1309 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

Pseudocognition wrote...

if you see that Isabela's appearance needs to express some manner of dextrousness, sexuality, uninhibitedness, trickiness, confidence or c ockiness, and then compare her to the western RPG market at large, she wins.

A CHALLENGER APPEARS

(courtesy of http://garrenh.deviantart.com)

Modifié par tmp7704, 12 décembre 2010 - 05:41 .

[Maria Caliban]

Xewaka,
What do you think of the design for the other characters? I noticed MEG lost his glowy tattoos.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 12 décembre 2010 - 05:44 .

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

tmp7704 wrote...
A CHALLENGER APPEARS

LOL well that's not to say other people couldn't achieve the same end goal differently but, concept art is this weird mix of objective and subjective. A design may fulfil the goal but also not be to somebody's taste... as demonstrated by this thread and the many others that have arisen on the characters' outfits.

Edit: although, does that design say uninhibitied/live-for-the-now? Like she wouldn't object to a tumble if a persuasive enough stranger struck up a conversation with her in a bar?

Maria Caliban wrote...

What do you think of the design for
the other characters? I noticed MEG lost his glowy tattoos.

I like how they've gone in a more simple direction than the usual fantasy fare. Shirt, pants, belts. Its very cosplay friendly, swag friendly (the details should scale nicely into figurines), fanartist friendly, its very obvious how everything gets put on in the morning which is a HUGE plus.

He still has them! And they are hawt.

OH, that was to Xewaka. *is a loser*

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 12 décembre 2010 - 05:56 .

[Crimson Invictus]

tmp7704 wrote...
A CHALLENGER APPEARS

*Makes vague reference back to my original post about the importance of a strong silhouette in defining a character.*

Modifié par Liana Nighthawk, 12 décembre 2010 - 05:42 .

[tmp7704]

Yeah, posted that mainly because i <4 Morgan's character and that was perfect excuse for her to show up

[Maria Caliban]

tmp7704 wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...

if you see that Isabela's appearance needs to express some manner of dextrousness, sexuality, uninhibitedness, trickiness, confidence or c ockiness, and then compare her to the western RPG market at large, she wins.

Image

A CHALLENGER APPEARS

(courtesy of http://garrenh.deviantart.com)

Catwoman > All.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 12 décembre 2010 - 05:45 .

[tmp7704]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Catwoman > All.

Needs to be a pirate. Access denied.

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Catwoman > All.

QFT. Adam Hughes' version omfg. And despite the trainwreck that was the movie, Halle Berry did rock that outfit.

Modifié par Pseudocognition, 12 décembre 2010 - 05:47 .

[nightcobra]

Pseudocognition wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
Catwoman > All.

QFT. Adam Hughes' version omfg. And despite the trainwreck that was the movie, Halle Berry did rock that outfit.

isabela, the catwoman of thedasB)

[Xewaka]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Xewaka,
What do you think of the design for the other characters? I noticed MEG lost his glowy tattoos.

The only in-game shot of MEG we've seen has him half-cut from the image and with a weird light cast on him, causing him to look sickly yellow. I 'd rather wait for a clear shot to make an opinion. I assume he's wearing a feather decorated leather armor, so it seems good so far. Even if the exposed toes seem a bit weird.

Aveline is magnificent. I'd like to have a better look at her armor, though.

I have less of a problem with Varric outfit than Isabela because, as Varric is a range fighter, he'd be reliant on cover rather than armor. And Bianca is a joy to look at.

It seems Bethany can't decide wether she'll be wearing armor ot not. The chainmail apron and cleavage combo is not exactly top fashion.

[Liablecocksman]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
Catwoman > All.

QFT. Adam Hughes' version omfg. And despite the trainwreck that was the movie, Halle Berry did rock that outfit.

isabela, the catwoman of thedasB)

Except that she isn't, at all.
Catwoman is an example of practical clothing being sexual.
Isabela is an example of sexual clothing not being particularly practical.

[Atakuma]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

isabela, the catwoman of thedasB)

I certainly hope not. I can't stand that character.

Edit: Nevermind, that actually makes sense. I just dont like catwoman.

Modifié par Atakuma, 12 décembre 2010 - 06:05 .

[nightcobra]

Liable****sman wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
Catwoman > All.

QFT. Adam Hughes' version omfg. And despite the trainwreck that was the movie, Halle Berry did rock that outfit.

isabela, the catwoman of thedasB)

Except that she isn't, at all.
Catwoman is an example of practical clothing being sexual.
Isabela is an example of sexual clothing not being particularly practical.

she'd probably just shrug off that remark, right after she'd taken everything valuable you have with you:devil:.
because, she won't care what people think of her and as just as catwoman...what she wants, she takes (namely treasure)

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 12 décembre 2010 - 06:00 .

[Maria Caliban]

Atakuma wrote...

I certainly hope not. I can't stand that character.

I... you don't like Catwoman?

[Ziggeh]

Xewaka wrote...

I think we have different perceptions of the character, then. Yes, Isabela is a flirty pirate. She is also a pragmatic duelist. I think this second part isn't emphasized enough in the character looks.

Given the intent of the fixed outfit is to give them more scope to portray the character, shouldn't we be incorporating that into the character, rather than judging if it stands outside of our original impression?

[Atakuma]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

I certainly hope not. I can't stand that character.

I... you don't like Catwoman?

The character just never did it for me  

[Maria Caliban]

Atakuma wrote...

The character just never did it for me  

I see.

[Adhin]

Batman and Catwoman is one of my favorite comic book dynamics. The 2 of them is just awesome. And I back the idea Isabela is the Catwoman of DA... or that to explain her fighting style just look at batman. That whole hero with no powers but still kicking ass I think says it all really.

Her outfit isn't very impractical in that kind of fighting anyway. Not sure why everyone says that. Her boots aren't super-high heel or anything there more thigh-high combat boots so shes good on movement already. the no pants helps a lot. And just because her front looks open? doesn't mean its not snuggly fitted in there.

And again, shes a pirate. Pirates get to do crazy stuff. Like Ninjas but completely different.

Modifié par Adhin, 12 décembre 2010 - 06:45 .

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...

Allow me to counterpoint with a precedent: Enchanted robes of defense are less effective than armor and shield in Dragon Age: Origins. Yes, spells might be more powerful, but they are a constant drain in the mage and can only protect him/her. Enchanted items require lyrium to enhance their capabilities. So, while enchantment is an option, it seems an upgraded mundane solution is more cost-effective.Yes, it is better to be naked with a ring of protection than be naked, but it is better to wear armor than being naked with a ring of protection. At least with our actual knowledge of the setting, this is the stablished fact.
Unless magic got even more out of hand between Origins and 2, your argument of "magic!" is countered by how the magic has been stablished to work in the setting.

But that's all gameplay. Wynne creates a magic super barrier we could never create in-game. The circle tower has super anti-magic wards. These are just examples off the top of my head. There are many instances in-game of magic we absolutely cannot use as players.

I would not take a gameplay balanced element (robes for mages versus armour) and suppose from that some limitation for magic. That's putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.

Beyond that, the argument that enchamnment + armour is better than enchantment alone is irrelvant. All that matters is that some level of enchantment can give you the same sort of protection as some basic level of armour.

At that point, it is no longer insane to run into battle without armour. Isabella could have plenty of reasons to eschew armour for enchantment alone. Secrecy. Seduction. Fashion sense.

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...
On pragmatism:
"I win because I cheat, Kitten. I thought that was obvious." - Isabela

I see nowhere reference to beat better armored foes. I do see a pragmatic fighter relying in trickery and efficience. That seems close enough to our world view of a duelist.

That suggests she'd avoid armour to trick her enemies. Look vulnerable, then gut them. That would be cheatng. Wearing armour would be playing fair.

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...

But that's all gameplay. Wynne creates a magic super barrier we could never create in-game. The circle tower has super anti-magic wards. These are just examples off the top of my head. There are many instances in-game of magic we absolutely cannot use as players.

I would not take a gameplay balanced element (robes for mages versus armour) and suppose from that some limitation for magic. That's putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.

And on the examples you put, there's always at least one mage present for manteinance. Any form of magical protection not directly linked to a mage supporting it has been portrayed so far as weak.

In Exile wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
On pragmatism:
"I win because I cheat, Kitten. I thought that was obvious." - Isabela
I see nowhere reference to beat better armored foes. I do see a pragmatic fighter relying in trickery and efficience. That seems close enough to our world view of a duelist.

That suggests she'd avoid armour to trick her enemies. Look vulnerable, then gut them. That would be cheatng. Wearing armour would be playing fair.

I'm squinting very hard to see how does "not wearing armor" equals "cheating".
Looking vulnerable and being actually vulnerable are very different things. Wading unarmored through sharp sticks falls squarely on the second.

Modifié par Xewaka, 13 décembre 2010 - 12:18 .

[Liablecocksman]

In Exile wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
On pragmatism:
"I win because I cheat, Kitten. I thought that was obvious." - Isabela

I see nowhere reference to beat better armored foes. I do see a pragmatic fighter relying in trickery and efficience. That seems close enough to our world view of a duelist.

That suggests she'd avoid armour to trick her enemies. Look vulnerable, then gut them. That would be cheatng. Wearing armour would be playing fair.

No, it doesn't suggest that at all.
Where do you see "I don't wear armour" in "I cheat"?
Also, chances are her enemies already know who she is when they attack her (you know, being her enemies and wanting to attack her, and all) and I would hope the *enemies* to be smarter than not attacking her because she wasn't wearing armour.

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...

And on the examples you put, there's always at least one mage present for manteinance. Any form of magical protection not directly linked to a mage supporting it has been portrayed so far as weak.

What we've seen in-game is that magic is reality breaking BS. Trying to impute any kind of coherent rule from this is reaching at best.

If you're going to draw conclusions from gameplay mechanics like armour ratings, we might as well say Isabella just isn't wearing armour because she pumped dex and her dex is greater than the attack rating of any enemy on nightmare.

I'm squinting very hard to see how does "not wearing armor" equals "cheating".

Wearing armour is a very clear indication of how protected you are.

Looking vulnerable and being actually vulnerable are very different things. Wading unarmored through sharp sticks falls squarely on the second.

Wading apparently unarmoured equals cheating.

Isabella has enchanted cloth. Some warrior (say you) thinks she's protected by nothing so closes in, knowing one good hit will kill her. You close and strike her barely protected stomach. You hear a ding as your sword bounces off the equivalent to plate magical cloth. She cuts your throat.

Cheating.

Modifié par In Exile, 13 décembre 2010 - 01:31 .

[In Exile]

Liable****sman wrote...
No, it doesn't suggest that at all.
Where do you see "I don't wear armour" in "I cheat"?

I just explained it. Apparently not wearing armour is cheating. It plays with impressions.

Also, chances are her enemies already know who she is when they attack her (you know, being her enemies and wanting to attack her, and all) and I would hope the *enemies* to be smarter than not attacking her because she wasn't wearing armour.

The enemies would certainly attack her. As you (and others) have proven in this thread, you will immediately assume if someone does not look armoured, it is impossible for them to be, and that can lead to quite fatal mistakes.

Look we have an awesome rationalization that doesn't envoke the true reality breaking mechanic of any RPG which is the HP bar, that makes any injury fatal and that would make mages even more overpowered gods than they are in DA:O.

[Liablecocksman]

In Exile wrote...

I just explained it. Apparently not wearing armour is cheating. It plays with impressions.

The enemies would certainly attack her. As you (and others) have proven in this thread, you will immediately assume if someone does not look armoured, it is impossible for them to be, and that can lead to quite fatal mistakes.

Look we have an awesome rationalization that doesn't envoke the true reality breaking mechanic of any RPG which is the HP bar, that makes any injury fatal and that would make mages even more overpowered gods than they are in DA:O.

I was under the impression that we were discussing Isabelas character, and her duelist-like specialization... Not some convoluted set of metagaming theories on the gameworld.