239 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

ProfessionalPirate wrote...

Ya, his personality remains, but if you put him in a pirate outfit, your perception of him will change. You don't look at someone wearing colorful, and flamboyant jackets and thin "ohhh look, he's clearly a mad scientest"

Only if I'm looking at a context less picture. If it was something in motion and guy wearing colorful flamboyant jackets looks uncomfortable or out of place in it (simply by body language) I can infer that he might actually not be a pirate. Context is everything.

If he was simply in a pirate outfit I'd think he was a really odd pirate (what kind of pirate is old, wears glasses and has wild grey hair anyways). I'd no nothing more about him than that guess.

So unless DA2 is going to leave me completely empty on the context of characters their outfits shouldn't matter.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 19 novembre 2010 - 08:45 .

[ViSeiRa]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

So...the lab coat guy loses his knowledge, experiences and personality because his clothes changed?

Yes, because it never really existed. Only the expression of it did.

Huh. Strange that. I wore a dress yesterday and wasn't more feminine than I was wearing jeans. Guess I'm a freak.

No, you are a person. You exist. You have knowledge, experience, and personality. The man in the lab coat has none.

That's where you're wrong though, in that context he does have each and every one of those.... the whole it never really existed argument negates what you said about visual expression in the first place.

Modifié par ViSeirA, 19 novembre 2010 - 08:45 .

[namedforthemoon]

It's not really weird. It's just boring. You'd think they'd get sick of wearing the same thing, day after day after day after month after year... It really makes you question how often they change their underwear.

[Hukari]

Now, going by what I've said above, I'd be fine if non-interactive NPC's were limited in clothing options. If, for example, the random guards standing at the entrance to the gates wore uniforms. But that's because we need the perception, as we cannot engage them in dialogue or other interactions to break that perception.



It is only in cases where dialogue or interaction are impossible that we need to restrict clothing options. Our companions don't fit that definition, so they should not be restricted.

[Ryzaki]

Hukari wrote...

And yet, the man in the lab coat is meant to represent a facsimile of a person for the purposes of the story. Unless he's some sort of robot, or a coat-based superhero. He has to have knowledge, experience, and personality to him regardless of what he is wearing. Otherwise he's a walking mannequin, no?

Edit: And you're right, we don't. Until we engage them in dialogue, or in actions. Perceptions fade fast, while actions are a system of permanence. Loghain in Dragon Age Origins wore armour that you picked up as random loot, and hardly had any distinguishing features. He was still General Loghain, and he had all that personality and characterization behind him; not because of his armour, but because of his knowledge, experience, and personality.

This.

And before someone tells me that was exclusive armor it looked neigh identical to massive armor that was silvery color.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 19 novembre 2010 - 08:47 .

[Maria Caliban]

Hukari wrote...

And yet, the man in the lab coat is meant to represent a facsimile of a person for the purposes of the story. Unless he's some sort of robot, or a coat-based superhero. He has to have knowledge, experience, and personality to him regardless of what he is wearing. Otherwise he's a walking mannequin, no?

He has whatever knowledge the reader/view perceives him as having. However, the knowledge and experience of 'older man' is not the same knowledge and experience of 'scientist.' Nor is the character of 'older man' the same as the character of 'scientist' even if scientists are usually portrayed as older men.

ViSeirA wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

So...the lab coat guy loses his knowledge, experiences and personality because his clothes changed?

Yes, because it never really existed. Only the expression of it did.

Huh. Strange that. I wore a dress yesterday and wasn't more feminine than I was wearing jeans. Guess I'm a freak.

No, you are a person. You exist. You have knowledge, experience, and personality. The man in the lab coat has none.

That's where you're wrong though, in that context he does have each and every one of those.... the whole it never really existed argument negates what you said about visual expression in the first place.

Characters do not exist save as expressions. What they are expressed as is what they are. Visual appearance is one form of expression. I also gave an example of musical expression. There are dozens of ways to express specific aspects of character.

If I say 'Jill is a scientist' I have expressed one thing. If I turn around and *instead* say 'Henry is a scientist' then I've expressed something else.

In one case, the character is female and in another the character is male. Their gender does not exist save as how I express it.

Likewise, I could say 'Jill is a scientist' or I might alternatively say 'Jill is a police officer.' The character's knowledge and experience changes because I've expressed something different and the reader understands that the knowledge and experience of a scientist is not exactly the same as that of a cop.

Now, can both Jill the scientist and Jill the police officer drive a car? Very likely. That's because a modern adult is assumed to have that skill. If I say 'Jill is a city guard in Kirkwall' the assumption of car driving skills will probably not be there.

Insofar as a character exists, it exists as expression and perception.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 19 novembre 2010 - 08:59 .

[AntiChri5]

Miranda isn't a femme fatale at all though. Not in the least bit. She look like something that isn't in character at all. She's shown to be an extremely practical woman. And yet she prances around in battle in a skintight suit and heels?

In the artbook that came with the ME 2 Collectors Edition it shows several outfits they considered and points to the last one as being chosen as it best suits her femme fatale persona.

[Ryzaki]

AntiChri5 wrote...

Miranda isn't a femme fatale at all though. Not in the least bit. She look like something that isn't in character at all. She's shown to be an extremely practical woman. And yet she prances around in battle in a skintight suit and heels?

In the artbook that came with the ME 2 Collectors Edition it shows several outfits they considered and points to the last one as being chosen as it best suits her femme fatale persona.

Point to anywhere anywhere in game Miranda acts like a femme fatale.

Honestly I had this debate in the Miranda forums. Seriously. Just give me one moment she acts anything remotely like a femme fatale. I'll wait.

Miranda acts nothing like a femme fatale other than the devs say so. If not for that book no one would even think she was one.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 19 novembre 2010 - 08:51 .

[ProfessionalPirate]

Ryzaki wrote...

ProfessionalPirate wrote...

Ya, his personality remains, but if you put him in a pirate outfit, your perception of him will change. You don't look at someone wearing colorful, and flamboyant jackets and thin "ohhh look, he's clearly a mad scientest"

Only if I'm looking at a context less picture. If it was something in motion and guy wearing colorful flamboyant jackets looks uncomfortable or out of place in it (simply by body language) I can infer that he might actually not be a pirate. Context is everything.

If he was simply in a pirate outfit I'd think he was a really odd pirate (what kind of pirate is old, wears glasses and has wild grey hair anyways). I'd no nothing more about him than that guess.

So unless DA2 is going to leave me completely empty on the context of characters their outfits shouldn't matter.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That is a good point, but I think, and this is just my opinion and I realize you have your own, that looks DO help to define a character, which is why actors have defining outfits of whom they are portrying. and yes they do change thier outfits (depending on the movie) but the 'core' look remains

Modifié par ProfessionalPirate, 19 novembre 2010 - 08:50 .

[Ryzaki]

ProfessionalPirate wrote...


That is a good point, but I think, and this is just my opinion and I realize you have your own, that looks DO help to define a character, which is why actors have defining outfits of whom they are portrying. and yes they do change thier outfits (depending on the movie) but the 'core' look remains

And I disagree. I find Basch and Gabranth to be extremely different people despite the fact that they're twins and look exactly the same. Going as far as to wear neigh identical armor.

Yet no one who played FF12 would tell you the two of them were extremely similar.

That said you can't really debate personal opinion now can you.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 19 novembre 2010 - 08:53 .

[Hukari]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Hukari wrote...

And yet, the man in the lab coat is meant to represent a facsimile of a person for the purposes of the story. Unless he's some sort of robot, or a coat-based superhero. He has to have knowledge, experience, and personality to him regardless of what he is wearing. Otherwise he's a walking mannequin, no?

He has whatever knowledge the reader/view perceives him as having. However, the knowledge and experience of 'older man' is not the same knowledge and experience of 'scientist.' Nor is the character of 'older man' the same as the character of 'scientist' even if scientists are usually portrayed as older men.

Not necessarily. He has whatever knowledge the -author- says they have. I said above, perceptions are a frail and transient thing. Our first impressions hardly define who a character is; are we to presume that everyone in armour is an adventurer, or everyone that wears cloth is a mage? No, they each are their characters. They might be wearing armour because they're afraid of bandits. They might wear robes because they like the feel of them. Those are all opinions born of experience and personality.

To make good characters (or, at least, logically consistent and believable), you need to add all the elements that make a human. He needs to have hopes, dreams, a history, and a present that defines who they are; not their elements of clothing. What does that say for costume parties, as well? Supposed the mad scientist dresses up as a pirate. Does that make him any less of a mad scientist, due to his history, actions, and beliefs?

[ViSeiRa]

Ryzaki wrote...

AntiChri5 wrote...

Miranda isn't a femme fatale at all though. Not in the least bit. She look like something that isn't in character at all. She's shown to be an extremely practical woman. And yet she prances around in battle in a skintight suit and heels?

In the artbook that came with the ME 2 Collectors Edition it shows several outfits they considered and points to the last one as being chosen as it best suits her femme fatale persona.

Point to anywhere anywhere in game Miranda acts like a femme fatale.

Honestly I had this debate in the Miranda forums. Seriously. Just give me one moment she acts anything remotely like a femme fatale. I'll wait.

Miranda acts nothing like a femme fatale other than the devs say so. If not for that book no one would even think she was one.

Most people around here don't even understand what a Female Fatale is, it all comes down to one word actually, a seductress, you never see Miranda do anything even remotely close to seduction!

[Aermas]

 Doc Brown is still Doc Brown, even in cowboy clothes


Great Scott! This is heavy!

Modifié par Aermas, 19 novembre 2010 - 08:58 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

Utilizing distinctive costumes to emphasize various aspects of a character's personality is a common technique in visual arts.

[Ryzaki]

ViSeirA wrote...

Most people around here don't even understand what a Female Fatale is, it all comes down to one word actually, a seductress, you never see Miranda do anything even remotely close to seduction!

She really doesn't. Heck she even tells the male character to back off for a moment instead of trying to get him closer!

[Sir JK]

I just wish to adress the original question (if it's odd not to change clothes in ten years) with a counter-question:

How many people significantly change their clothing-style in 10 years time (other than in special occasions) in modern times?

I admit to be fairly young, but personally my clothing style have not changed much the last 10 years. I used to be dressed in t-shirt and jeans, and sweaters if it was cold out. The t-shirts adorned with a motif and the name of places I've been to. The only real change now is that I wear cargo-pants instead of jeans. While I have many different T-shirts, trousers and socks, no matter which ones I wear or what combination I look fairly uniform. In "game terms": At best all my outfits would qualify as recolours of the same base outfit. The style is the same.

That's part one of why I don't think it's particulary odd that they're wearing the same outfit for 10 years. It's a style they are comfortable with and barring any major changes in their lives, why change it (Yes, I'm aware the analogy is not perfect. I'll discuss that further down)?



The second thing is a tie in and yet not. All of us can easily change clothes, because in the modern era clothes are fairly cheap. But in any pre-industrial era clothes were a significant investment. A close analogy would probably be a good top-of-the-line computer in terms of price.

How many sets of clothes would you have if each set costed ~1000+ dollars? That's why people in the pre-industrial era only got new clothes if they absolutely had to. Why they opted to repair the same outfit over and over again. Because they had to save money for years to be able to afford a new full set of clothes (or even a partial set).

With that in mind, sticking to the same set of clothes for ten years is probably a very common thing.



So, my argument is that most peopler have a few styles they clothe in and many different sets in each style. In a pre-industrial setting, like DA is, clothes are expensive so they'll have as many as they need but no more than that. Naturally the logical argument would be why they don't have a few styles then? Here we hit the resource issue. Sure, they could have but the time and money have to come from somewhere. Perhaps we'll see it one day (let's hope so).



A summary: No, it's not so strange that they have a very limited set of clothes given that in a setting without machines and factories clothes are really expensive products. People wouldn't change or get new ones any more than we get new computers or refrigerators.

[Hukari]

In visual arts, perhaps. But video games are a combination of visual, literary, and participatory. And the above Doc Brown picture emphasizes the point perfectly; even in cowboy clothes, it's still Doc Brown and Marty McFly.

Edit: And to the above post, you make a good comment about the scarcity of the clothing around the point. Yet, we've already established that cloth is a relatively cheap thing (judging by what vendors will take for clothing, even magical ones). Not to mention, if need be, they could always do what everyone has done throughout history; steal 'em from a corpse.

Modifié par Hukari, 19 novembre 2010 - 09:00 .

[ProfessionalPirate]

Ryzaki wrote...

ProfessionalPirate wrote...


That is a good point, but I think, and this is just my opinion and I realize you have your own, that looks DO help to define a character, which is why actors have defining outfits of whom they are portrying. and yes they do change thier outfits (depending on the movie) but the 'core' look remains

And I disagree. I find Basch and Gabranth to be extremely different people despite the fact that they're twins and look exactly the same. Going as far as to wear neigh identical armor.

Yet no one who played FF12 would tell you the two of them were extremely similar.

they were different in many ways, yes, and they were both very loyal to thier contries of choice, but through the whole game I thought that Gabranth was far mor evil and sinister than he turned out to be because he looked like an evil judge, bent on crushing the little people, only later do we learn that he was just doing what he thought best for his country.

Unless I mistook your post, I am a little sleep deprived, fighting Loghain and typing all at the same time, so sorry if I misundrstood
well I COULD argue personal opionion but they 'twould be bitter words of untruth in my mouth, so I won't

Modifié par ProfessionalPirate, 19 novembre 2010 - 09:03 .

[Lukas Kristjanson]

Ryzaki wrote...
And I disagree. I find Basch and Gabranth to be extremely different people despite the fact that they're twins and look exactly the same. Going as far as to wear neigh identical armor.

Yet no one who played FF12 would tell you the two of them were extremely similar.

That said you can't really debate personal opinion now can you.

You have a unique forum avatar. Why? Why not swap it for a fat dwarf? Or did you choose it because it says something about your tastes? Even if you didn’t, it does. All of our characters are designed to support who they are in every aspect, and appearance is a huge one. All media does that, whether you acknowledge it or not. It’s why there’s an Oscar for costuming. It’s not for the skill of construction, it’s for designs that reinforce the setting and the nature of the characters. It just isn’t wise to present your characters in costumes that are against type unless you want to reveal that the characters themselves are against type. You're fighting with the audience's assumptions.

But “better” is of course subjective. There are reasons and tradeoffs, just as there were for the way we did it in Origins. There's less customization, yes, but there is still upgrading that can be done, including numerous options that are non-visual. Some of the change is subtle, yeah, but in exchange we get some back-end technical stuff (better left to someone else) including better performance, more intuitive appearance during action, and from my main area of concern, more consistency of character. Not that it was my call, but just so you know where I’m coming from, I was one of those players who left Morrigan in her base outfit because it just looked wrong to put her in Wynne’s granny robes, stats be damned. I also made some strategic equipment omissions when writing Leliana’s Song in order to reinforce the tone of that adventure. Because arguments can indeed be made that deep in our souls we are each unique and clothes don’t matter, but judgments are made on appearance all the time, good and bad, and this becomes an especially important consideration when you are trying to communicate in a limited medium. We have choices to make, and we're choosing to see them as opportunities that can support the setting.

Besides, as far as I’m concerned, no one gets away with the “it’s unrealistic no one changes clothes” argument unless they want to confront the horrible realities of full plate and the fact that medieval knights couldn’t just plop it into inventory when they wanted to go to the bathroom. Imagine your party after a single day walking around in armour, the smell, just... wafting across the camp, with its little communal washbasin, while Leliana tries to sing.

Modifié par Lukas Kristjanson, 19 novembre 2010 - 09:02 .

[Aermas]

Sir JK, The hero in every game gains exorbitant amounts of money during play, if they only had one outfit like they are likely to have, then they would be screaming for new thread once they could afford it.

[Ryzaki]

Lukas Kristjanson wrote...
You have a unique forum avatar. Why? Why not swap it for a fat dwarf? Or did you choose it because it says something about your tastes? Even if you didn’t, it does. All of our characters are designed to support who they are in every aspect, and appearance is a huge one. All media does that, whether you acknowledge it or not. It’s why there’s an Oscar for costuming. It’s not for the skill of construction, it’s for designs that reinforce the setting and the nature of the characters. It just isn’t wise to present your characters in costumes that are against type unless you want to reveal that the characters themselves are against type. You're fighting with the audience's assumptions.

True all media does do that. DAO did that. The difference was with DAO it wasn't forced on me. Which was nice.

But “better” is of course subjective. There are reasons and tradeoffs, just as there were for the way we did it in Origins. There's less customization, yes, but there is still upgrading that can be done, including numerous options that are non-visual. Some of the change is subtle, yeah, but in exchange we get some back-end technical stuff (better left to someone else) including better performance, more intuitive appearance during action, and from my main area of concern, more consistency of character. Not that it was my call, but just so you know where I’m coming from, I was one of those players who left Morrigan in her base outfit because it just looked wrong to put her in Wynne’s granny robes, stats be damned. I also made some strategic equipment omissions when writing Leliana’s Song in order to reinforce the tone of that adventure. Because arguments can indeed be made that deep in our souls we are each unique and clothes don’t matter, but judgments are made on appearance all the time, good and bad, and this becomes an especially important consideration when you are trying to communicate in a limited medium. We have choices to make, and we're choosing to see them as opportunities that can support the setting.

Yes I see that you think it was better. I personally don't feel that way. Though better animations would be a nice thing to see. I had to get irritated when with unique character models and all that ME2 models still kept clipping. AT that point I felt there was no excuse. I didn't play Leliana's songs and true I get the whole "appearences matter" my point is the dialogue and character interaction should make it so they don't matter as much. With ME2 I didn't understand why half the characters were wearing their outfits after I got to know them. (Miranda is a special offender). Unique outfits mean little if they go against common sense.

Besides, as far as I’m concerned, no one gets away with the “it’s unrealistic no one changes clothes” argument unless they want to confront the horrible realities of full plate and the fact that medieval knights couldn’t just plop it into inventory when they wanted to go to the bathroom. Imagine your party after a single day walking around in armour, the smell, just... wafting across the camp, with its little communal washbasin, while Leliana tries to sing.

I have a unique avatar because I wanted a shirtless guy. And Godchild happens to be my favorite manga. So yes it was shallow but I didn't do it to be "unique". That said it is due to taste.

Actually don't they mention the smell in game anyways? Besides one can pretend all of that is dealt with off screen (you are traveling for years after all) meanwhile someone wearing the same outfit for 10 years in my opinion is pretty darn jarring. It's selective unrealism. It's easier to believe the clothes changing, washing and bathing goes on off screen than someone happens to have a hundred copies of the exact same outfit. (Though in L from Death Note's case this is a hilarious part of his character).

That's just my opinion though.

That said I understand where you're coming from. I just don't agree with it. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 19 novembre 2010 - 09:14 .

[Aermas]

Lukas Kristjanson wrote...

Besides, as far as I’m concerned, no one gets away with the “it’s unrealistic no one changes clothes” argument unless they want to confront the horrible realities of full plate and the fact that medieval knights couldn’t just plop it into inventory when they wanted to go to the bathroom. Imagine your party after a single day walking around in armour, the smell, just... wafting across the camp, with its little communal washbasin, while Leliana tries to sing.

Umm, not to spoil anything but knights would not wear their plate everywhere, it was reckless to do so & uncomfortable to wear in the sun. They would still wear their padded gamesons & some chainmail if they could afford it.

[Hukari]

Hm. A very good point made, Mr. Kristjanson. If I may riposte somewhat?



First, let me point out; I'm not arguing that costume isn't relevant to the character at all. I'm arguing that it should reflect the character as it grows and is molded. Just as we mold their personalities, we also mold their fashion. At the end of Dragon Age: Origins, Leliana went from a chantry monk to a master assassin in some games. Should she have remained in her Lothering robes regardless?



And what of distinct class specializations. What of making Morrigan an Arcane Warrior? Should she still look like a Swamp Witch, even though her character has grown and developed into this ancient profession? Should she refuse the benefits of that, simply due to the fact that she was characterized at the beginning as a 'swamp witch'? And yet, she grew to be so much more.



I argue that costume isn't the emphasis of the character; it helps, most certainly, but it tends to reflect changes in the character themselves. We as humans judge far more on actions than appearances once we've subconsciously agreed not to hit them on the head with a rock for being outside our tribe. Again, Loghain is a great example; he wore perhaps the most bog-standard armor in the game, yet his personality shone through regardless of what he was wearing. He could have worn simple chainmail, and he still would have had the commanding presence of a general.



Perhaps unlimited freedom is unwise; I will grant you that. But isn't that what armor classes are for? Leliana wouldn't wear platemail unless she became some sort of Chevalier, and thus she is restricted to wearing leather; the stuff that suits her best. Why restrict it further, into "She must wear only this leather armor"?



Either way, however, I would like to say one thing: Thank you for at least joining in on the debate, Mr. Kristjanson. I am looking forward to hearing some more of your opinions, should you choose to respond, and hope that my fellow forumites keep the tone respectful and civil.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Hukari wrote...

In visual arts, perhaps. But video games are a combination of visual, literary, and participatory. And the above Doc Brown picture emphasizes the point perfectly; even in cowboy clothes, it's still Doc Brown and Marty McFly.

Remember he started out with doc clothes, though. The movie made its point, used the element when introducing Brown. The cowboy attire came in the third movie, long after his character was established.

[Aermas]

So why can't we gently mold the companions into other armors?