206 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...

It's the principle of the thing, first of all. 

From where you sit, of course, which is why you - in your own words - can't understand the logic in favor of it.  But from where I sit, the principle of the change is not necessarily in conflict with how I approached companion outfits in DA:O.  To put it very simply, I would always favor the outfit that I thought looked cool over the one that was more statistically valuable.  What Bioware has done with this choice is add more unique outfits to the game - something in principle that I absolutely approve of - but as a negative consequence of this decision, has limited them to 1-2 or so per character.  

So it's a tradeoff for me.  I can't view it as an on principle bad move because of it.  In a perfect world, each character would have a dozen or more unique outfits to choose from, but I'm not going to argue that Bioware ought to design the feature so that we can have our cake and eat it too, because I have no idea what kind of strains that would place on development resources.  

Addai67 wrote...
Even having to do this- to decide if the outfit you're given is thumbs up or down and if it's down you're stuck anyway- is sad.  If we have a toolset, it will still be sad (because I'm sure the ability to mod will be more limited due to the unique models) but less so.

I felt I was "stuck" in DA:O anyway.  Take the Morrigan's robe example, the way I like to play - the enjoyment I get out of it - meant that I didn't even consider the other options available for her armor/clothing slot as options.  So to me, the player agency that explicitly existed in DA:O may as well have not been present for me.  I am potentially losing nothing, depending on my opinion of each outfit.  

It certainly isn't because I felt DA:O's system was difficult, confusing, antiquated, or any of the things that like to be tossed around as the imagined excuse for possibly being in favor of this change.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 novembre 2010 - 06:08 .

[Stanley Woo]

Wow, it's like no one's ever had to be disappointed before and doesn't want to start now. We will never be able to please everyone with every feature of our games. Sometimes we'll make decisions the you won't agree with. When that happens, you will decide whether to still pick up the game or no. And if you do, you will decide whether you like it or not.



And guess what? This process is valid for pretty much any product you buy, not just games, so feel free to use it to make future purchasing decisions!

[DavidSims]

crimzontearz wrote...

So.....let me get this straight.

-A fan says "there is no gameplay reason for fixed outfits".
-A dev replies "just because you think so that does not make it the truth"

So....doesn't that imply that there IS a gameplay reason? Well...what is it?

Mind you I LOVED PST, I do not mind fixed appearances as long as they are not utterly silly (I am looking at you ME2) and as long as I can still use other mens to buff stats and values....but what is this gameplay reason?

Seriously, the marketing department must have given you the ok to say that appearances are fixed...but they are telling you "not" to share the gameplay reason behind the decision? That kinda makes it sound shady...you know like refusing a paternity test, it only reinforces people's suspicions that there is actually NO gameplay reason behind it and that alluring design won this battle.

So, short of having been told to be quiet about it, care to elighten us David?

From a gameplay perspective, you can still customize and upgrade a lot of the companions gear. The only thing you're really losing is the appearance change from swapping out the main pieces. That's not a gameplay concern, except for visually identifying your companions in battle.

By that metric, the new system is better. Each companion has a unique look not shared by any other creature in the game. Before you could end up with companions that looked almost exactly the same as each other, or worse, the same as the enemies they were fighting. You couldn't tell who was who at a glance. Now you can.

What I don't get is how this is in any way negatively effecting gameplay. And in the absence of that, why shouldn't alluring appearances win out?

[haberman13]

Addai67 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

What does that mean in terms of my opinion on the issue?  It means I'll evaluate the aesthetics of each outfit, subjectively, on a case by case basis.  If, on balance, I end up liking more than I dislike, I'll be somewhat in favor of the feature.  If the opposite is true, I won't like it.  But I can't evaluate it based simply on principle because there's a chance I'll end up liking most of the outfits.

It's the principle of the thing, first of all.  Even having to do this- to decide if the outfit you're given is thumbs up or down and if it's down you're stuck anyway- is sad.  If we have a toolset, it will still be sad (because I'm sure the ability to mod will be more limited due to the unique models) but less so.

However, I can already say that Isabela's outfit hasn't improved my outlook on this "feature."  Nor Bethany's.

Ah well, what can you do.  Just kibbutz.

That, and IMO

customization > predefined "awesome" outfits

I'll take the chance to find gear, upgrade, etc. over "oooo, morrigans default outfit is sexy!!!"

Choice > no choice
Customization > lack of customization
Completed game > semi-finished game with DLC to round it out

DA2 is a lose/lose at this point, and yet, this forum is decrying it all positive change ....    WTF is happening to our thinking ability these days.

[Ziggeh]

Bruno Hslaw wrote...

Well it saves time doing different models and costumes for different characters you now do standard male female and finished. You no longer do dwarf qunari elf etc. That saves time and money, for BW.

Erm, yes, yes it does. But that's not "lazy", it's called "resource management". Having finite man hours to devote to a project isn't the same as "can't be bothered". You're being massively unrealistic.

Bruno Hslaw wrote...
Simply put a key into the game to turn loot into cash, a lazy way to do things which seems to be key to the way forward on DA2.

I would strongly support this. "Vendor trash" is a clumsy system that I think should have been given up long ago. It's only real value is in making it "feel" more "rpg", which is not something I especially value. It's an abstraction already and I'd be happy with further abstraction if it removes meaningless repetition.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

JohnEpler wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Indeed! Bioware is on its last legs. The - at least - three AAA titles being developed simultaneously is but the last, desperate gasp of a mortally wounded company.

I agree with you about it being funny though - posts like yours are amusing.

The baying of the wolves at our door makes it incredibly difficult to get anything done.

Those noise-cancelling headphones proved to be the best 150$ I ever spent.

Dude, you should have gone for broke and got the $200 wolf cancelling headphones.  Now you're hosed.

[haberman13]

DavidSims wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

So.....let me get this straight.

-A fan says "there is no gameplay reason for fixed outfits".
-A dev replies "just because you think so that does not make it the truth"

So....doesn't that imply that there IS a gameplay reason? Well...what is it?

Mind you I LOVED PST, I do not mind fixed appearances as long as they are not utterly silly (I am looking at you ME2) and as long as I can still use other mens to buff stats and values....but what is this gameplay reason?

Seriously, the marketing department must have given you the ok to say that appearances are fixed...but they are telling you "not" to share the gameplay reason behind the decision? That kinda makes it sound shady...you know like refusing a paternity test, it only reinforces people's suspicions that there is actually NO gameplay reason behind it and that alluring design won this battle.

So, short of having been told to be quiet about it, care to elighten us David?

From a gameplay perspective, you can still customize and upgrade a lot of the companions gear. The only thing you're really losing is the appearance change from swapping out the main pieces. That's not a gameplay concern, except for visually identifying your companions in battle.

By that metric, the new system is better. Each companion has a unique look not shared by any other creature in the game. Before you could end up with companions that looked almost exactly the same as each other, or worse, the same as the enemies they were fighting. You couldn't tell who was who at a glance. Now you can.

What I don't get is how this is in any way negatively effecting gameplay. And in the absence of that, why shouldn't alluring appearances win out?

Because choice reigns supreme in RPGs.  In DA2 BW is making choices for us, in an area that has traditionally been "our choice".

Also, you are removing the "oo sparkly new gear" hook that so many of us RPG fans love.  Sure, you can still find a "rune" or whatever its called, but it doesn't alter/advance the appearance of the companion.

Sigh ... the same thing happened on the Deus Ex 2 forum, the community was asking WTF are you doing DEV... and the DEVs were like "trust us, we know gaming better than you".

Sorry, you know programming/modeling better than us, we know gaming.

Modifié par haberman13, 30 novembre 2010 - 06:16 .

[upsettingshorts]

haberman13 wrote...

WTF is happening to our thinking ability these days.

It is a constant source of disappointment to me that when confronted with the notion of another person seeing the same data and arriving at a different conclusion unthinking people default to the notion that the other person is dumb.

haberman13 wrote...

Because choice reigns supreme in RPGs.

To me, choice with consequence reigns supreme in RPGs.  Having the option to change Alistair from silver tinted armor to red tinted armor is, from my perspective, inconsequential.

haberman13 wrote...

we know gaming.

Don't speak for all gamers.  You don't have the authority.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 novembre 2010 - 06:19 .

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

It's the principle of the thing, first of all. 

From where you sit, of course, which is why you - in your own words - can't understand the logic in favor of it.  But from where I sit, the principle of the change is not necessarily in conflict with how I approached companion outfits in DA:O.  To put it very simply, I would always favor the outfit that I thought looked cool over the one that was more statistically valuable.  What Bioware has done with this choice is add more unique outfits to the game - something in principle that I absolutely approve of - but as a negative consequence of this decision, has limited them to 1-2 or so per character.  

I mostly chose based on appearance, too.  Hence why I like to choose.  Having more unique items in the game that only one person can wear doesn't sound like more choice to me.

[haberman13]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

haberman13 wrote...
WTF is happening to our thinking ability these days.

It is a constant source of disappointment to me that when confronted with the notion of another person seeing the same data and arriving at a different conclusion unthinking people default to the notion that the other person is dumb.

haberman13 wrote...

Because choice reigns supreme in RPGs.

To me, choice with consequence reigns supreme in RPGs.  Having the option to change Alistair from silver tinted armor to red tinted armor is, from my perspective, inconsequential.

Baby out with the bathwater.....

Why can't we have both consequence and choice ... you know, like with 99% of other RPGs you can alter the appearance of the character AND upgrade their skills with various boosts to stats on the gear.

The fact that nobody is saying this is why I question this boards thinking abilities.

If this trend continues DA3 will be a pure hack-n-slash, with no gear, and no story choice; and the community will have allowed it to happen with preposterously limited opinions like yours.

[haberman13]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

WTF is happening to our thinking ability these days.

It is a constant source of disappointment to me that when confronted with the notion of another person seeing the same data and arriving at a different conclusion unthinking people default to the notion that the other person is dumb.

haberman13 wrote...

Because choice reigns supreme in RPGs.

To me, choice with consequence reigns supreme in RPGs.  Having the option to change Alistair from silver tinted armor to red tinted armor is, from my perspective, inconsequential.

haberman13 wrote...

we know gaming.

Don't speak for all gamers.  You don't have the authority.

OK, whatever.  Keep clamoring for less choice, and less complexity.

Have fun with the new Brittney album as well; I hear they have only 1 drum beat for every song, with minor alterations to the tempo.

Modifié par haberman13, 30 novembre 2010 - 06:23 .

[medievalmiss]

I have a hard time understanding why having companions who keep their unique appearance negates roleplaying. In fact, it seems that it would even make more sense from a roleplaying perspective, because most companions are following you because they choose to, not because they are ordered to. They are not in the army, forced to follow orders and wear what you say. I personally didn't care for Morrigan's outfit, but I can't see a roleplayed Morrigan actually saying "sure, I'll change my outfit just because you say so." She'd more likely say "I'll wear what I want and there's nothing you can do about it!" So, it seems those who are decrying this change as taking away roleplay really prefer to have multiple semi-PC's, more than companions with their own personalities, likes and dislikes.
Notice I said "seems", since I really am not trying to state that I know what other players want.
This change, to me, actually enhances roleplay for the reasons I stated above.

Modifié par medievalmiss, 30 novembre 2010 - 06:25 .

[Ziggeh]

haberman13 wrote...

In DA2 BW is making choices for us, in an area that has traditionally been "our choice".

No, it hasn't. It's occasionally been our choice, and usually comes with a tradeoff. Walking like the hunchabck of notre dame but with less dress sense, for example. You're making the same mistake as many of what we're refering to as "doomsayers" in that you're creating an imaginary RPG ideal and making comparisons to it. It doesn't exist and so those comparisons are invalid.

Feel free to call me a "fanboy" in response, because correcting horrible logic is the same thing as blind loyalty.

[upsettingshorts]

haberman13 wrote...

Baby out with the bathwater.....

Mischaracterization in this case.  It is a tradeoff.  Some unique outfits versus a lot of generic ones.  As I said earlier I am not going to call for a lot of unique outfits, or more accurately - I would prefer that - I don't expect them.  It would be unfair to demand Bioware satisfy my desire to have my cake and eat it too.  

haberman13 wrote...

If this trend continues DA3 will be a pure hack-n-slash, with no gear, and no story choice; and the community will have allowed it to happen with preposterously limited opinions like yours.

Your slippery slope sillyness aside, why is my opinion more limited than yours? If anything, I have explicitly stated I have an open mind on the issue, I haven't even decided if I'm ultimately in favor of it or not. 

haberman13 wrote...

Have fun with the new Brittney album as well; I hear they have only 1 drum beat for every song, with minor alterations to the tempo.

I am unmoved by your condescension, and your comically inaccurate summary of my position makes your position come off as juvenile.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 novembre 2010 - 06:25 .

[haberman13]

OK, let me put it this way, try and justify any one of these statements:



Less choice is good

Bioware will choose for you

RPGs don't need gear choice

All companions should have a static weapon which we predetermine for you

Companions should look the same throughout the game

You shouldn't have the ability to choose





So .... since that is what many of you are arguing for, please help me understand why I shouldn't write off your opinions?

[Ziggeh]

haberman13 wrote...

If this trend continues DA3 will be a pure hack-n-slash, with no gear, and no story choice; and the community will have allowed it to happen with preposterously limited opinions like yours.

Ahh, the slippery slope.

It works both ways. They're adding further customisation to individual items and even spells. It's only a matter of time before everything in the game is modifiable.

[haberman13]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

If this trend continues DA3 will be a pure hack-n-slash, with no gear, and no story choice; and the community will have allowed it to happen with preposterously limited opinions like yours.

Ahh, the slippery slope.

It works both ways. They're adding further customisation to individual items and even spells. It's only a matter of time before everything in the game is modifiable.

Let people choose for themselves!!!!  And that is bad how?

OK, so let me get this straight:

more choice is bad
more customization is bad


Does not compute, are you a communist by chance?  (I jest :innocent: )

Unfortunately society as a whole has bought into the idea that "less is more" when less == easier on the brain.

Modifié par haberman13, 30 novembre 2010 - 06:30 .

[John Epler]

Let's cut out the ridiculous strawmanning, shall we?

Everyone's allowed to share their opinion - so long as they do so respectfully.

Mischaracterizing the opposition - not respectful.

Modifié par JohnEpler, 30 novembre 2010 - 06:29 .

[Addai]

medievalmiss wrote...

I have a hard time understanding why having companions who keep their unique appearance negates roleplaying. In fact, it seems that it would even make more sense from a roleplaying perspective, because most companions are following you because they choose to, not because they are ordered to. They are not in the army, forced to follow orders and wear what you say. I personally didn't care for Morrigan's outfit, but I can't see a roleplayed Morrigan actually saying "sure, I'll change my outfit just because you say so." She'd more likely say "I'll wear what I want and there's nothing you can do about it!" So, it seems those who are decrying this change as taking away roleplay really prefer to have multiple semi-PC's, more than companions with their own personalities, likes and dislikes.
Notice I said "seems", since I really am not trying to state that I know what other players want.
This change, to me, actually enhances roleplay for the reasons I stated above.

I understand that, but then it makes no sense to have a tactical party.  If I'm playing WoW or whatever, where I'm encountering unique NPCs in the world and then go my own way, I can see this.  When I'm controlling my party members, IMO they are "semi-PCs" as you put it.

Less control over your party members' setup, to my mind, reduces the uniqueness of BioWare games to other games where NPCs are doing their own thing on their AI and you have to either react, or sometimes just avoid them if the AI is being stupid or you don't like what they're doing.  If I'm forced to cart around an NPC in my team, I want to be able to participate in how that character responds in the world.

Modifié par Addai67, 30 novembre 2010 - 06:33 .

[upsettingshorts]

haberman13 wrote...

Less choice is good

If those limited choices are, subjectively, better and more interesting than a wider variety of choices that simply exist for the sake of it, that statement is true.

A mile wide and an inch deep is not something I'm in favor of.  You want 10x2, I want 5x4.  It's still 20.

haberman13 wrote...

Bioware will choose for you

Bioware has always chosen for me.  I am not writing a novel, I'm playing in their world with characters they wrote, and equipment they designed.

haberman13 wrote...

RPGs don't need gear choice

This is an oversimplification.  You are going to have to narrow it down.

haberman13 wrote...

All companions should have a static weapon which we predetermine for you

This has never been confirmed.  The speculation in the OP is speculation.

haberman13 wrote...

Companions should look the same throughout the game

They shouldn't.  But in my games of DA:O they often did.  We are not discussing ideals here, only actual features.

haberman13 wrote...

You shouldn't have the ability to choose

Loaded question, be more specific.

haberman13 wrote...

So .... since that is what many of you are arguing for, please help me understand why I shouldn't write off your opinions?

Correction:  This is either what you think we're arguing, but aren't.  Or want people to think we're arguing, despite you understanding where the opposition is coming from.  Oversimplified mischaracterizations of another's argument is a strawman, and I will quickly grow tired of refuting rebuttals to arguments I didn't make.  I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Addai for actually responding to what I genuinely said, and not making up some terrible, self-serving summary of it.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 novembre 2010 - 06:35 .

[haberman13]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

Baby out with the bathwater.....

Mischaracterization in this case.  It is a tradeoff.  Some unique outfits versus a lot of generic ones.  As I said earlier I am not going to call for a lot of unique outfits, or more accurately - I would prefer that - I don't expect them.  It would be unfair to demand Bioware satisfy my desire to have my cake and eat it too.  

haberman13 wrote...

If this trend continues DA3 will be a pure hack-n-slash, with no gear, and no story choice; and the community will have allowed it to happen with preposterously limited opinions like yours.

Your slippery slope sillyness aside, why is my opinion more limited than yours? If anything, I have explicitly stated I have an open mind on the issue, I haven't even decided if I'm ultimately in favor of it or not. 

haberman13 wrote...

Have fun with the new Brittney album as well; I hear they have only 1 drum beat for every song, with minor alterations to the tempo.

I am unmoved by your condescension, and your comically inaccurate summary of my position makes your position come off as juvenile.

OK, I'm sorry.

Now, please justify your position, which I take to be "less is more" and "the devs should choose, not me".

The reason people like me get hot and heavy (ha) about this is that we (at least I) see a trend of simplification in gaming.  And we (well, I again) don't like that.

Modifié par haberman13, 30 novembre 2010 - 06:33 .

[Ziggeh]

haberman13 wrote...

OK, let me put it this way, try and justify any one of these statements:

Less choice is good

Depends what you get in return. It might help if you stop looking at things in isolation.

haberman13 wrote...
Bioware will choose for you

Well, it's their story to tell, the way they want to tell it. I like options, but again, you can't look at it as if it's unconnected to anything else.

haberman13 wrote...
RPGs don't need gear choice

Many don't. We still call them RPGs.

haberman13 wrote...
All companions should have a static weapon which we predetermine for you

Depends if it makes a difference. I know I'll be loath to switch from the fairly impressive looking Bianca to Generic_Crossbow_4, but that's a personal preference.

haberman13 wrote...
Companions should look the same throughout the game

See above re the gear choice. Also, most won't.

haberman13 wrote...
You shouldn't have the ability to choose

Same statement as Biowares choices.

[Maria Caliban]

haberman13 wrote...

RPGs don't need gear choice

Totally. Role-playing has nothing to do with 'loot.' I've played PnP RPGs where my character never wore anything but regular clothing and never carried a weapon.

[haberman13]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

OK, let me put it this way, try and justify any one of these statements:

Less choice is good

Depends what you get in return. It might help if you stop looking at things in isolation.

haberman13 wrote...
Bioware will choose for you

Well, it's their story to tell, the way they want to tell it. I like options, but again, you can't look at it as if it's unconnected to anything else.

haberman13 wrote...
RPGs don't need gear choice

Many don't. We still call them RPGs.

haberman13 wrote...
All companions should have a static weapon which we predetermine for you

Depends if it makes a difference. I know I'll be loath to switch from the fairly impressive looking Bianca to Generic_Crossbow_4, but that's a personal preference.

haberman13 wrote...
Companions should look the same throughout the game

See above re the gear choice. Also, most won't.

haberman13 wrote...
You shouldn't have the ability to choose

Same statement as Biowares choices.

Your logic is mystifying.

Bioware chooses the story, that isn't in contention, nor is it programmatically possible to make an adaptive story that isn't at least partially defined by BW.

What is in contention is:  removing gear choice in leiu of predefined setups

Why can't "generic crossbow #4" look awesome too?

Why can't we get a bunch of cool looking gear, including rares/uniques that look especially cool?  Wouldn't that be better than predefined choicelessness?

Other games do it.

[Ziggeh]

haberman13 wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

If this trend continues DA3 will be a pure hack-n-slash, with no gear, and no story choice; and the community will have allowed it to happen with preposterously limited opinions like yours.

Ahh, the slippery slope.

It works both ways. They're adding further customisation to individual items and even spells. It's only a matter of time before everything in the game is modifiable.

Let people choose for themselves!!!!  And that is bad how?

OK, so let me get this straight:

more choice is bad
more customization is bad
Does not compute, are you a communist by chance?  (I jest :innocent: )

Unfortunately society as a whole has bought into the idea that "less is more" when less == easier on the brain.

I'm not sure how that is a response to me pointing out that your slippery slope argument is nonsensical.

Also I'm not sure the central tenet of communism involved diminishing customisation.