187 réponses à ce sujet

[Krytheos]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

-Semper- wrote...

shepard_lives wrote...

I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make.

why having direct control of your party members? just strip that because you are not god and therefore only have control over the main character.

Even more slippery.

Do you get to create the companions personality? You might influence them, sure, through conversation, but you never have total control over them. From there it's purely a case of degrees, and simply because people are used to changing appearances within rpgs in no way makes it critical to the (vague, loose and debatable) definition.

Indeed. The whole changing-appearence thing has only really come up in the past few decades or so, truthfully.  In the old days, old RPGs never let you customize their appearence at all, and JRPGs today, many of them do not let you change their appearence according to what armor they might be wearing/etc. All that changes there is weapons and skills, pretty much. No appearence customization or anything, yet I have never once heard complaints about 'no appearence customization' or 'lack of party customization' over there, but I suppose that is an argument for another day.

Aside from MUDs, back then, the majority of customization boiled down to purely stat-related changes, never visual-changes. You equipped that fancy new set of armor for the stats and never the looks, because the looks weren't dynamic or changing. Almost always static. It was usually just to give you that extra edge in battle. Same for weapons, too. Now, since technology has developed, this kind of thing has become fairly common, but it was never really 'needed' or a 'staple' of RPGs. Not that anyone has said it, but eh. Then as it becomes the norm, we go back to it being a mixture of stat-related along with occasional visual-style changes, for purely aesthetic reasons.

I can see why it could get frustrating; going back and forth, as well as seeing the same outfit for several hours can get annoying, but it provides a much more unique companion that way. My opinion of this is simply that, as long as they change outfits over the course of the game, perhaps in more than 3, I'll be content, and it's unlikely you'll see a warrior like Carver soley in refugee clothes the entire game. Now -that- would be silly. Completely and utterly silly. As long as they change appropiately, I have no problem with it, but can see where others would.

[Ziggeh]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

But what annoys me more is the people who try to pass it off as 'streamlining'.

I'm not sure anyone would do that, because a large percentage of the forum populous are under the impression that "streamlining" is a synonym for "breaking".

You will see a lot of people attempting to explain the reasonings (or possible reasonings) behind it, rather than just assuming Bioware hates you or something.

[Krytheos]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Krytheos wrote...

You know, I never..really understood that, truth be told, but I suppose I never quite will.

By the by; is that a Legend of the Five Rings avatar I spot, or am I just imagining things? 

You didn't understand why people didn't like NwN companions, why they didn't like NwN in general, or how you could take an aspect from one game and decide players' reaction to the game in general was dependent on that one aspect?

Or, is there something I'm missing?

It is! Good eye there.

I didn't quite understand the most latter, actually; never got the grasp of how you could take one aspect of many from one game, and then decide players reactions to the game was dependant on that one- single aspect that wasn't even really a 'huge' part of the game, aside from -maybe- increasing Armor class so you can be dealt lessdamage/hit less, depending on which THAC0 system you were using for the time.

[Ziggeh]

Krytheos wrote...

I can see why it could get frustrating; going back and forth, as well as seeing the same outfit for several hours can get annoying, but it provides a much more unique companion that way. My opinion of this is simply that, as long as they change outfits over the course of the game, perhaps in more than 3, I'll be content, and it's unlikely you'll see a warrior like Carver soley in refugee clothes the entire game. Now -that- would be silly. Completely and utterly silly. As long as they change appropiately, I have no problem with it, but can see where others would.

Definitely. I object to ugly clothing, for example. If someones stuck in clothing I consider ugly for the entire game, chances are they won't see much action.

In DA:O everyone was stuck in ugly clothing for the entire game. You could change that ugly clothing to slightly different ugly clothing, but for me that didn't represent the zenith of fashion based customisation. I think under the new system theres a good chance that less of your party will look like dorks, and that, for me, is a massive step forward.

[Atakuma]

I don't understand how not being able to change the appearance of your companions somehow makes this less of an RPG.

[Boombox]

I'm all for unique looking companions. Sure, we can't dress them up (which was fun on the first playthough) but atleast they'll stand out from NPCs. I'm excited to see some of the designs now and by doing this I think Bioware has a lot more room to be creative with them.

[Maria Caliban]

Krytheos wrote...

I didn't quite understand the most latter, actually; never got the grasp of how you could take one aspect of many from one game, and then decide players reactions to the game was dependant on that one- single aspect that wasn't even really a 'huge' part of the game, aside from -maybe- increasing Armor class so you can be dealt lessdamage/hit less, depending on which THAC0 system you were using for the time.

You don't understand it because:
1) It either makes no sense, or
2) It deals specifically with an aspect that person hates and so can objectively point to as a reason they disliked the game, but as you're not that person, their hatred is probably not something you understand.

[Ziggeh]

-Semper- wrote...

it was just a reference to that dumb statement that within a game a companion won't let me change the outfit due to their personality. and yes, i have total control over them. i can mouse click and keep my berzerk buddy out of fight which is in total contrary to his blood thirsty personality...

Maybe he was just tired from all the blood thirsting, it's thirsty work. But no, you don't control who Sten is, who Alistair is related to, how Morrigan grew up.  You do not have unlimited control and you're only assuming armour is part of your direct purview because of games which aren't DA2, probably not the best of bases for what one can do in DA2.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Atakuma wrote...

I don't understand how not being able to change the appearance of your companions somehow makes this less of an RPG.

Don't think of it like that, think of it as removing features without a good substitute. Would you not object to that if it were any other game or genre?

[Ziggeh]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
Don't think of it like that, think of it as removing features without a good substitute. Would you not object to that if it were any other game or genre?

Blarg. How about thinking of it in relation to other changes in the game and issues with the previous one as opposed to in complete isolation?

[Nerivant]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

I don't understand how not being able to change the appearance of your companions somehow makes this less of an RPG.

Don't think of it like that, think of it as removing features without a good substitute. Would you not object to that if it were any other game or genre?

Think of it as them not needing your permission to do so.

[crimzontearz]

So people are arguing that the companions value their individual tastes over say wearing a proper armor in combat? COME ON!



I am all for the pst approach but at least give me individual looks that make sense and not ex marines who wear skintight body suits instead of armor in combat. It is just as silly as the NPCs being dfressed by the PC....if not more becausr my warden was a freaking commander of the grey on top of a teryn on top of arlf of amaranthine and my whole party was conprised by grey wardens my subordinates

[Maria Caliban]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
Don't think of it like that, think of it as removing features without a good substitute. Would you not object to that if it were any other game or genre?

I see it as removing a feature I wasn't fond of and replacing it with one I am fond of. You see it as removing a feature you didn't and replacing it with one that has no value to you.

What you're not acknowledging is that people other than you *do* see it as a good substitute. Some of it even think of it as a better substitute.

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Blarg. How about thinking of it in relation to other changes in the game and issues with the previous one as opposed to in complete isolation?

I think it's fair to consider a squeal in relation to the previous game, especially if they're only a year or so apart and use the same engine.

crimzontearz wrote...

So people are arguing that the companions value their individual tastes over say wearing a proper armor in combat? COME ON!

I'd say that's secondary to the argument at hand.

"The PC should not be able to dictate the look of companions" is not the same as "It makes sense for companions to run around a battlefield in basic clothing."

I expect warrior to wear heavy armor, mages to wear robes (though I'd prefer pants), and rogues to wear light or medium armor. If that's not the case, I expect it to make sense for the character.

Example: Barbarian Bob is a primitive, blood-thirsty type covered with scars and tattoos who rushes into battle half-naked.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 17 novembre 2010 - 10:30 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
Don't think of it like that, think of it as removing features without a good substitute. Would you not object to that if it were any other game or genre?

Blarg. How about thinking of it in relation to other changes in the game and issues with the previous one as opposed to in complete isolation?

Because I believe that I'm right, and that the only issue with the way it was setup in DAO was that a lot of the armors looked the same. Which could be improved by providing more of everything, not taking away the feature completely.

[Nerivant]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
Don't think of it like that, think of it as removing features without a good substitute. Would you not object to that if it were any other game or genre?

Blarg. How about thinking of it in relation to other changes in the game and issues with the previous one as opposed to in complete isolation?

Because I believe that I'm right, and that the only issue with the way it was setup in DAO was that a lot of the armors looked the same. Which could be improved by providing more of everything, not taking away the feature completely.

It could also be improved by giving you good looking armor, and no ability to change it.

[Ziggeh]

Maria Caliban wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Blarg. How about thinking of it in relation to other changes in the game and issues with the previous one as opposed to in complete isolation?

I think it's fair to consider a squeal in relation to the previous game, especially if they're only a year or so apart and use the same engine.

Indeed, as I say, issues with the previous one. Everyone looking like a linebacker in poorly fitting armour was a problem, one that they've solved, just one example, and if you ignore them all, it definitely sounds like a bad idea to make that change.

[Ziggeh]

Nerivant wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Because
I believe that I'm right, and that the only issue with the way it was setup in DAO was that a lot of the armors looked the same. Which could be improved by providing more of everything, not taking away the featurecompletely.

It could also be improved by giving you good looking armor, and no ability to change it.

One of these things takes considerably less resources and gives you the added advantage of controlling the characters style.

Good use of the "'I'm right" defence though.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 17 novembre 2010 - 10:31 .

[Maria Caliban]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Indeed, as I say, issues with the previous one. Everyone looking like a linebacker in poorly fitting armour was a problem, one that they've solved, just one example, and if you ignore them all, it definitely sounds like a bad idea to make that change.

I completely misread what you originally said. Sorry.

[Ziggeh]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I completely misread what you originally said. Sorry.

No worries, I get that a lot. I tend to write in manner that only serves to hide whatever point I'm trying to make.

[PsychoBlonde]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

There is a fundamental difference between deleting something that was already worthless (the 500 grey iron daggers) and something that is truly fundamental to RPG's (the inventory system/party customization).

Which RPG's are these?  A great many of the ones I've played don't even have a "party", much less "party customization".

[Saibh]

-Semper- wrote...

shepard_lives wrote...

I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make.

why having direct control of your party members? just strip that because you are not god and therefore only have control over the main character.

Well. Your party members like their clothes. They don't like Hawke's sense of style. It's all spiky and icky.

But they are cool with following his orders on the battlefield. Being the leader and all, and directing them to work together as a team.

[crimzontearz]

Maria Caliban wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
Don't think of it like that, think of it as removing features without a good substitute. Would you not object to that if it were any other game or genre?

I see it as removing a feature I wasn't fond of and replacing it with one I am fond of. You see it as removing a feature you didn't and replacing it with one that has no value to you.

What you're not acknowledging is that people other than you *do* see it as a good substitute. Some of it even think of it as a better substitute.

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Blarg. How about thinking of it in relation to other changes in the game and issues with the previous one as opposed to in complete isolation?

I think it's fair to consider a squeal in relation to the previous game, especially if they're only a year or so apart and use the same engine.

crimzontearz wrote...

So people are arguing that the companions value their individual tastes over say wearing a proper armor in combat? COME ON!

I'd say that's secondary to the argument at hand.

"The PC should not be able to dictate the look of companions" is not the same as "It makes sense for companions to run around a battlefield in basic clothing."

I expect warrior to wear heavy armor, mages to wear robes (though I'd prefer pants), and rogues to wear light or medium armor. If that's not the case, I expect it to make sense for the character.

Example: Barbarian Bob is a primitive, blood-thirsty type covered with scars and tattoos who rushes into battle half-naked.

and in that I agree with you Maria....BUT

in Awakening for Example my warden was the commander of the grey, with two nobility titles and my party was comprised by Grey Warden recruits. Are you telling me I should not be able to tell Oghren to wear the Massive armour of KalHirol's defense I just  aquired? is a recruit gonna say "NO" to the commander in such an instance?

also...as I said I approve of DA2 going in the direction of PST but are you telling me that Isabella's outfit makes sense for a melee focused character? a shirt, thongs and boots?

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Nerivant wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
Don't think of it like that, think of it as removing features without a good substitute. Would you not object to that if it were any other game or genre?

Blarg. How about thinking of it in relation to other changes in the game and issues with the previous one as opposed to in complete isolation?

Because I believe that I'm right, and that the only issue with the way it was setup in DAO was that a lot of the armors looked the same. Which could be improved by providing more of everything, not taking away the feature completely.

It could also be improved by giving you good looking armor, and no ability to change it.

Indeed, and that's the option they are going with. That said, I believe Bioware makes compelling characters that I can connect with on an emotional level, and that has nothing to do with their fashion choice... except for Miranda, maybe.

But in Origins, the characters were all unique because of their personalities and depth. That had nothing to do with whatever armor they were wearing, and they were all incredibly individualistic regardless of what you had them wear. But I liked the fact that I could change their apparel to suit my needs for them on the battlefield.

You want unique armor/clothing for each party member (and so do I) but you are okay with not being able to choose. That is the difference between our ideas. For games that are all about choices, Bioware seems just as content with choosing for us.

[Stanley Woo]

I think some folks are forgetting that Dragon Age is, first and foremost, a game which has certain rules built into it. no matter how immersive the story is, no matter how epic the scope of the characters or dialogue or penguin launchers or whatever, there is still a game there. Most players will naturally bring in non-immersive elements, such as dice rolls or attributes or follower tactics or inventory, and justify them with in-game and in-setting reasons for their existence. A good example of this, which was brought up in this very thread, is follower inventory.



Some players will see this as the party discussing among themselves and agreeing that Isabela should wear such-and-such armour because it's better protection than her brigandine tutu (hypothetical) and besides, Varric needs the spiked pauldrons of enhanced Bianca synergy (also hypothetical). Other players treat inventory management as purely metagaming and don't ascribe any in-game interaction to it at all.



There is nothing wrong with either way of playing the game. it is purely subjective and, in a single-player game, irrelevant to anyone else's interpretation of the system. If you expect your followers to "follower your commander's orders and wear what you tell them," then great. If, on the other hand, you feel the followers are "distinctive characters in their own right with their own opinions on what to wear," great. Regardless of which system is actually implemented in DA2, players can determine for themselves how to reconcile the system with the setting. Or not. Whatever they wish.



So please, let's stop assuming that one's way of playing the game or dealing with inventory is better or worse than any other. As long as it works within the context of the game as a whole, I think most players won't be too disappointed.

[FieryDove]

crimzontearz wrote...

also...as I said I approve of DA2 going in the direction of PST but are you telling me that Isabella's outfit makes sense for a melee focused character? a shirt, thongs and boots?

It makes all the sense in the world...to some apparently. Same with people walking around all exposed on vacuum frozen planets. (ME2 squadmates). There I said it out loud.

Stanley Woo wrote...

So please, let's stop assuming that one's way of playing the game or dealing with inventory is better or worse than any other.

Never happen...sorry to dash your hopes.

Modifié par FieryDove, 17 novembre 2010 - 10:54 .