1309 réponses à ce sujet

[Adhin]

Isabela's outfit makes me think 'Sexy Pirate'. Not '****' oddly enough. Now if she was waring just the panties and some kinda top-wrap, sitting out on a street corner... then yeah, ****. Shes waring waaay to much, and its far to 'piraty' to not think pirate.

-edit-

From my understanding the outfit changes arn't just doing some single personal quest (though some may). Also keep in mind the companion 'quests' are that, quests. As in more then 1. They chain over the course of the whole story. It spans 10 years and most outfit changes they get, if any, are there to represent the change in time.

And no its not just 'someone gets pants' or a simple skin change (though some maybe something as silly as that). Aveline goes from waring Farmer outfit with Studded leather overthrow thing to getting full on Plate Armor.

Modifié par Adhin, 11 décembre 2010 - 06:12 .

[Ziggeh]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Several people in this thread have said that it makes no sense to be able to tell a character to change their clothes while seemingly having no problem with being able to tell them to use different weapons.

Fair enough. It's kind of a silly thing to say, as your role as the player is never implicit. Sometimes you're a leader asking them to do things and other's you're their god, directing their actions.

[Apollo Starflare]

BrotherWarth wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...

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.

Several people in this thread have said that it makes no sense to be able to tell a character to change their clothes while seemingly having no problem with being able to tell them to use different weapons.

It's not about it making no sense to be able to tell a character to change their clothes, it's more about it being fitting that a character with such a distinct personality could reflect it in their outfit and would choose not to wear heavy armor (or whatever) thus it not being a big deal that we can't force said armor on that companion. I'd still like to be able to give different outfits to Isabela (for example), but it certainly makes more sense for them to be ones she would want to wear.

This is different to the player character who even when voiced is essentially 'us' and ours to dress and customise the personality of as much as possible.

[tmp7704]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

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. 

I really wouldn't include Isabela's boots as argument that her look isn't supposed to be all about stressing the sex-appeal. Not when thigh boots are commonly considered erotic, kinky or otherwise a source of fetish fuel. Especially when paired with microskirt or visual equivalent, like in Isabela's case.

Her face is indeed questionable to some, but given multiple comments from the dev team how they find Isabela "beautiful" i'm not sure if it's not just case of difference in tastes, with the intention behind the design being very much to make a very attractive character who dresses up as provocatively as she can get away with in the settings. Just like her breast size actually working for the viewer instead of turning them off also boils down to the individual taste.

[Ziggeh]

BrotherWarth wrote...
Really? You think no pants and showing 2/3s of her breasts is subtle? Or are you just being contrary for the sake of being contrary?

I have to mentally correct myself a lot in isabella conversations. "Pants" means something different here.

But no, those bits aren't subtle. The absence of the characterism brought by an actor leaves less room for subtlety than we might otherwise from the imagery. There is considerably more going on than "sexualised" however. There certainly is subtlety, just not all over.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 11 décembre 2010 - 06:27 .

[tmp7704]

Maconbar wrote...

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.

They are making unique model for each companion, but that effectively means making each of their outfitsfor only one species/gender combination. i.e.

Isabela's outfit is only made for human female
Bethany's outfit is only made for human female
Varric's outfit is only made for dwarf male

etc. as opposed to

pirate outfit made for both males and females of all species
home-made "armour" for both males and females of all species
long coat for both males and females of all species

and so on.

[PsychoBlonde]

tmp7704 wrote...

I really wouldn't include Isabela's boots as argument that her look isn't supposed to be all about stressing the sex-appeal. Not when thigh boots are commonly considered erotic, kinky or otherwise a source of fetish fuel. Especially when paired with microskirt or visual equivalent, like in Isabela's case.

Those are *high-heeled* thigh boots, almost always with pointed toes.  Isabela has military-style flat heels with big round toes--waffle stompers, which are hardly ever considered sexy (which is part of the reason why a lot of women wear them, to emphasize that they are strong as well as attractive--which can be attractive in its own way, but it's certainly more subtle than spike heels.)

[Adhin]

yeah to TMP's point of what it 'essentially means' It makes me wonder if you can even take the armor off them. If you can then they probably would all default to some base body, if you can't then they may actually have directly unique bodies. Personally I'm hoping for the unique bodies part. Would be nice if they're not all the EXACT same damn height. Absolutely hate that in Bioware games. Least incorporate a damn height scale to the engine. I mean they've semi-had that in it since NWN and just never really used it past making weapons scale to the body its being used on. Hell if I can figure out why they wont scale NPC height to not be all the same.

[AlanC9]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

Several people in this thread have said that it makes no sense to be able to tell a character to change their clothes while seemingly having no problem with being able to tell them to use different weapons.

Fair enough. It's kind of a silly thing to say, as your role as the player is never implicit. Sometimes you're a leader asking them to do things and other's you're their god, directing their actions.

Hey, if they wanted to make the weapons companion-specific too I'd be all for it. Of course, I'm something of a radical on the topic-- I was disappointed that ME2 didn't live up to the hype as far as removing inventory goes.

But since the weapons aren't specific, of course we've got to be able to decide who gets what.

[tmp7704]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Those are *high-heeled* thigh boots

That's hardly a requirement. Just like the original go-go boots were low-heeled and still considered (and intended) to be sexy -- the high heel helps to shape the calf granted, but just the length of booth combined with bare skin above works well enough. And even the bare skin part is optional.

Isabela has military-style flat heels with big round toes--waffle stompers, which are hardly ever considered sexy (which is part of the reason why a lot of women wear them, to emphasize that they are strong as well as attractive--which can be attractive in its own way, but it's certainly more subtle than spike heels.)

If these women indeed think they aren't seen sexy just because there's no high heel to the boot, they're clueless. Or just feigning ignorance while realizing perfectly well how they're perceived, which is more likely because i think women are quite capable of registering impressions they make on the males around. As well as plain asking "do i look good in this?"

It's more sublte in a way "Nice shoes, wanna ****?" is technically more subtle than "Nice shoes, wanna **** sugartits?"

Modifié par tmp7704, 11 décembre 2010 - 06:49 .

[PsychoBlonde]

Adhin wrote...
Least incorporate a damn height scale to the engine. I mean they've semi-had that in it since NWN and just never really used it past making weapons scale to the body its being used on. Hell if I can figure out why they wont scale
NPC height to not be all the same.

Well . . . because this can have inadvertantly weird results.  The size-scaling in NwN2 didn't really work all that well--the tall characters looked abnormally stretched even if you set the width as far as it would go.

Hellgate: London is about the only game I personally have seen that had an actual functioning body scaling system, because the girth didn't just make your character wider, it actually caused them to SWELL in some areas (high-girth females had thicker arms/legs and slightly larger breasts to go with their wider torso.)  Granted I won't claim to have seen all the systems out there, but they may have considered messing around with this too be way too much work for not enough return.

[PsychoBlonde]

tmp7704 wrote...

It's more sublte in a way "Nice shoes, wanna ****?" is technically more subtle than "Nice shoes, wanna **** sugartits?"

I'd say it's the difference between "hey, check out my legs!" and "you can check out my legs, but be aware that I can stomp you into oblivion".

[Ziggeh]

AlanC9 wrote...

Hey, if they wanted to make the weapons companion-specific too I'd be all for it. Of course, I'm something of a radical on the topic-- I was disappointed that ME2 didn't live up to the hype as far as removing inventory goes.

I thought the ME2 inventory was close to ideal for the game (changing companion weapons didn't feel like you were achieving a lot, so I'd have prefer that gone, and of course the actual resource mechanics that got you much of the inventory was pretty clumsy), and I think that's key. It's something that should be in keeping with the game it's in rather than being considered in isolation.

Probably getting a little off topic, but essentially my position is that the classical inventory system serves the purpose of multiple avenues of personal progression rather well, but I'd like to see some innovation because it's one I've used several billion times before.

[JW720]

It's more sublte in a way "Nice shoes, wanna ****?" is technically more subtle than "Nice shoes, wanna **** sugartits?"[/quote]

Well put.

[upsettingshorts]

*sees "Some people will embrace anything Bioware does" argument a ways back and sighs to himself*

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 décembre 2010 - 06:58 .

[Ziggeh]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

*sees "Some people will embrace anything Bioware does" argument a ways back and sighs to himself*

If I'm debating in real life I preface all my statements by declaring that at the end of my sentence I'm going to put my fingers in my ear and shout "LA-LA-LA" until the other person stops talking.

[tmp7704]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

I'd say it's the difference between "hey, check out my legs!" and "you can check out my legs, but be aware that I can stomp you into oblivion".

But adding the threat doesn't make the invitation itself to check out the legs any more subtle, does it? 

edit: mind you, i suspect main reason Isabela's boots are low-heeled is either because even the designers realized giving it high heel would go well beyond the ridiculous... or it's simply due to fixed height of characters requirement -- putting Isabela on high heels would require either making her legs shorter to preserve overall shape of the rig, or redoing all animations specifically for her.

Modifié par tmp7704, 11 décembre 2010 - 07:07 .

[tonnactus]

Maria Caliban wrote...

What do you think of fixed companion outfits? I like them as I think they add to the personality of the character. I also understand they're less resource intensive. For example, the developers have suggested that if Sten wasn't a party member, the qunari in Origins would have had horns. Because he was, and because you could dress him as you pleased, they would have had to make a unique Sten-only version of all the helmets in game.
 

Is this a joke? In Mass Effect,Turians,Asari and even Kaidan Alenko have their unique helmet version.And Mass Effect looks far better then Dragon Age.

[Liablecocksman]

Tonnactus bringing out the big guns.



Also, Isabela bringing out the big guns.

[Crimson Invictus]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Thank you, Liana.

Suspects irony.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

So no character, especially Isabela, can wear anything remotely sexy? And considering that anything can be considered sexy, well. That's limiting. There is no article of clothing that nobody fetishizes, try though some cultures might.

Personaly I think her boots hit the happy medium between stompy and sexy. In other words, gimme gimme gimme. *puts on gogo boots and goes stomping around*

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 11 décembre 2010 - 07:08 .

[AlanC9]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Hey, if they wanted to make the weapons companion-specific too I'd be all for it. Of course, I'm something of a radical on the topic-- I was disappointed that ME2 didn't live up to the hype as far as removing inventory goes.

I thought the ME2 inventory was close to ideal for the game (changing companion weapons didn't feel like you were achieving a lot, so I'd have prefer that gone, and of course the actual resource mechanics that got you much of the inventory was pretty clumsy), and I think that's key. It's something that should be in keeping with the game it's in rather than being considered in isolation.

Probably getting a little off topic, but essentially my position is that the classical inventory system serves the purpose of multiple avenues of personal progression rather well, but I'd like to see some innovation because it's one I've used several billion times before.

Well, I wasn't that down on ME2, I just wanted it to go a little farther. ME2 still suffers from the same credibility problem that ME1 did, though to a lesser degree. Why isn't all the good stuff on the Normandy from the start? It's less of a problem in ME2 because many of the upgrades are presented as new tech from fringe elements, but it's still hard to see why Cerberus didn't have someone buy all the upgrades from the Citadel before the game starts.

But I did like that you have to actually work for your stuff in ME2, as opposed to ME1 where you can't avoid getting the good stuff as you play.

My personal design preference would be to offload nearly all gameplay personalization onto the character design system, with items reduced to a very  few special ones and generic everything else. Keep a little dolly-dress-up for the PC since it's our personal character, but dump it for NPCs. So I'm pretty happy with both ME2 and DA2.

[tmp7704]

Pseudocognition wrote...

So no character, especially Isabela, can wear anything remotely sexy? And considering that anything can be considered sexy, well. That's limiting.

I agree, the obvious conclusion seems to be, in order to avoid the unavoidable sexualization make them wear nothing at all

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

tmp7704 wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...

So no character, especially Isabela, can wear anything remotely sexy? And considering that anything can be considered sexy, well. That's limiting.

I agree, the obvious conclusion seems to be, in order to avoid the unavoidable sexualization make them wear nothing at all

I understand that you were trying to be funny but I can't help but headdesk.

[tmp7704]

Sorry; i'll get my coat.