165 réponses à ce sujet

[KJandrew]

Aermas wrote...

 This,
http://t0.gstatic.co...n4Nbg6fjaGIymLg

Does not equal this,
http://t0.gstatic.co...0pXHjGTT4fGeOyw

But this 
http://t0.gstatic.co...urCL7Rug0Ujfa71
Trumps all

Modifié par KJandrew, 21 novembre 2010 - 12:48 .

[Ryzaki]

You know...the funny thing is that if the unique companion outfits were unique armors that were restricted to just them I might not care about it so much. Instead of what we seem to be getting *looks at Isabela's outfit sighs while shaking her head* 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 21 novembre 2010 - 12:48 .

[Jarek_Cousland]

Ryzaki wrote...

You know...the funny thing is that if the unique companion outfits were unique armors that were restricted to just them I might not care about it so much. Instead of what we seem to be getting *looks at Isabela's outfit sighs while shaking her head* 

Uhhh...


Ok I'm sorry but you just confused me, you like more combat efficent clothing or no?


:blink::blink::blink:

[Ryzaki]

Jarek_Cousland wrote...

Uhhh...


Ok I'm sorry but you just confused me, you like more combat efficent clothing or no?


:blink::blink::blink:

How is Isabela's outfit combat efficent? 

She's wearing a loose scarf and head...scarf. -Can be grabbed at by her opponent or catch onto something if she's not fighting in an open area.

She has a sizable amount of gold on her neck- Weighs her down.

Her body isn't completely covered by anything more protective by clothes - If she ends up being fired at (by arrows) or manages to fail to dodge a blow she's gonna get hit hard. Particulary if the blow ends up landing on her vulnerable and exposed thighs, or legs. Her chest has a giant "Aim here" sign due to having nothing more protective than that skintight shirt. Her legs aren't protected by anything other than those boots and they don't protect her inner tighs.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 21 novembre 2010 - 01:03 .

[ErichHartmann]

I scoff at combat efficient/utilitarian looking gear in games. I prefer to fight in style.

[Xewaka]

Jarek_Cousland wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

You know...the funny thing is that if the unique companion outfits were unique armors that were restricted to just them I might not care about it so much. Instead of what we seem to be getting *looks at Isabela's outfit sighs while shaking her head* 

Uhhh...

Ok I'm sorry but you just confused me, you like more combat efficent clothing or no?

:blink::blink::blink:

So far, we have seen no companions in combat efficient clothing (Read armor). That's what he's complaining about.
If Isabela wore at least a leather cuirass to cover her chest and abdomen, I'd be satisfied. Varric could have his leather coat padded underneath. I'd also like to see a companion wearing an armor similar (in coverage and apparent sturdiness) to the one Cassandra wears.

ErichHartmann wrote...

I scoff at combat efficient/utilitarian looking gear in games. I prefer to fight in style.

Utilitarian combat gear looks stylish, if done properly.

I mean, look at this:



Full body protection and it looks freakin' sweet.

Modifié par Xewaka, 21 novembre 2010 - 01:02 .

[Ryzaki]

But...I was saying we weren't getting combat efficient outfits. D:

Is my post that confusing?

Also massive armor can look beautiful. The Grey Warden Runic Armor on DANexus is a great example.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 21 novembre 2010 - 01:04 .

[Jarek_Cousland]

Ryzaki wrote...

How is Isabela's outfit combat efficent? 

In terms of reality it isnt, well part of it is as it would allow her a very free range of movement save she doesnt get hit which would make it not efficent.


However since this is a video game and not reality it'll be as efficent as the programmers make it I guess.


Anyways you answered my question. And even though I tried to answer yours I'm sure it'll just lead to another as this is the way the world turns.


"Who created us?: God. Who/what created God?: Alan Rickman. Who created Alan Rickman?: a combination of Liam Neeson and Sean Bean's falcon punches colliding, causing the Big Bang time infinity."


That was a dangerously insane example.

[Ryzaki]

That gold around her neck kind of dampers that freedom of movement by needlessly slowing her down as does that cloth flapping in the wind give her enemies a giant. "oooh pick me!" option. 

I'd buy the "for dodging" if her hair was short, she didn't wear that scarf or jewelrey. As she does...

Modifié par Ryzaki, 21 novembre 2010 - 01:08 .

[Jarek_Cousland]

Ryzaki wrote...

That gold around her neck kind of dampers that freedom of movement by needlessly slowing her down as does that cloth flapping in the wind give her enemies a giant. "oooh pick me!" option. 

I'd buy the "for dodging" if her hair was short, she didn't wear that scarf or jewelrey. As she does...

True, but if an arrow or sword comes happens to come anywhere near her neck they'll bein for a rude awakening.


And everybody knows that any kind of Scarf, cape, excess cloth hanging off clothing or armor immediatly equals cool.


Shinobi proved this to us years ago on the PS2



But like I said, its a video game. We dont need exact realism, unless well it was a sim...Or real...

[TJPags]

IS realism in a game a good thing? Or is it bad? Or does it depend?



Me, I hate that fact that something that's basically a shirt can somehow give you armor points. That shirt isn't gone to do anything to stop a sword or a mace.



There should be some kind of tradeoff, IMO. You get protection, or you don't.



However, that's not to say armor needs to be plain and dull . . .fancy looking armor is okay with me, so long as it's special - run of the mill chainmail shouldn't look fancy.

[Ryzaki]

If someone's firing an arrow at her they're going to be at a distance and she's going to have to either throw one of her daggers (which would be foolish if she had melee attackers and I can't find one incident in origins where archers were by themselves) or chase them down while all the while they're firing arrows.



It's foolish. Maybe if she had a shield or something I could buy it but she duel wields.

[Jarek_Cousland]

TJPags wrote...

IS realism in a game a good thing? Or is it bad? Or does it depend?

Me, I hate that fact that something that's basically a shirt can somehow give you armor points. That shirt isn't gone to do anything to stop a sword or a mace.

There should be some kind of tradeoff, IMO. You get protection, or you don't.

However, that's not to say armor needs to be plain and dull . . .fancy looking armor is okay with me, so long as it's special - run of the mill chainmail shouldn't look fancy.

Right, if we get super cool armor in the game I could go without "armored" (notice the quotations I dont really mean armored clothing, just clothing that gives some kind of protection for other than mages.) Clothing.


Its not like I'm demanding it like some of the other more "agressive" posters on this form who scream "CAN HAZ OLD COMBT!!!!!1111  >:OOO"


If we have super awesome armors for all classes Mage, Rogue, and warrior. Where as in Origins Warriors got the coolest looking armor where the mage robes were drab and the leather armor was boring, if we're gonna be one of the most important people in Thedas I think its reasonable to want to look like it.

[SirOccam]

TJPags wrote...

IS realism in a game a good thing? Or is it bad? Or does it depend?

Me, I hate that fact that something that's basically a shirt can somehow give you armor points. That shirt isn't gone to do anything to stop a sword or a mace.

There should be some kind of tradeoff, IMO. You get protection, or you don't.

However, that's not to say armor needs to be plain and dull . . .fancy looking armor is okay with me, so long as it's special - run of the mill chainmail shouldn't look fancy.

Depends. Definitely depends. Realism isn't always good.

For example, I love that I don't have to make my Warden eat every few hours, or keep stocking up on basic arrows. Adding those things in would make the game more realistic, but it would also make the game less fun, in my opinion.

Along those same lines, I get that full plate should be more protective than regular clothing, but I don't want all my characters to be wearing full plate all the time. Not only is that unrealistic (in terms of both comfort and finances), but more importantly it just punishes you for wanting to look good while doing good, which honestly should be an inalienable right in my books. Even for just "tanks"...I'd rather have them wear something like the image of Jaime Lannister I posted on the last page. He's not covered head-to-toe in plate, but it looks plenty protective enough, but still relatively comfortable and aesthetically pleasing.

For another example, look at the stuff the Fellowship of the Ring wears near the end of that movie. None of them is in full plate but they get by just fine.

I don't know if I'd necessarily want trousers and a tunic to be as protective as full plate, but as long as lighter armors are protective enough that the game doesn't become ridiculously hard, then my hope is that maybe at the easier difficulty levels it'll not be such a big deal to wear something lighter. Then everyone can be satisfied.

[mokponobi]

My thought is that by making companion armor static and unchangeable, they bypass the need to make armor models for elves and dwarfs and just make them for human male/female (main char). Leaving more time to work on cool stuff (i hope).

[Xewaka]

SirOccam wrote...

I don't know if I'd necessarily want trousers and a tunic to be as protective as full plate, but as long as lighter armors are protective enough that the game doesn't become ridiculously hard, then my hope is that maybe at the easier difficulty levels it'll not be such a big deal to wear something lighter. Then everyone can be satisfied.

There is a difference between light armor and clothing. For nimble melee characters, I don't mind the first, but I can't stand the second. Clothing on mages works because of ingrained expectations (caster tunics); but for me, it doesn't work on rogues (who yes, need freedom of movement and rely a lot on avoidance; yet they still equip leather or lighter chain shirts to retain a contingency layer of protection).
We have been shown two warrior npcs. Neither used armor expected of them, but since they were refugees on the run, we can accept it. If they were to survive and kept fighting armorless after the first timeskip, it would be an even bigger strain on believability.

[GodWood]

Ryzaki wrote...
You know...the funny thing is that if the unique companion outfits were unique armors that were restricted to just them I might not care about it so much. Instead of what we seem to be getting *looks at Isabela's outfit sighs while shaking her head* 

Very much this.
I'd accept restricted outfits much easier if it was armour the companions were wearing.

[Sir JK]

Here's a question to everyone who advocate that there should be less clothing and more armour on the rogue (note: I don't disagree entirely): Why is it acceptable for a mage to wear a robe but not acceptable for a rogue to wear clothing?



I'm not talking about in non-combat situations like in a circle tower mind, but when travelling. Why is the heavy billowing robe (the very definition of obstructive clothing) acceptable for them. They will after all be exposed to just as much combat as the rogue will be. Their powers will mark them as a target for all their opponents. So if on the road and expecting combat, why is acceptable for them not to be as heavily armoured as the rogues are expected to be?



Similarly the two rogues we have been presented, Isabela and Varric, are very specific individuals. The former is a sailor and duelist of the less than savoury nature. The latter a spy and administrator. Just like the scholar approach of mages, these are not combatative professions. The latter fights with information, deceit and intimidation. The former fights either from the shadows or when certain rules have been put down.

Neither can be expected to be found on the rule-less battlefields. Armour is worn to protect the wearers from what cannot be otherwise shielded against, such as missiles. The spy and the duelist are both professions very unlikely to be confronted with that situation. Just like scholars.

So again... why are we expecting spies and duelists to armour themselves but not the scholars. They are facing the exact same dangers after all?



Just food for thought and debate.

[Hagspawn]

I think it would of been easier for people to believe if she had more flesh covered up - too much arm and leg exposed (I love how she looks but sadly you wouldn't want to bring her to a sword fight with out a jumbo pack of bandaids)
I would of liked to of seen leather pants ect not just a shirt dress held together with a sash..like maybe more traditional rogue like garb that is heavily influenced by pirate movie garb (well as traditional as it gets for old school RPG). It's kinda like riding a motorcycle for me, nylons are good for dirt bikes when you hit dirt and grass but you want to be wearing leathers if you take a tar dive on a road. You don't have to have the character looking like a tincan but something more than a tissue would be nice too

Sir JK - I expect my mage to have a bloody good magical shield up, that's why  
But honestly I did think the same about mages but thing is, in orgins you could change your NPC's armor anyway so it's not an issue there as much.

Modifié par HagSpawn, 21 novembre 2010 - 11:07 .

[Sir JK]

HagSpawn wrote...
Sir JK - I expect my mage to have a bloody good magical shield up, that's why  
But honestly I did think the same about mages but thing is, in orgins you could change your NPC's armor anyway so it's not an issue there as much.

Which warrants the counter-question:

Then why can this not be the case with Isabella or Varric (admittedly much more difficult to explain if there is no mage in the party). They're not soldiers nor adventurers when you're not around, just like mages wouldn't be, so why can it not be so simple that if put in a situation where armour is needed the party mage will extend some of his/her shield to them?

Or conversely, if the party has a mage and that shield is deemed insufficient, why is the party mage not wearing armour?

[Hagspawn]

Or they could cut the crap and give a few types of armor that suits the situation and I have been known to stick my mages in light armor so for me it's a bit of a no argument *shrugs* but I am sure there is others here that can debate this one better if they only use cloth for their mages.

Also another point is we don't know what our mages get in DA2. It appears that Hawke is throwing spells ect in armor but I'm not sure if that is due to what type (arcane warrior ect) but on that note again I don't play arcane warriors and will still stick a mage in a rogue armor.

[Xewaka]

Sir JK wrote...

HagSpawn wrote...
Sir JK - I expect my mage to have a bloody good magical shield up, that's why  
But honestly I did think the same about mages but thing is, in orgins you could change your NPC's armor anyway so it's not an issue there as much.

Which warrants the counter-question:

Then why can this not be the case with Isabella or Varric (admittedly much more difficult to explain if there is no mage in the party). They're not soldiers nor adventurers when you're not around, just like mages wouldn't be, so why can it not be so simple that if put in a situation where armour is needed the party mage will extend some of his/her shield to them?

Or conversely, if the party has a mage and that shield is deemed insufficient, why is the party mage not wearing armour?

For the sake of this debate, we'll leave out the Arcane Warrior specialization (that let's mages wear massive armor without penalties, and which I believe defeats the point). I'll also leave mechanical consideration (such as "removing the glass from the glass cannon supposes a redressing of cross-class balance). Isabela is a duelist: that means she wade into melee. Yes, she'll attack from the shadows and use every dirty trick in her repertoire to make the fight one-sided. Yet, the fact that she's wading into melee means she'll be much more exposed to slashing and bludgeoning, and without protective gear, a stray blow will turn into an incapacitating blow. I'm not asking for her to have full plate armor. I'm asking for her to cover the chest, groin, and neck.
Mages, apart from lacking training and proficiency in armor, are usually removed enough from melee combat (ideally, at least), that cover becomes more useful than armor for them, as usually projectile weapons are piercing and thus have an easier time puncturing trough armor. Even then, you might have noticed that Bethany wears a chainmal apron. Its real usefulness can be argued (it still leaves the chest and neck exposed, and chainmail works against slashing and bludgeoning, not piercing) but at least she's trying. Same could go for Varric: he engages at a distance, where cover becomes more important that armor.
Now, you could argue that no character makes use of cover in the game, and I'd agree, but that's another debate.

Modifié par Xewaka, 21 novembre 2010 - 11:58 .

[Seagloom]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Jarek_Cousland wrote...

Its not a big deal though, I'd just like to be a sword dancing Rogue coupled with some snazzy duds.

I completely agree.  My favorite thing to do with the crafting system in Neverwinter Nights 2 was to take a suit of clothing and turn it into some totally badass armor so I could run around all the time wearing (basically) my pyjamas.  (I loved the fact that you could name crafted items in that game--I actually named the main set of armor I made for my swashbuckler/duelist/weaponmaster Cat "The Cat's Pyjamas").  ANYWAY.

I would love for my mage and rogue to run around the Free Marches in sweatpants and a t-shirt.  (Or the equivalent.)

That. Well, not the pyjama part per say; funny as that was. I loved this about Neverwinter Nights 2 as well. I can definitely sympathize with rogues wanting this, but as a frequent mage player I would like some variety too. One thing I infrequently find in games are mage outfits that are casual. A pair of trousers, a shirt, some sturdy leather boots and maybe a matching pair of gloves. In other words, an outfit that does not scream "mage here!" Conversely, there is usually a lack of fancy clothes. Just once I would like the option of a dress or perhaps an appropriately long skirt with a shirt. Often mage robes are the fanciest thing around and that gets really old. In a game with a focus on style over realism like "Dragon Age 2" and probably subsequent "Dragon Age" titles, I want the option to be stylish too. Why should my meat puppets party members get to wear all the fun stuff?

Modifié par Seagloom, 22 novembre 2010 - 03:27 .

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

I think what Isabella is wearing is very befitting of a duellist/swashbuckler.

That is when I think of all the old swashbuckler/pirate style stories I've read about in books and seen in TV shows and movies.

To the point that I find it laughable actually that some people think she should be wearing more armor.

I agree with what some other folk have said and hope that Hawke can maybe wear a 'chest/legs' piece of armor that is basically just a leather waistcoat with cloth shirt underneath and has cloth leggings. Something similar to what Ezio wears in Assassins Creed 2. Am not saying ditch the full on leather outfit, that should definitly still be there but it would be nice to have a more 'varied' look than there was in DAO.

[Aermas]

GodWood wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
You know...the funny thing is that if the unique companion outfits were unique armors that were restricted to just them I might not care about it so much. Instead of what we seem to be getting *looks at Isabela's outfit sighs while shaking her head* 

Very much this.
I'd accept restricted outfits much easier if it was armour the companions were wearing.

This. Armor is believable, clothing is not, unique armor is okay, only wearing clothing is not

& as a side note, I don't like when people equate that not wanting clothing implies that we want to put rogues in plate. That is just asinine. Or that I am against unique looks.