1309 réponses à ce sujet

[crimzontearz]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

You do not get SIE. SIE gets you.

is that en euphemism to say that Isabela like Role-Reversal play? 

It's from Alpha Protocol.  Link (spoilers).

LOL ......I know... it's ok Shorts, when the devs revealed jack was a love interest in ME2 I made a joke about being afraid that Jack would be the one taking  Shepard and not the other way around (hint hint), Maria replied that they did not call her "Shotgun Jack" for nothing. I was just trying to bring the joke back in DA2 

[upsettingshorts]

Ah, carry on then! *goes for a sandwich*

[crimzontearz]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ah, carry on then! *goes for a sandwich*

funny enough.....half the people who understood the role reversal comment about ME2 back then lost their appetite LOL

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...
The point with Morrigan is that she had a unique outfit, but you were not bound to keep her in it.  You could put her in one of the other ugly mage robes, or make her an arcane warrior and put her in armor.

You don't seem to get it. Morrigain had one unique outfit (the only character to do so) and the only other choices were to allow the player to write fan-fiction or to force her into generic armour. None of the other characters had anything but generic armour.

If you don't want generic armour, the system is not any good. You could have plenty of choice - it would be like offering 10 brands of peanut butter to someone allergic. 1 brand of cereal might be preferable.

Excuse me if I don't care what you "allow" in my playthrough of a single-player game.

Again, you're not getting it. The value in fixed outfits is that characters are no longer your dress-up dolls. I appreciate that you like this feature. However, if you are going to make objective claims about how it is received, you are just going to have to appreciate other people want other things for their RP experience.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Based on this, are you be annoyed
that Hawke can change his appearance?

Or will you be annoyed if
he can't maintain a static appearance throughout the game (like the
other characters)?

Hawke is my character, so a change of appearance is justified. Note that I don't think characters should have fixed appearance - I just don't think the player should change them without engaging the characters in the allowable way as separate people, i.e. via the dialogue system. I think clothes must be dealt with as story and not abstract gameplay element of the hive mind.

I would only be annoyed if Hawke cannot have a unique appearance beyond the beefcake outfit in the exagerrated portions.

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
The point with Morrigan is that she had a unique outfit, but you were not bound to keep her in it.  You could put her in one of the other ugly mage robes, or make her an arcane warrior and put her in armor.

You don't seem to get it. Morrigain had one unique outfit (the only character to do so) and the only other choices were to allow the player to write fan-fiction or to force her into generic armour. None of the other characters had anything but generic armour.

  I'm not saying that Morrigan having a unique outfit is bad.  I wouldn't mind companions starting out in a unique piece.  Hell, keep Leliana in the Chantry robe.  It's not unique to all NPCs everywhere but it would make for an... interesting element.

I just want the option to switch out.  "Generic" that I can choose is preferabe to "unique" that I'm stuck with.  If Morrigan can get a unique outfit and we can then change it, then so can every companion.  They're going to make the unique outfits anyway, in the current DA2 system.  And they're going to make models for Hawke.  Just make it possible for companions to wear the armor and robes Hawke would otherwise be wearing.

I think this is rather easy to comprehend and you're possibly being deliberately obtuse.

[jesuno]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

jesuno wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

I've always wondered, for how long is a bride supposed to keep the cake anyway? Not particularly practical to stuff a whole wedding cake into the deepfreezer indefinitely just for the luck of it.

I believe you eat it on the one year anniversary.

Yes, two more months and I can get that damn box out of my freezer.

A wedding cake.

For a full year.

...for luck's sake, man. Things people come up with.

By the way, congratulations in advance.

Thanks man. Yeah, I don't undertand it, but sometimes it is good to let the little ones go.

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...
  I'm not saying that Morrigan having a unique outfit is bad.  I wouldn't mind companions starting out in a unique piece.  Hell, keep Leliana in the Chantry robe.  It's not unique to all NPCs everywhere but it would make for an... interesting element.

I know you're not saying it's bad. What I don't think you appreciate is how much other people value that unique item.

Leliana's Chantry robe doesn't count, because it is not armour and generic.

I just want the option to switch out.  "Generic" that I can choose is preferabe to "unique" that I'm stuck with.  If Morrigan can get a unique outfit and we can then change it, then so can every companion.  They're going to make the unique outfits anyway, in the current DA2 system.  And they're going to make models for Hawke.  Just make it possible for companions to wear the armor and robes Hawke would otherwise be wearing.

That would leave out any elf or dwarf companion. In this case, I would also rather they make two variants of unique equipment for every character rather than simply allow them to do so for Hawke.

What I am saying that you don't get is the inherent value in unique apperances.

I think this is rather easy to comprehend and you're possibly being deliberately obtuse.

No, you don't seem to be able to understand what it means to value a unique apperance. What we had with Morrigain for every character is only a compromise if the unique item upgrades stats (like robes of possesion). That works largely because mage robes do not improve dramatically unlike armour.

If each character had unique armour, that armour would either have to be broken or upgreadable. It's not so simple as unique starter gear. You could still be forced into generic items or be gimped.

[Liablecocksman]

In Exile wrote...

I know you're not saying it's bad. What I don't think you appreciate is how much other people value that unique item.

What I am saying that you don't get is the inherent value in unique apperances.

I very much agree with what Addai67 is saying.
It has nothing to do with inability to comprehend the value of unique appearance, it just has to do with us placing importance on the fact that we are able - through progression - to upgrade and customize our companions to suit our playstyle.

It's fine that you don't share that viewpoint... It's super fine! Just don't make your main argument in the discussiong "I don't think you understand/comprehend/realise the importance that people place in unique appearance".
Last time I checked you don't speak for the rest of the world, and stating such a viewpoint as fact, is simply ludicrous.
I would hope you don't even speak for the majority, but I don't know that, hence why I don't state my opinion is better than yours(because I would be speaking for the majority), unlike what you're doing.

Modifié par Liablecocksman, 14 décembre 2010 - 04:27 .

[upsettingshorts]

That's not what In Exile is doing. He's explaining his position as it appears he and Addai are not on the same page.

[Liablecocksman]

Upsettingshorts wrote...



That's not what In Exile is doing. He's explaining his position as it appears he and Addai are not on the same page.

I've been following the discussion for a while, and I disagree. Both are civil and nice about it, but I think those two quotes I've taken out of of the latest post validate what I'm saying. There simply is no inherent worth or value in unique appearance.



There is only as much worth or value as is placed by each person individually. I don't think there is any worth in it, but that doesn't make me more right than you, if you think that there is.

[upsettingshorts]

Liable****sman wrote...

There simply is no inherent worth or value in unique appearance.

There can be.  If Morrigan was dressed in a tracksuit and cowboy hat I'd think differently about her, that's for sure.  But since we're talking about inherent worth...

The very fact people are saying they think outfits are ugly and that will mean they never take them along demonstrates that value, even if it's a resoundingly negative one. 

If there's an inherent value it is that appearance generates a reaction.  If we can change it, then the impact of that reaction is temporary.  If we cannot, we either have to live with it (or embrace it, depending on if we like it or not) or put it out of sight and out of mind.  

Maybe people don't like my avatar and used Adblock on it or something.  But it's still the image I chose to represent myself on the forum, and that sends some message - even if it's as simple as "Boy that guy likes Parks & Recreation."  To deny that it has value is to deny expression itself has value.   Whether or not that adds or detracts from someone's fun is an entirely different issue.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 14 décembre 2010 - 04:36 .

[Maria Caliban]

Liable****sman wrote...

There simply is no inherent worth or value in unique appearance.

Right. Like there's no inherent worth or value in being able to fiddle with your companion's outfit.

However, I believe the Exile is pointing that that the idea of unique appearances as starter outfits wouldn't please the group that wants companions to have a unique appearance. If they're starter outfits, then you're going to have to switch them out if you want to use that character, which means they've lost their unique appearance.

Perhaps a better solution would be that you could dress characters in whatever you desire, but their appearance stays the same. Only the stats change.

[Liablecocksman]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

There can be.  If Morrigan was dressed in a tracksuit and cowboy hat I'd think differently about her, that's for sure.  But since we're talking about inherent worth...

The very fact people are saying they think outfits are ugly and that will mean they never take them along demonstrates that value, even if it's a resoundingly negative one. 

If there's an inherent value it is that appearance generates a reaction.  If we can change it, then the impact of that reaction is temporary.  If we cannot, we either have to live with it (or embrace it, depending on if we like it or not) or put it out of sight and out of mind.  

I agree completely - but that is all beside the point, isn't it?
We aren't talking about inherent value in appearance, we are talking about inherent value in unique appearance.

See where I'm getting at, here?

To answer your edit, I could change my avatar to match yours, but it would still have inherent value. It wouldn't be unique, however.

Modifié par Liablecocksman, 14 décembre 2010 - 04:38 .

[upsettingshorts]

Liable****sman wrote...

We aren't talking about inherent value in appearance, we are talking about inherent value in unique appearance.

See where I'm getting at, here?

In the context of DA:2?  Nope. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 14 décembre 2010 - 04:38 .

[Liablecocksman]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Right. Like there's no inherent worth or value in being able to fiddle with your companion's outfit.

Exactly!

However, I believe the Exile is pointing that that the idea of unique appearances as starter outfits wouldn't please the group that wants companions to have a unique appearance. If they're starter outfits, then you're going to have to switch them out if you want to use that character, which means they've lost their unique appearance.

Perhaps a better solution would be that you could dress characters in whatever you desire, but their appearance stays the same. Only the stats change.

That could be a solution, I guess. I wouldn't like it, but I'd like it better than the armour changing or progressing without my involvement as a player.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

In the context of DA:2? Nope.

How am I being unclear?
I'm just pointing out that there is value in appearance regardless of it being unique.

Modifié par Liablecocksman, 14 décembre 2010 - 04:42 .

[Lucy Glitter]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Perhaps a better solution would be that you could dress characters in whatever you desire, but their appearance stays the same. Only the stats change.

I've always liked that approach. 

[AlanC9]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Perhaps a better solution would be that you could dress characters in whatever you desire, but their appearance stays the same. Only the stats change.

DA2 will already have runes and accessories for the companions. How much more statistical fiddling is needed for an optimal design?

[upsettingshorts]

AlanC9 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
Perhaps a better solution would be that you could dress characters in whatever you desire, but their appearance stays the same. Only the stats change.

DA2 will already have runes and accessories for the companions. How much more statistical fiddling is needed for an optimal design?

Maybe gear could be upgraded like characters.  Some version of XP is earned that could be spent upgrading and customizing the attributes of the outfit.

Or instead of XP, just use money and use gold to add to armor level or defense at will.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 14 décembre 2010 - 04:59 .

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...

No, you don't seem to be able to understand what it means to value a unique apperance. What we had with Morrigain for every character is only a compromise if the unique item upgrades stats (like robes of possesion). That works largely because mage robes do not improve dramatically unlike armour.

If each character had unique armour, that armour would either have to be broken or upgreadable. It's not so simple as unique starter gear. You could still be forced into generic items or be gimped.

You say this like it's a law, but obviously Isabela's skimpy number is going to be magically upgraded at some point.

Still not seeing why it can't be both/and.  Obviously it can, if they already did it with Morrigan in DAO and yet we could put her in "generic" stuff if we chose.

Then there is the mystery why anyone would want such static companions.  But whatever.

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...

Then there is the mystery why anyone would want such static companions.  But whatever.

Unique and detailed I can very much understand.  Appearance being static seems like a price being paid for that, not the goal of the feature.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 14 décembre 2010 - 05:01 .

[Maria Caliban]

AlanC9 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
Perhaps a better solution would be that you could dress characters in whatever you desire, but their appearance stays the same. Only the stats change.

DA2 will already have runes and accessories for the companions. How much more statistical fiddling is needed for an optimal design?

I'm not sure what optimal design is. I assume the unique appearance is 1) to cut down on graphical resources, 2) to give the companion a single, uniform look that expresses them.

The rune system doesn't please some people and Addai offered up a compromise, so I thought I'd try one as well.

[Wishpig]

I think the handling of Morrigan's outfit in DA:O was the perfect way to go. Just provide another "main" outfit later in the game with lategame stats, but freedom to wear whatever.

Although I can see how that might not work with an entire cast of companions as there would be tough to dictate when they all get their enhanced outfits.

But if I had to choose behind static outfits and full custimization... I don't think I could. Static outfits have extreme strengths and weaknesses both of which have already been mentioned to death.

[Snoteye]

Wishpig wrote...

I think the handling of Morrigan's outfit in DA:O was the perfect way to go.

From a player perspective, perhaps the ideal approach, but certainly not a feasible solution. Both approaches require a lot of development time from the same departments (so no overlap), and at a generous estimate the effort will be appreciated by half. That's a lot of waste for something that at best is secondary. I'm not keen on the arguments against static appearances but if it is functional rather than aesthetic then static models with an armour slot, like Maria suggested earlier, would be a good compromise. That will just offend another group of players, though.

For DA3 I want companions to be naked.

Modifié par Snoteye, 14 décembre 2010 - 10:33 .