leonia42 wrote...
Another example, in real life could someone hold 120 items in a backpack?
Dragon Age never implies that you're holding all of the items in a single backpack. In fact, it explicitly references multiple backpacks.
The evaluation of armor, it's purpose in companions' use, & it's effects in the game
Débuté par
Aermas
, nov. 28 2010 08:46
#26
Posté 28 novembre 2010 - 11:08
Maria Caliban
-
- Members
- 26 094 messages
Dragon Age never implies that you're holding all of the items in a single backpack. In fact, it explicitly references multiple backpacks.
Retour en haut
#27
Posté 28 novembre 2010 - 11:10
Leonia
-
- Members
- 9 496 messages
Well, still, carrying multiple swords, armour sets and the like is a bit farfetched and we never "see" these backpacks. Ok, bad example is bad.
#28
Posté 28 novembre 2010 - 11:12
Esbatty
-
- Members
- 3 760 messages
This is why Shale is a must. She carries the bulk of them. As long as you keep the pigeons away.Maria Caliban wrote...
leonia42 wrote...
Another example, in real life could someone hold 120 items in a backpack?
Dragon Age never implies that you're holding all of the items in a single backpack. In fact, it explicitly references multiple backpacks.
#29
Posté 28 novembre 2010 - 11:13
Leonia
-
- Members
- 9 496 messages
I still can't figure out where Shale is hiding everything, actually.. no, I don't want to think about that more.
#30
Posté 28 novembre 2010 - 11:43
Sir JK
-
- Members
- 1 523 messages
There's a lot of things in Dragon Age that is not realistic, even if we don't count the fantasy elements, to a great extent due to that combat, equipment and economy are abstractions. This makes certain things difficult to gauge such as what actual prices are, how dangerous combat is and what limitations there are in sizing and such.
I don't disagree that armour is very important. In fact I stand by you 100% there. Armour is extremely important and anyone with something even remotely close to sense in their head will acquire it if they have the means to do so. Absolutely. I too would like to see proper armour in the game, even if my previous comments have given the impression that I don't.
However, just like in real life, I think that the circumstances of a person are also very important. Armour for the sake of having armour makes no sense at all. It completely ignores so ludicrously many factors that are very important and to a large extent affects a character. It's not wether or not they will go into combat that should be the first determinator to what if any armour they wear, but rather if they can obtain it in the first place (or have a reason they should). Similarily, characters that are described as being part of professions that are extremely unlikely to obtain it in the firt place should not be decked out in it either.
In mediveal europe armour was rare. Peasants did rarely acquire it. Burgers (city-dwellers) seldom acquire it. Travellers almost never wore it. Despite this the period was a very violent and brutal era. Partly they didn't wear it on regular basis because it's very expensive. Partly because the odds that you'd need it on a regular basis was tiny.
The first point, expenses. In modern terms, a suit of decent armour would lie in the pricerange of between 6 and 9 hundred thousand dollars (modern replicas are priced differently mind), for the same amount of money you could get proper armour made for you you could feed a family for more than 3 years. Just to get a sense of the scale. You needed to be extremely rich to even make such a purchase even possible. Add to the fact that proper armour needs maintenance too, so you actually need to spend money repairing it on a regular basis... even if you don't use it!
Even light armours such as gambesons were expensive. They virtually never featured outside the armies (who were paid and supplied by nobles) or courts. If I recall correctly, it takes about 2 weeks to make a gambeson by hand and it's made by a professional craftsman. Go to the nearest tailor and ask him what his products cost, that will get you an idea how prohibetively expensive even such "cheap" armours are (note: mediveal armies were small by modern standards. It's expected that less than 1% of entire Europe's population ever participated in an army at the time. Hence why nobles afforded to armour their soldiers, there weren't that many of them). Also, light armours rot if wet. Which means they have to be replaced fairly often.
The second point is that even if the period, an indeed Thedas, are violent places. The odds of encountering someone that will attack and kill are very very small. Most people will never have a need for armour in their lives and its therefore reflected in that they simple don't have it.
So what does this mean for DA2? The point I am making is that rather than that all characters should have armour if it fits with their character concept. If there's reason to expect that due to their background they should have armour then they should. However, if the background gives an indication that armour would have been unobtainable or impractical then they really shouldn't. A man who's profession is that of a spy, that deals in secrets and the trade of information have no reason to wear armour from the get go. A sailor/pirate should, just like they did in real life, wear as little as is decent since cloth gets soaked at sea (which is dangerous). A poor penniless refugee should wear no more than they could afford.
(I'm not opposed to them upgrading later mind. )
Even if the game itself is combat heavy, there is no indication (yet) whatsoever that the characters knows this. They might be going into every situation expecting that it will be resolved peacefully. That's also important. There's no reason to believe the character's knows they're going to fight. If they don't believe a fight is closely imminent why would they wear armour? Doing so is in itself a hostile act in fact (because you wouldn't wear it if you didn't expect a fight... which logically means you plan to start one).
As for not wearing armour during the flight from the darkspawn: It's perfectly possible to be caught in combat while undergeared... in fact soldiers and Murphy's law tend to say that you're for some reason more likely to end up in combat if you're not wearing the proper armour. If that happens, then all you can do is fight your best and hope luck is with you.
To summarize:
I want proper armour if it fits the character. If it doesn't then proper armour is the last thing they should have. If we are to treat armour as a realistic necesseity, then it should also be rare, expensive and "one size definantely do not fit all" just like armour is... realisticly.
I don't disagree that armour is very important. In fact I stand by you 100% there. Armour is extremely important and anyone with something even remotely close to sense in their head will acquire it if they have the means to do so. Absolutely. I too would like to see proper armour in the game, even if my previous comments have given the impression that I don't.
However, just like in real life, I think that the circumstances of a person are also very important. Armour for the sake of having armour makes no sense at all. It completely ignores so ludicrously many factors that are very important and to a large extent affects a character. It's not wether or not they will go into combat that should be the first determinator to what if any armour they wear, but rather if they can obtain it in the first place (or have a reason they should). Similarily, characters that are described as being part of professions that are extremely unlikely to obtain it in the firt place should not be decked out in it either.
In mediveal europe armour was rare. Peasants did rarely acquire it. Burgers (city-dwellers) seldom acquire it. Travellers almost never wore it. Despite this the period was a very violent and brutal era. Partly they didn't wear it on regular basis because it's very expensive. Partly because the odds that you'd need it on a regular basis was tiny.
The first point, expenses. In modern terms, a suit of decent armour would lie in the pricerange of between 6 and 9 hundred thousand dollars (modern replicas are priced differently mind), for the same amount of money you could get proper armour made for you you could feed a family for more than 3 years. Just to get a sense of the scale. You needed to be extremely rich to even make such a purchase even possible. Add to the fact that proper armour needs maintenance too, so you actually need to spend money repairing it on a regular basis... even if you don't use it!
Even light armours such as gambesons were expensive. They virtually never featured outside the armies (who were paid and supplied by nobles) or courts. If I recall correctly, it takes about 2 weeks to make a gambeson by hand and it's made by a professional craftsman. Go to the nearest tailor and ask him what his products cost, that will get you an idea how prohibetively expensive even such "cheap" armours are (note: mediveal armies were small by modern standards. It's expected that less than 1% of entire Europe's population ever participated in an army at the time. Hence why nobles afforded to armour their soldiers, there weren't that many of them). Also, light armours rot if wet. Which means they have to be replaced fairly often.
The second point is that even if the period, an indeed Thedas, are violent places. The odds of encountering someone that will attack and kill are very very small. Most people will never have a need for armour in their lives and its therefore reflected in that they simple don't have it.
So what does this mean for DA2? The point I am making is that rather than that all characters should have armour if it fits with their character concept. If there's reason to expect that due to their background they should have armour then they should. However, if the background gives an indication that armour would have been unobtainable or impractical then they really shouldn't. A man who's profession is that of a spy, that deals in secrets and the trade of information have no reason to wear armour from the get go. A sailor/pirate should, just like they did in real life, wear as little as is decent since cloth gets soaked at sea (which is dangerous). A poor penniless refugee should wear no more than they could afford.
(I'm not opposed to them upgrading later mind. )
Even if the game itself is combat heavy, there is no indication (yet) whatsoever that the characters knows this. They might be going into every situation expecting that it will be resolved peacefully. That's also important. There's no reason to believe the character's knows they're going to fight. If they don't believe a fight is closely imminent why would they wear armour? Doing so is in itself a hostile act in fact (because you wouldn't wear it if you didn't expect a fight... which logically means you plan to start one).
As for not wearing armour during the flight from the darkspawn: It's perfectly possible to be caught in combat while undergeared... in fact soldiers and Murphy's law tend to say that you're for some reason more likely to end up in combat if you're not wearing the proper armour. If that happens, then all you can do is fight your best and hope luck is with you.
To summarize:
I want proper armour if it fits the character. If it doesn't then proper armour is the last thing they should have. If we are to treat armour as a realistic necesseity, then it should also be rare, expensive and "one size definantely do not fit all" just like armour is... realisticly.
Modifié par Sir JK, 28 novembre 2010 - 11:50 .
#31
Guest_Puddi III_*
Posté 28 novembre 2010 - 11:47
Guest_Puddi III_*
Guest_Puddi III_*
-
- Guests
I can't speak for Aermas, but I would say that while I don't necessarily want realism, I do want internal consistency. Yes, obviously magic isn't real, but swords in DA still cut people, and two non-mages going at it with swords should operate on similar terms of combat with the weapons and armor available to them as real people would, barring some ingame explanation regarding the supernatural traits of all Thedas-dwellers (relative to us in reality), except when such realism would just make things tedious and intrude upon the fun, since that would defeat the point of playing a video game in the first place.
Now, I don't see how realistic looking armors (relative to their stats) would make the game tedious or less fun, and while non-mages can do some questionable things like Scattershot, that's just something people can do in Thedas, so its effects are consistent with this world the devs have set up. Whereas if Isabela were to have a high armor rating while wearing her pirate outfit, not counting the effects of runes or innate magical enchantments, and barring any other esoteric explanation which has yet to be given, that would not be consistent, because in all other instances, cloth = no armor and massive plate = lots of armor.
Of course, if Isabela has little armor but high defense, that would be consistent.
Now, I don't see how realistic looking armors (relative to their stats) would make the game tedious or less fun, and while non-mages can do some questionable things like Scattershot, that's just something people can do in Thedas, so its effects are consistent with this world the devs have set up. Whereas if Isabela were to have a high armor rating while wearing her pirate outfit, not counting the effects of runes or innate magical enchantments, and barring any other esoteric explanation which has yet to be given, that would not be consistent, because in all other instances, cloth = no armor and massive plate = lots of armor.
Of course, if Isabela has little armor but high defense, that would be consistent.
#32
Posté 28 novembre 2010 - 11:54
Esbatty
-
- Members
- 3 760 messages
With all the horrible crap going down in Ferelden I don't see why not everyone is in some kinda mail or plate. You can't go into the forest without being set upon by rabid wolves. You can't walk down a deserted street without a gate crashing down behind you and being hit with a dozen arrows. You walk down one tunnel passage and trip on a wire to suddenly be lit aflame by a damn fireball.
Thedas is a dangerous place, its like Ferelden is just the wrong side of the tracks.
Thedas is a dangerous place, its like Ferelden is just the wrong side of the tracks.
#33
Posté 28 novembre 2010 - 11:56
pChar
-
- Members
- 295 messages
I think this would be the appropriate time to say: It's a game, have fun playing it and stop thinking about realism once in a while.
#34
Guest_Vic Reeves_*
Posté 28 novembre 2010 - 12:18
Guest_Vic Reeves_*
Guest_Vic Reeves_*
-
- Guests
Maria Caliban wrote...
leonia42 wrote...
Another example, in real life could someone hold 120 items in a backpack?
Dragon Age never implies that you're holding all of the items in a single backpack. In fact, it explicitly references multiple backpacks.
Whether it's one backpack or 37 backpacks, the point is that carrying so much gear is a stretch compared to real life. And yeah, it's a game, so we don't care. But if we do make that comparison to real life, it's a stretch.
#35
Posté 28 novembre 2010 - 12:27
Lord Gremlin
-
- Members
- 2 927 messages
I'd say it's believable that refugees fleeing Lothering don't have armor and barely managed to find some weapons to defend themselves. But I think that once an opportunity to get armor appears warriors should use it.
#36
Posté 28 novembre 2010 - 12:31
Johnny Chaos
-
- Members
- 384 messages
it's fantasy? people are making a big deal over this armor. why would someone like Isabela wear armor when she fights with quickness and wit, and admits to taking down warriors.Aermas wrote...
As it stands only one of five companions have been said to actually where armor (Aveline, David Gaider let it slip). This concerns me as I like realistic simulation inside the game world. It hurts my brain to see someone in shorts & a tank top soak 5000 damage & not be phased.
I have worn armor myself, plate,chain & ridged leather, & have fought unarmored. I can tell you that armor can flat out stop most attacks from becoming injuries, & that only chain will effect your balance to any noticeable degree. I have seen a man do a backflip in plate, it's really not at all cumbersome. Another think is that leather is a great armor for those that don't want to wear plate. Ridged leather is as hard as wood & fits so comfortably that you can forget you are wearing it. I can tell that fighting unarmed is no different than fighting armored except you have the added protection.
Knowing all this it doesn't make sense that none of the companions seem to want to wear armor.
if you want to be super, super realistic armor is expensive and handed down, so maybe someone doesnt have the money to afford armor.
#37
Posté 28 novembre 2010 - 12:37
Matchy Pointy
-
- Members
- 1 229 messages
It might be unrealistic for some characters, but even with that, I prefer companions with a unique look to them instead of standard equipment, atleast is ome regards. As long as you can still find more equipment for them (i.e. a new piece of clothign for Isabella so there is still the feelign of finding them a new powerful piece of equipment, though this could be handled with other equipment slots).
#38
Posté 28 novembre 2010 - 12:40
Maria Caliban
-
- Members
- 26 094 messages
Vic Reeves wrote...
...the point is...
That's largely irrelevant to me.
#39
Posté 28 novembre 2010 - 12:40
Johnny Chaos
-
- Members
- 384 messages
Matchy Pointy wrote...
It might be unrealistic for some characters, but even with that, I prefer companions with a unique look to them instead of standard equipment, atleast is ome regards. As long as you can still find more equipment for them (i.e. a new piece of clothign for Isabella so there is still the feelign of finding them a new powerful piece of equipment, though this could be handled with other equipment slots).
having no pants saves an equipment slot
#40
Posté 28 novembre 2010 - 12:48
Barker673
-
- Members
- 365 messages
I wasn't too fussed with the fixed outfits that were in ME2 - they looked good, suited the character and allowed NPC's such as Miranda to have hair longer than her shoulders.
If that's what they're doing with all of the companions, I hope they just do it better, with more variety. Not every warrior or soldier has to fight with full plate mail or reinforced leather armour anyway - think of LOTR films, Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas etc. didn't wear armour, they had good outfits and looked unique and feasible.
If that's what they're doing with all of the companions, I hope they just do it better, with more variety. Not every warrior or soldier has to fight with full plate mail or reinforced leather armour anyway - think of LOTR films, Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas etc. didn't wear armour, they had good outfits and looked unique and feasible.
#41
Guest_Vic Reeves_*
Posté 28 novembre 2010 - 12:55
Guest_Vic Reeves_*
Guest_Vic Reeves_*
-
- Guests
Maria Caliban wrote...
Vic Reeves wrote...
...the point is...
That's largely irrelevant to me.
Well, what can I say to that? Good for you, I suppose. Do you require a medal?
#42
Posté 28 novembre 2010 - 12:56
Matchy Pointy
-
- Members
- 1 229 messages
Johnny Chaos wrote...
Matchy Pointy wrote...
It might be unrealistic for some characters, but even with that, I prefer companions with a unique look to them instead of standard equipment, atleast is ome regards. As long as you can still find more equipment for them (i.e. a new piece of clothign for Isabella so there is still the feelign of finding them a new powerful piece of equipment, though this could be handled with other equipment slots).
having no pants saves an equipment slot
That is true, didn't think about that. That's it, now I'm all for it
#43
Posté 28 novembre 2010 - 12:58
They call me a SpaceCowboy
-
- Members
- 2 757 messages
I'm expecting that we'll either find new armour for companions via quest rewards, or it will be automatically upgraded in time jumps as appropriate.
If, for instance, in a time jump, Aveline joins the local guards as her day job, then she should be given armour when you come out of the jump.
If, for instance, in a time jump, Aveline joins the local guards as her day job, then she should be given armour when you come out of the jump.
#44
Posté 28 novembre 2010 - 12:59
LPPrince
-
- Members
- 54 738 messages
There should be a nude fighting style, with a skill tree for it and everything.
You walk into battle, and the enemies are auto-stunned in place for a good 10 seconds.
Then, as you pounce on an enemy, a forcefield comes up where other enemies flee the scene.
The enemy you've pounced on gets debuffed and loses accuracy, leaving your squadmates and easy kill.
All because the opponent got snuggled.
You walk into battle, and the enemies are auto-stunned in place for a good 10 seconds.
Then, as you pounce on an enemy, a forcefield comes up where other enemies flee the scene.
The enemy you've pounced on gets debuffed and loses accuracy, leaving your squadmates and easy kill.
All because the opponent got snuggled.
#45
Posté 28 novembre 2010 - 12:59
Johnny Chaos
-
- Members
- 384 messages
im still waiting for spartan spandex
#46
Posté 28 novembre 2010 - 01:02
Matchy Pointy
-
- Members
- 1 229 messages
LPPrince wrote...
There should be a nude fighting style, with a skill tree for it and everything.
You walk into battle, and the enemies are auto-stunned in place for a good 10 seconds.
Then, as you pounce on an enemy, a forcefield comes up where other enemies flee the scene.
The enemy you've pounced on gets debuffed and loses accuracy, leaving your squadmates and easy kill.
All because the opponent got snuggled.
Dirty fighting?
#47
Posté 28 novembre 2010 - 01:04
DMC12
-
- Members
- 316 messages
Johnny Chaos wrote...
im still waiting for spartan spandex
Under Armour. Dragon Age needs to get on the in-game advertising trend. Think of how stylish Hawke and Co. would look too!
#48
Posté 28 novembre 2010 - 01:04
LPPrince
-
- Members
- 54 738 messages
Matchy Pointy wrote...
LPPrince wrote...
There should be a nude fighting style, with a skill tree for it and everything.
You walk into battle, and the enemies are auto-stunned in place for a good 10 seconds.
Then, as you pounce on an enemy, a forcefield comes up where other enemies flee the scene.
The enemy you've pounced on gets debuffed and loses accuracy, leaving your squadmates and easy kill.
All because the opponent got snuggled.
Dirty fighting?
Since when did snuggling become dirty? I find its quite romantic.
#49
Posté 28 novembre 2010 - 01:13
Matchy Pointy
-
- Members
- 1 229 messages
LPPrince wrote...
Matchy Pointy wrote...
LPPrince wrote...
There should be a nude fighting style, with a skill tree for it and everything.
You walk into battle, and the enemies are auto-stunned in place for a good 10 seconds.
Then, as you pounce on an enemy, a forcefield comes up where other enemies flee the scene.
The enemy you've pounced on gets debuffed and loses accuracy, leaving your squadmates and easy kill.
All because the opponent got snuggled.
Dirty fighting?
Since when did snuggling become dirty? I find its quite romantic.
Depends on how you do it
#50
Posté 28 novembre 2010 - 01:17
LPPrince
-
- Members
- 54 738 messages
That's a different kind of snuggling.
