aveline for instance. She seems to be a sword and shield warrior and wil likely be a tank. And yet, if her unique look is as she appears at the start, that means your tank would be wearing pretty regular clothes, not looking like some armored up damage absorbing tank. And thats just goofy.

Similarly, if you adjust Isabela's stats with runes such that she is effectively in Massive armor, isn't that kind of goofy that she'd still be looking like she glued a couple scraps of cloth together? Its the same issue you had with Jack or Miranda in ME2- they're stuck in ridiculous looking outfits yet can seemingly soak up rounds and go into a vacuum or other hazardous environment, no problem. Is it magic thats protecting or augmenting your stats? Do we see the runes? Depending on the oufits, having themn stuck in them for 10 years will just break any immersion you might be trying to build up.

Modifié par Brockololly, 11 novembre 2010 - 12:54 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Something tells me Isabela  will never be a tank-type character.

Shouldn't the player be the one to decide that?

I unequivocally think so.

[Stick668]

In Exile wrote...

I appreciate what they did with KoTOR2. But at the same time, it was just like they took a hammer to the setting.

The clever molestation of the setting is what I loved about it. Perhaps because I share the writer's outlook on the SW universe; "Doesn't the Force kind of suck?"
... I like to refer to K2 as "Farscape: Torment". 

And honestly, I felt Mask of the Betrayer was pretty much KoTOR 2 redux, at least thematically.

Well, I never played MotB, but even the NWN2 OC... "Let's see... we have a Pyromaniac, a Githzeraiwotsit, a redhead Tiefling rogue and a 'hole in the world' type situation connected to the main character..." Love that Avellone fellow, but he is very attached to his themes and motifs. (Curious about how it plays out in Alpha Protocol, but waiting on bargain bin option. Thanks to general consensus about Obsidian's approach to QA. As in, "we don't need no stinking".)

Maria Caliban wrote...
Players who prefer to change their companion's outfits are 3x more likely to kick a puppy.

Nobody objects to the kicking of puppies! However, we may object to the notion that tradition demands puppy-kicking options must be included at all times.

Modifié par Stick668, 11 novembre 2010 - 12:59 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Something tells me Isabela  will never be a tank-type character.

Shouldn't the player be the one to decide that?

I unequivocally think so.

No. Isabella should decide. She is her own person, after all.

[cue debate about what it means to have a party based game ]

[Vaeliorin]

In Exile wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
I suspect we'd have rather different opinions on exactly which of Obsidian's projects were gold.

Of things they've done as Obsidian?  KOTOR2 and Mask of the Betrayer.  But I'm one of those people who thinks KOTOR2 was much better than KOTOR1.

I appreciate what they did with KoTOR2. But at the same time, it was just like they took a hammer to the setting. Star Wars isn't dark and tragic; that isn't the setting. Not to mention the huge swaths of character derailment that happen in a game that tells you why you did things. There are things to admire in there, but it wasn't appropriate for the setting.

I like dark and tragic, and I've never been a huge follower of Star Wars as a setting (the only one of the prequels I've seen is Phantom Menace.)  So taking a hammer to the setting doesn't bother me (especially since George Lucas does it on a regular basis and I think the setting is kind of juvenile to begin with.)  And I really didn't feel my character was any more derailed in KOTOR2 than it was in KOTOR1 when they told me that I'd used to be this completely different person whose personality was antithetical to my own (and then I wasn't allowed to be particularly upset about who I'd been...kind of like Shepard doesn't seem to care that he's been resurrected, coincidentally...hmm...)

And honestly, I felt Mask of the Betrayer was pretty much KoTOR 2 redux, at least thematically.

*shrug*  They're themes I like.  Also, I like the more personal stories over the save the world stories.

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...
Something tells me Isabela  will never be a tank-type character.

Shouldn't the player be the one to decide that?

I unequivocally think so.

No. Isabella should decide. She is her own person, after all.

[cue debate about what it means to have a party based game [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/sideways.png[/smilie]]

If Isabella should decide...shouldn't she also complain if I use her as a tank even if she isn't properly equipped for it?  Or if I bring a non-balanced party such that she's put in more jeopardy than she should be?  Shouldn't she refuse to run into a party of enemies all by herself?

It just seems that drawing the line at what she wears seems kind of strange to me, when there are things that are much more significant that she should potentially have an issue with.

Modifié par Vaeliorin, 11 novembre 2010 - 01:12 .

[Wicked 702]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Something tells me Isabela  will never be a tank-type character.

Shouldn't the player be the one to decide that?

I unequivocally think so.

Party leader = boss.

Wear it, or die!

Seriously though, I'm in charge. If I'm not in charge, then how about I have no say in their combat tactics too. How about their development as a character when they level. I mean, I'm not in command right? GAHHH!

Modifié par Wicked 702, 11 novembre 2010 - 01:12 .

[Stick668]

Party leader != dev.

Tactical combat control and rewriting the non-player part of the world are not the same kind of tree-fruit. 

[Wicked 702]

Stick668 wrote...

Party leader != dev.

Tactical combat control and rewriting the non-player part of the world are not the same kind of tree-fruit. 

Disagree completely. They are exactly the same kind. Especially since I don't see how "armor" and "equipment" fall into any "non-player" category. That just makes no sense.

Modifié par Wicked 702, 11 novembre 2010 - 01:37 .