934 réponses à ce sujet

[David Gaider]

Nerevar-as wrote...
It wouldn´t be that bad if this had started on Origins. It didn´t, and no matter how much BW seem to make less of that game (at least I´m getting that impression), the setting is established with warriors using armors.

How the armor looks in the game is an issue of style, and is changing along with many other things. We're not making less of DAO, but we are indeed changing our approach with regards to presentation. Either you're willing to give it a chance or you're not-- deal with it or move on.

[Xewaka]

David Gaider wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...
It wouldn´t be that bad if this had started on Origins. It didn´t, and no matter how much BW seem to make less of that game (at least I´m getting that impression), the setting is established with warriors using armors.

How the armor looks in the game is an issue of style, and is changing along with many other things. We're not making less of DAO, but we are indeed changing our approach with regards to presentation. Either you're willing to give it a chance or you're not-- deal with it or move on.

However, for internal consistency of the setting, some things should be expected to remain if not visually, at least materially the same. I mean, there's no problem with redesigning the armors, but the coming and going of it depending on which fancy strikes the artists seems a little... well, inconsistent. I wouldn't mind if the different kinds of armor get a facelift. I do mind that armor comes and goes between the same archetype depending on wether it suits the artist to put it or not.

(I understand the circunstances on Aveline's outfit at the beginning of the game. I don't understand the outfit of Isabela on the game, specially since she's already been shown wearing leather armor).

[Johnny Chaos]

Isabela has boobs of steel, forrealz

[AlexXIV]

Xewaka wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...
It wouldn´t be that bad if this had started on Origins. It didn´t, and no matter how much BW seem to make less of that game (at least I´m getting that impression), the setting is established with warriors using armors.

How the armor looks in the game is an issue of style, and is changing along with many other things. We're not making less of DAO, but we are indeed changing our approach with regards to presentation. Either you're willing to give it a chance or you're not-- deal with it or move on.

However, for internal consistency of the setting, some things should be expected to remain if not visually, at least materially the same. I mean, there's no problem with redesigning the armors, but the coming and going of it depending on which fancy strikes the artists seems a little... well, inconsistent. I wouldn't mind if the different kinds of armor get a facelift. I do mind that armor comes and goes between the same archetype depending on wether it suits the artist to put it or not.

(I understand the circunstances on Aveline's outfit at the beginning of the game. I don't understand the outfit of Isabela on the game, specially since she's already been shown wearing leather armor).

You mean that it is ok for you that they redesign armor as long as they don't change anything. It may be a strange concept to people around here, but sometimes some people change clothes. That's no joke, they really do. I also find that quite annoying because I identify them by their clothes and when they change them I'm getting all confused.

As David and other people in this thread said, why don't you stop making up reasons why it is bad instead of just saying 'I don't like it'. That would at least be honest.

[Grand_Commander13]

Looks like Darth Gaider finds my lack of chainmail bikini love disturbing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't like it, but I'm happy to wait to see how it works before I denounce it.

If I ultimately think it's bad design, I suspect that will have more to do with our ability (or lack thereof) to control what armour stats our companions get, rather than how they look.

But if they do look silly fighting unarmoured, it will badly damage the argument BioWare has offered in favour of limiting access to dual-wield talents.

[joriandrake]

David Gaider wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...
It wouldn´t be that bad if this had started on Origins. It didn´t, and no matter how much BW seem to make less of that game (at least I´m getting that impression), the setting is established with warriors using armors.

How the armor looks in the game is an issue of style, and is changing along with many other things. We're not making less of DAO, but we are indeed changing our approach with regards to presentation. Either you're willing to give it a chance or you're not-- deal with it or move on.

I can't help it





the image just popped up in my mind about you

Modifié par joriandrake, 30 novembre 2010 - 06:51 .

[Nerevar-as]

joriandrake wrote...



the image just popped up in my mind about you

Didn´t know this one...
Unless storytelling takes a hit too, I´ll probably get the game anyway. If it does, well, for me gaming isn´t Serious Bussiness.

Isabella´s clothes were a bad surprise after a dev had said there would be no Red Sonjas. Guess he meant literally the chainmail bikini and not the fanservice over common sense in design.
Do companions get an individual body model, or does everybody still look the same neck down.? At least that would make up a bit for the fixed clothes.

[Nerevar-as]

AlexXIV wrote...

You mean that it is ok for you that they redesign armor as long as they don't change anything. It may be a strange concept to people around here, but sometimes some people change clothes. That's no joke, they really do. I also find that quite annoying because I identify them by their clothes and when they change them I'm getting all confused.

As David and other people in this thread said, why don't you stop making up reasons why it is bad instead of just saying 'I don't like it'. That would at least be honest.

Take A Game of Thrones, for example. The team changes and for A Clash of Kings now characters seem taken from the Hyborian age. Visual consistency is important to a point. IMHO, DA2 clothing doesn´t so far (I´m OK with art style, DS excluded).

[Xewaka]

AlexXIV wrote...

You mean that it is ok for you that they redesign armor as long as they don't change anything. It may be a strange concept to people around here, but sometimes some people change clothes. That's no joke, they really do. I also find that quite annoying because I identify them by their clothes and when they change them I'm getting all confused.

As David and other people in this thread said, why don't you stop making up reasons why it is bad instead of just saying 'I don't like it'. That would at least be honest.

And you know what else? When people change their clothes, they usually wear garments appropiate to the way they plan to use their time! They don't go jogging in high heels! Amazing, isn't it?
I want consistency within the setting and rules we're given. If the setting is inconsistent, it falls apart.
I expect that armors, as well as regular clothing, architecture, topology, etc... to be different from Ferelden. I also expect, given their geographical proximity and heavy trade, that they'll share some commonalities, such as having a person that has already been shown in a specific fighting gear in one place keep the same quality level of gear.

[the_one_54321]

Well the other tread got locked so....

How many different ways can you think to say "I don't like how it looks." For those that just want to be able to change their companions cloths, this is all it boils down to. You don't like how it looks. Ok, fine. We get it. You don't like the appearance. You want to change the appearance. Understood.

Choice has nothing to do with that. Choice is about dialog, story, skills, stats and PC customization. And all of those choices are still there, even for the companions. Choice has nothing to do with "what outfit should I wear today?"

[Drasanil]

the_one_54321 wrote...
 PC customization. And all of those choices are still there

Really? I wasn't aware Bioware had announced other potential PCs in addition to Hawke. Must of missed that.

[the_one_54321]

Drasanil wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
 PC customization. And all of those choices are still there

Really? I wasn't aware Bioware had announced other potential PCs in addition to Hawke. Must of missed that.

WTH are you talking about?

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Drasanil wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

 PC customization. And all of those choices are still there

Really? I wasn't aware Bioware had announced other potential PCs in addition to Hawke. Must of missed that.

WTH are you talking about?

DAO allowed us a full party of characters we controlled and could equip as we saw fit.

DA2 does not.  That's what he's talking about.

[the_one_54321]

The difference between equipment and not equipment is that you have to be able to see the change of cloths on the character in gameplay? You still have control of the equipment of the companions. They just don't change appearance.

The only thing you've lost is the ability to change their outfit. That's it.

[Ryzaki]

And that's still a choice that we lost

[tmp7704]

David Gaider wrote...

And that "sword-and-shield warrior" doesn't wear an apron and pants into every battle. We've already said she gets armour, and she does so fairly quickly. Not that I'd care if she didn't, so long as the convention was consistent within the game, but evidently you do.

That's the thing though, isn't it? Up to this point the convention in the game was very much people who fight would wear armour.

So if you change the conventions it's quite normal that will get commented on and not necessarily liked -- you admit yourself you would care if the convention was changed. Well, so do others.

[Drasanil]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Drasanil wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
 PC customization. And all of those choices are still there

Really? I wasn't aware Bioware had announced other potential PCs in addition to Hawke. Must of missed that.

WTH are you talking about?

PC customisation, naturally.

No elf or dwarf? Check!
Fixed Backround? Check!
Warriors "forgot" how to use crossbows? Check!
Mages are too feeble to pick up a sword? Check!
Rogues are allergic to axes? Check!

PC customisation?

[Ulous]

David Gaider wrote...


There's nothing wrong with saying there are some things you prefer and/or are used to, but trying to claim that something that's just a convention in some fantastical settings as more realistic than other conventions is silly

This, this and double this.


As I said earlier in the thread, people are not content with just offering up an opinion, they have to try putting weight behind the opinion with nonsense like "realism" and "simulation", even then they only use it when is suits their own personal preference.

[the_one_54321]

[cowpatties]. Changing outfits get's to be treated like a choice like choosing hair color is a choice. It's arbitrary and an issue that has no impact on the game except in your own stylistic preferences. 100% subjective and acceptable or dismissible as any other concept that exists completely in your head. It's like Darth Gaider said above, deal with it or move on.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The difference between equipment and not equipment is that you have to be able to see the change of cloths on the character in gameplay? You still have control of the equipment of the companions. They just don't change appearance. .

I don't expect to have the same ability to modify those equipment stats as we did in DAO.  I'm not saying we won't, but I don't expect.

If we can get Isabela into the statistical equivalent of massive armour, then the change becomes merely an aesthetic one.

[Maria Caliban]

haberman13 wrote...

By agreeing that RPGs don't necessarily need gear you were in fact supporting the argument that gear choice is optional, and means nothing to you.

Yes.

In other words, you don't want more choice, you are fine with whatever BW gives you. (which is OK too)

Indeed. I don't see gear as being an important part of role-playing. In fact, I worry the emphasis on gear leads to neglect of other aspects.

If the game didn't feel the need to constantly give you new armor and weapons, would the game still be 80% combat? I understand that Diablo is a fun game but it's also an outgrowth of that mentality. Why bother with story, characters, and consequences at all, if you can just shove 500 weapon variations in the player's face and have them spend all their time bashing heads in?

I don't think it's a coincidence that games like Planescape: Torment and the Witcher - which I thought were very good when it came to choices and consequences - limited the amount of 'stuff' it gave you.

I on the otherhand am arguing that BW is making a bad decision to streamline their games.

Possibly. Mass Effect never felt like a 'traditional' RPG to me. ME 2 seemed to just drop the pretense that it was just as much an RPG as other BioWare games.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 30 novembre 2010 - 07:37 .

[the_one_54321]

Drasanil wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Drasanil wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
 PC customization. And all of those choices are still there

Really? I wasn't aware Bioware had announced other potential PCs in addition to Hawke. Must of missed that.

WTH are you talking about?

PC customisation, naturally.

No elf or dwarf? Check!
Fixed Backround? Check!
Warriors "forgot" how to use crossbows? Check!
Mages are too feeble to pick up a sword? Check!
Rogues are allergic to axes? Check!

PC customisation?

Right because you can't decide anything about your character if you can't have those options available. I forgot about that rule. We all play default male Hawke. I guess I missed that one.

[Drasanil]

the_one_54321 wrote...

[cowpatties]. Changing outfits get's to be treated like a choice like choosing hair color is a choice. It's arbitrary and an issue that has no impact on the game except in your own stylistic preferences.

Then why give gender, appearace, weapon and armor options to Hawke? Or for that matter more than 3 potential followers? These could all be chalked up to "stylistic preferences".

the_one_54321 wrote...
Right because you can't decide anything about your character if you can't have those options available. I forgot about that rule. We all play default male Hawke. I guess I missed that one.

Given the "reasoning" Bioware offered up for stripping out those options, why not? If you cut the rest of the superfluous junk out they could have focussed on the story even moar!!!

Modifié par Drasanil, 30 novembre 2010 - 07:41 .

[the_one_54321]

Drasanil wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
[cowpatties]. Changing outfits get's to be treated like a choice like choosing hair color is a choice. It's arbitrary and an issue that has no impact on the game except in your own stylistic preferences.

Then why give gender, appearace, weapon and armor options to Hawke? Or for that matter more than 3 potential followers? These could all be chalked up to "stylistic preferences".

It sure could! And if that were the case you'd see me here saying the exact same thing.