1309 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

Adhin wrote...

ahh TMP how backwords your reasoning is. Its the otherway around. The models them selves can be scaled and form fitted to each race like they where in DAO

Before the models can be scaled and form fitted, they first have to be created. And that step requires the same amount of work no matter if resulting outfit in the end can be equipped on just one or more than one character. So on model per model basis, creating and form fitting is more work than creating alone.

There's nothing backward about it, just seems people are under impression the base models in DAO simply popped out of thin air when for DA2 they had to be painstakingly made?

There's also work involved in repainting the models for the individual reskins, something that tends to get dismissed as if it doesn't take effort whatsoever, when (unlike ME2 reskins) each variant is actually different to the point where it's pretty much creating entirely new texture from scratch.

What it ultimately means is in DOA they made 5 Armor types (not counting the... 2 robes)

Quite a few more actually.

* 3 clothing variants
* 3 robes
* 3 regular armour types
* 3 massive armours

and then 4-5 textures for most of these.

Fact is when they go to make Isabela's unique look, they're not using some base clothing look that already exists and swapping out textures.

Isabela's outfit seems to actually be tweaked chasind robes appearance for the most part... the tweaking involved some small changes to the mesh, but i'd be surprised if it turned out to be made from scratch, that'd be reinventing wheel that's already there and ready to be used.

[PsychoBlonde]

BrotherWarth wrote...

My concern with this sort of design is that it tells me the developers think I'm stupid. Dialogue and actions can tell you everything you need to know about a character, so the developers saying that we need their outfits to express their personality is like saying we can't understand these characters without visual cues.

So, if Isabela had the model of a male dwarf with beard, you'd find that MORE appropriate because her appearance *matching* her dialog and personality is insulting your intelligence?  Whut?  Personally, I'd find that surreal and probably not enjoyable after the initial laughing had died down.

[Adhin]

That is a good question and you can justify about anything I guess. Though I'm not really against either direction on the clothing one I like both options. But lets see justification for being able to swap weapons but not Clothing/Armor. As for 'price' actual armor? That's untrue armor definitely cost more then weapons. One reason you could come up with is (but im sure Hawke 'might' defy this in DA2 like they all did in DAO) is that armor has to be fitted for the person. World wasn't made up of industry standard sizes like are world currently is. Plate was made and fitted per person, so was most other armors. Weapons on the other hand tented to more or less be universal though more unique ones or ones of a higher quality where often made for specific people.

So that's one way you could look at it I guess if you wanted to. You can also swap out there Belt, Rings and Amulet too which...I mean that's accessories. I think the reason they let you swap out the weapon and accessories is basically, well the accessories don't change the visual appearance. And Weapons being made in a more universal one size literally fits all its easier to swap like that. The armor its self being far more unique and fitted per person. That is Entirely a design choice though really it has less to do with some silly real world comparison people like to try and make. I know most of them actually have a unique signature weapon they all have, and I personally think if your going to make clothing like that, weapons probably should be too, like Sten's sword you know?

But like I said, I like both ways of handling it (just not the horridly sparse non-gameplay style of ME2). In a real world history sense, people often put a heavy attachment to there armor and weapons, quite a lot on weapons actually, and often times the random trinket or ring or something. I always liked it in games like PST and BG2 where they'd have an item or something you couldn't remove, that was unique to the character.

So I guess if a follower like Varric has his specialty designed crossbow - then yeah that should be locked down as his unique thing along with his outfits. Then again they may use that Crossbow in some special cut-scenes regardless of YOUR weapon choice for him. Kinda curious about that actually.

[tmp7704]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

So, if Isabela had the model of a male dwarf with beard, you'd find that MORE appropriate because her appearance *matching* her dialog and personality is insulting your intelligence?  Whut?  Personally, I'd find that surreal and probably not enjoyable after the initial laughing had died down.

I don't know about being male dwarf, since that seems to be case of appeal to ridicule, but personally i'm not sure if having character's appearance "match" entirely personality and dialogue is really a desired thing -- there's a risk of turning the character very cardboard-like with this approach, where they become (especially in viewer's mind) little else but embodiement of some gimmick or trait, with not much beyond that going for them.

Modifié par tmp7704, 11 décembre 2010 - 05:39 .

[PsychoBlonde]

BrotherWarth wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

My concern with this sort of design is that it tells me the developers think I'm stupid. Dialogue and actions can tell you everything you need to know about a character, so the developers saying that we need their outfits to express their personality is like saying we can't understand these characters without visual cues.

So, if Isabela had the model of a male dwarf with beard, you'd find that MORE appropriate because her appearance *matching* her dialog and personality is insulting your intelligence?  Whut?  Personally, I'd find that surreal and probably not enjoyable after the initial laughing had died down.

You've taken a simple idea and turned it into the most extreme interpretation possible. You're being ridiculous and, intentionally or not, making the conversation a joke.

You are aware that reductio ad absurdum IS a legitimate arguing method, yah?  If you're going to say something, take it to the logical extreme and see if that's still what you want.  If it's not, figure out why that extreme should be logically excluded and how you need to alter your statement so that it is.

You are assuming without evidence that Bioware put Isabela in "sexy clothing" exclusively because BIOWARE is trying to sell her to you and not because, say, ISABELA would naturally, as an outgrowth of her personality, always have indications that she is up for grabs, which is a faulty assumption to make.  Most women go to considerable effort to advertise that they are available and/or desirable and having every woman in the game be Natalie-Portman shaped and wearing the same gray smock would be ridiculous.  The simple fact that they've put many of the female characters into sensible clothing (Bethany's mage robe covers all, for instance, and Aveline's clothing puts many off as outright UGLY) would be a good indicator that the sexed-up clothes are not just there because Bioware thinks you're an idiot.

[IRMcGhee]

In reply to BrotherWrath's question on p23:

Not sure if that's quite the same thing, although I do see what you're getting at. I'd imagine if you come across a pair of Daggers Of Awesomeness, Isabela's going to go "Ooh, shiny" and trade up. She prefers to fight unarmoured (apparently, we've only seen her starting costume), so she won't have the same reaction if you come across a suit of armour.

I don't particularly mind about not being able to change the look of the companion's outfits( outside of any in-game changes "the characters make themselves"). As long as the stats keep pace with the levels of your enemies. In DA:O I just left Morrigan in her robes, swapping them out for the upgraded version later, and would have liked Leliana and Sten to have had unique looks too. Didn't think generic armours worked for those characters that well.

Modifié par IRMcGhee, 11 décembre 2010 - 05:49 .

[Ziggeh]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Maybe the people who say that it makes no sense to be able to change your companions outfits can answer something for me.

I don't believe anyone has said it makes no sense. Some people have made a case for the lack of change making sense from a certain perspective (leader rather than commander or diety, for example), but mostly people who support the change seem to be in the "understand (and perhaps like) the trade off and accept we can't have everything" camp.

[tmp7704]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

You are aware that reductio ad absurdum IS a legitimate arguing method, yah?

While it's true, reductio at absurdum is very easy to confuse with appeal to ridicule which is logical fallacy.

[Adhin]

@TMP: I think your missing the whole point of the arguement that its 'lazy' to make unique models (which it is not). What your saying is true, and like I said its a lot of work to make the armor and make it fit to all the characters. And your right 3 massive armor, I forgot about the Templar skirt-mode (though that uses the same upper body so its more of a modification). Doesn't use boot model and the Gloves are the same. But that's not really the point.

So Basically theres 12 universal body meshes used for NPC/PC for all scales (which takes time to do yes) for all races in DAO. Now think of it this way with the unique stuff in mind theres at least 8 'unique' companion looks. Most likely more as they've said 'at least 2 followers per class' (so im guessing at least 7 companions) and Aveline has 2 outfits. So we'll just go off 7 for now. So that's already 7 of the 12 from DAO. Just for your companions. And if any of the others get outfit upgrades (which is likely from what the podcast said, Im hoping anyways) that ups it quite a bit. If they each get 2, thats 14 unique outfits (unique meshes). And all of this isn't counting Hawk. The Deforming of an existing model takes less time then making a concept and then creating that model. It also takes less people to do.

Example, DAO they come up with a Massive Armor designs. They pick the ones they like, they make a the Human (non-templar) Massive Armor Mesh, make its Skins, and then deform it for all races. Each skin ends up making up the variety. Which while still work, (concept to skin making) gets to skip the Making Mesh, and Deforming Mesh for Races part. That's actually why they use skins, its simpler - all games have done this to some extent forever. Started back in the sprite days before they had 'skins'.

With Unique meshes per follower each outfit, armor 'look' has to go through 'all' of them except the deform. Concept -> Model -> Skin. For each character, most likely they'd do a bunch of clothing/armor concepts for each character, pick the ones they like best (probably about 2 each, off-chance of 3 each or just 3 for some specific followers) and get to making the Model and Skin for them.

It is absolutely in NO WAY less work or more 'lazy' to create unique looks for characters. Anyone who says otherwise probably is the same kinda person who thinks making art in video games is 'coding'. I always kind cringe when I hear that kinda stuff.

[Ziggeh]

BrotherWarth wrote...

My concern with this sort of design is that it tells me the developers think I'm stupid. Dialogue and actions can tell you everything you need to know about a character, so the developers saying that we need their outfits to express their personality is like saying we can't understand these characters without visual cues.

That statement rather ignores a few thousand years of visual communication. Name a visual medium in which characters are, more often than not portrayed without heavy visual cues? You certainly can describe a character with words alone, but it's not as fast or effective. The developers don't think we're stupid, they think we're human, which is something I for one think is something they're probably safe to assume.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 11 décembre 2010 - 05:50 .

[tmp7704]

Adhin wrote...

@TMP: I think your missing the whole point of the arguement that its 'lazy' to make unique models (which it is not).

I'm probably not wording it well, but i don't consider it lazy to make unique models per se. But i do consider it less work to make these unique models for just single species/gender combination *if* the alternative was to make the same amount of new outfit models for the new game and making them wearable by everyone.

If the alternative was to make less of univeral outfits then yes, one could argue that amount of work involved overall is comparable.

[_- Songlian -]

SirGladiator wrote...

It doesn't "add character" to the characters in any way. To believe that, you have to believe that somehow all the DAO characters were worse because you could change their outfits. Oh, you mean Leliana doesn't wear that Chantry outfit anymore? Well then she has no character. You changed Morrigan's initial outfit? There went her character! Allistair without heavy armor? Zero character, why is he even on the team? Its beyond absurd, and I can't imagine anybody seriously believing something crazy like that.
 

Very eloquently put. 

That said, fixed companion outfits doesn't bother me that much, mainly because it doesn't really bother me that they want to turn DA into ME for the sake of gaining popularity. As long as it turns out to be a great game, they can bring a space ship into it for all I care. I'll still play it and enjoy it.

The real problem for me would be if they thought what you suggested above -- that the outfit's role is to give more personality to the companion. The only thing that does that is good writing.

But I'm pretty sure it's not the case, and fixed outfits would come in just to optimize the game.

Modifié par - Songlian -, 11 décembre 2010 - 05:55 .

[PsychoBlonde]

tmp7704 wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

So, if Isabela had the model of a male dwarf with beard, you'd find that MORE appropriate because her appearance *matching* her dialog and personality is insulting your intelligence?  Whut?  Personally, I'd find that surreal and probably not enjoyable after the initial laughing had died down.

I don't know about being male dwarf, since that seems to be case of appeal to ridicule, but personally i'm not sure if having character's appearance "match" entirely personality and dialogue is really a desired thing -- there's a risk of turning the character very cardboard-like with this approach, where they become (especially in viewer's mind) little else but embodiement of some gimmick or trait, with not much beyond that going for them.

It's a reductio ad absurdum--which is the point, it's SUPPOSED to be absurd to point out that saying flat out that they SHOULDN'T match is ridiculous

They should match--but if they match in a more subtle way, that's even better.  Isabela seems to be the sort of character that is all forward about what she wants--but this doesn't mean that she doesn't have serious depth, and I think her appearance/expression conveys this as well if you look beyond the boobs for a second.  She has a very strong (and not necessarily entirely feminine according to some) face, she wears those big black aggressive boots with low, flat heels.  

If you look past Bethany's extravagant boobs in that one shot, you'll notice that her outfit is otherwise highly utilitarian, and since the entire family are refugees at that point, she may have decided to go for the low-cut, feminine shirt as an attempt to seem attractive and vulnerable and worth helping (or as a distraction to the bad guys), and also hopefully draw attention AWAY from the fact that she's a MAGE.  It may also be the only shirt she has available.

Treating this stuff as if it's all a one-dimensional thing: "fanservice", "insulting my intelligence" is just as I indicated it was: absurd.

Btw, fanservice from what I understand is usually used to refer to moments that were interjected as an excuse to draw characters (particularly female ones, but also the guys) with less clothing than usual, such as having a shower scene or a day at the beach in a story that doesn't usually contain that sort of thing.  It doesn't *usually* refer to just having characters who don't completely cover up as a matter of course.

[Adhin]

Yeah that's basically what it is TMP. The companions get 'unique' looks, and Hawke has a set of variable closer to what DAO was. If they didn't get unique armor, they'd all be using the stuff hawke uses. The overall thing should mean you see less 'same' stuff all over the place. Your companions (and im hoping hawk) wont ever look like the bandits your attacking. Though I have to say I highly doubt they're keeping the Light, Medium, Heavy and Massive base armor progression they had due to how they're handling Hawk. Its probably just Robes (for mages) Light/medium for rogues, medium/heavy for Fighters. But I could be wrong - I haven't exactly seen it specified anywhere sadly.But over this month and the next we should hopefully be getting more details along that line.

[PsychoBlonde]

BrotherWarth wrote...

[But looking at Isabela can you honestly sat that there's anything subtle about said visual cues?

YES!  Not our fault if you have a one-track mind.  Heck there are other threads where people complain about how UGLY she is because she has a strong chin!

[Maconbar]

tmp7704 wrote...

Adhin wrote...

@TMP: I think your missing the whole point of the arguement that its 'lazy' to make unique models (which it is not).

I'm probably not wording it well, but i don't consider it lazy to make unique models per se. But i do consider it less work to make these unique models for just single species/gender combination *if* the alternative was to make the same amount of new outfit models for the new game and making them wearable by everyone.

If the alternative was to make less of univeral outfits then yes, one could argue that amount of work involved overall is comparable.

Are they just making unique models for single species/gender combinations or are they making unique models for each companion? I think that BW is making unique models for each companion although I could be mistaken in this.

[_- Songlian -]

BrotherWarth wrote...

- Songlian - wrote...

it doesn't really bother me that they want to turn DA into ME for the sake of gaining popularity. As long as it turns out to be a great game, they can bring a space ship into it for all I care. I'll still play it and enjoy it.

This is one line of thinking I will never understand. If they make it just like another franchise and take away everything that made it what it was then it isn't the same game any more. If I want to play Mass Effect I'll play Mass Effect. I want Dragon Age so I want it to look and play like Dragon Age.

I understand where you're coming from.

Why it doesn't bother me? Because the story and the writing is what matters to me the most when I play a game. If the writing team does its job well, I don't care if my dialogue lines come in a list or in a wheel, or if Isabela's boots can come off or not.

Modifié par - Songlian -, 11 décembre 2010 - 06:06 .

[JamieCOTC]

Let me guess, the color of Isabella's skirt changes or she puts on pants after you do her quest.  <_<

[slimgrin]

JamieCOTC wrote...

Let me guess, the color of Isabella's skirt changes or she puts on pants after you do her quest.  <_<

Pants and a frilly blouse.