1309 réponses à ce sujet

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Dave of Canada wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

I also don't understand why armor needs to add character. Character should be fleshed out via dialog and story, not looks.

Because this is a visual medium? 

That's a cop out. Good writing is the core part of a good story based game. On top of that, this isn't just "visual", it's also audio and literary. You can't tell a good story with just visuals, you need to compliment it.'

Per your edit: And yet, again, in movies and television looks are not the key, or even main, factor in fleshing out a character. It's dialog. 

I'm not stating an opinion here, I'm not trying to defend or assault anything, I just think it's a general rule of thumb that writing is the biggest factor in characterization. 

Modifié par TonyTheBossDanza123, 11 décembre 2010 - 02:57 .

[upsettingshorts]

I think ideally we'd all be able to have our cake and eat it too. The number of choices DA:O presented with the unique, different looking outfits DA:2 offers. If Isabela could choose from 6-12 outfits of varying states of utility and/or modesty, that'd be great.

I'm just not sure asking for that is a reasonable request - as it strikes me as heavily resource intensive. So, we get a tradeoff. And tradeoffs, being compromises, have a price to pay and for some it will be too high.

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

That's a cop out. Good writing is the core part of a good story based game. On top of that, this isn't just "visual", it's also audio and literary. You can't tell a good story with just visuals, you need to compliment it.

It's possible for the way a character dresses to add to their character but I wouldn't go so far to say this bonus is inherent.  But denying that it can't add to it strikes me as odd.  Isn't that part of the reason fashion exists and we're all not wearing different colored versions of the same jumpsuit? 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 décembre 2010 - 02:56 .

[Ziggeh]

ajbry wrote...

Part of DAO's appeal was getting invested in your companions and being able to give them individual preferences and appearances.

With rogues you could dress them in that oddly looking brown outfit, or a slightly green version of the same ugly looking brown outfit.

[inclemency]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

But see, the "IF YOU ARENT
WEARING PANTS YOU CANT PLAY" stuff is pants-fascism. It totally is. I
mean, if I said, "I don't bring elves along because I think they're
ugly looking" that'd raise an eyebrow or two wouldn't it?

I'm not begrudging that opinion - just to be clear - just defending my label of it!

No, it's not, upsettingshorts. We female gamers have had to play pants-less, bustsize EEEE, with cleaveage bursting tops for the past decades. DA:O really got away from that if you chose, which was such a wonderful relief. I want to play a female character that dresses like a warrior, or whatever type of character you want. With DA2, there goes our choice again, right out the window and it's back to no pants, and cleavage busting tops. *sigh*

Modifié par inclemency, 11 décembre 2010 - 02:59 .

[Ziggeh]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

That's a cop out. Good writing is the core part of a good story based game. On top of that, this isn't just "visual", it's also audio and literary. You can't tell a good story with just visuals, you need to compliment it.

No one said it didn't need good writing. They're saying that visuals complimenting it is a good thing.

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I think ideally we'd all be able to have our cake and eat it too. The number of choices DA:O presented with the unique, different looking outfits DA:2 offers. If Isabela could choose from 6-12 outfits of varying states of utility and/or modesty, that'd be great.

I'm just not sure asking for that is a reasonable request - as it strikes me as heavily resource intensive. So, we get a tradeoff. And tradeoffs, being compromises, have a price to pay and for some it will be too high.

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

That's a cop out. Good writing is the core part of a good story based game. On top of that, this isn't just "visual", it's also audio and literary. You can't tell a good story with just visuals, you need to compliment it.

It's possible for the way a character dresses to add to their character but I wouldn't go so far to say this bonus is inherent.  But denying that it can't add to it strikes me as odd.  Isn't that part of the reason fashion exists and we're all not wearing different colored versions of the same jumpsuit? 

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying it doesn't add, but I don't think it should be such a defining part of it. Just because you dress like a pirate doesn't mean you are one.

[upsettingshorts]

inclemency wrote...

o, it's not, upsettingshorts. We female gamers have had to play pants-less, bustsize EEEE, with cleaveage bursting tops for the past decades. DA:O really got away from that if you chose, which was such a wonderful relief. I want to play a female character that dresses like a warrior, or whatever type of character you want. With DA2, there goes out choice again, right out the window and it's back to no pants, and cleavage busting tops. *sigh*

For Isabela and a lesser extent Bethany, sure.  In the case of the former I'd say we know enough about her personality to at least guess if she doesn't wear what she wears for deliberate effect she is at least not modest enough to care about pants.  Bethany, well, who knows.  Aveline is dressed sensibly for the occasion in both outfits we're aware of.  

That doesn't mean I don't get what you're saying in principle.

[Ziggeh]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Isn't that part of the reason fashion exists and we're all not wearing different colored versions of the same jumpsuit? 

This is the future, damn it. Where's my silver jumpsuit?

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

That's a cop out. Good writing is the core part of a good story based game. On top of that, this isn't just "visual", it's also audio and literary. You can't tell a good story with just visuals, you need to compliment it.

No one said it didn't need good writing. They're saying that visuals complimenting it is a good thing.

Again i understand that, and I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I just don't think the developers should rely on it.

[ajbry]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

ajbry wrote...

Part of DAO's appeal was getting invested in your companions and being able to give them individual preferences and appearances.

With rogues you could dress them in that oddly looking brown outfit, or a slightly green version of the same ugly looking brown outfit.

That's a totally different argument, though. I'm more satisfied with being granted the choice to alter my companions appearances than being consumed with how nice the options really are. Being wholly restricted is a huge step backwards.

[Ziggeh]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...
Again i understand that, and I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I just don't think the developers should rely on it.

Going on past performance, I think we can say that would be terribly unlikely.

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...
Again i understand that, and I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I just don't think the developers should rely on it.

Going on past performance, I think we can say that would be terribly unlikely.

I just think this is setting a bad precedent, and considering they've never done this before, it worries me. Why fix what isn't broken? 

[Dave of Canada]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Per your edit: And yet, again, in movies and television looks are not the key, or even main, factor in fleshing out a character. It's dialog.

Give Vader a t-shirt and sweatpants, you can still pull off the evil-vibe from him with dialogue but you don't get into the head of the audience with "Holy **** this guy is evil" immediately.

We're in a visual medium where an outfit can tell a lot about somebody.
Why does Kratos look as he does? Because he's supposed to be a badass spartan warrior.
Why does Morrigan have her robe? Because some normal robes wouldn't have helped with the "raised in the wilds" and "witch" character.
ect

Characters are iconic by their writing as well as their look.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 11 décembre 2010 - 03:03 .

[Maria Caliban]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

I just think this is setting a bad precedent, and considering they've never done this before, it worries me. Why fix what isn't broken? 

They have done this before. With ME 2.

[upsettingshorts]

ajbry wrote...

That's a totally different argument, though. I'm more satisfied with being granted the choice to alter my companions appearances than being consumed with how nice the options really are. Being wholly restricted is a huge step backwards.

I'm not as satisfied by an illusion of choice.  So to me, it's not really that I like the new setup, just that I wasn't a huge fan of DA:O's options, so I don't feel like I'm missing much by losing Brown Armor 2 and Green Armor 3.   Therefore I keep an open mind on each and every locked outfit I see.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 décembre 2010 - 03:05 .

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Dave of Canada wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Per your edit: And yet, again, in movies and television looks are not the key, or even main, factor in fleshing out a character. It's dialog.

Give Vader a t-shirt and sweatpants, you can still pull off the evil-vibe from him with dialogue but you don't get into the head of the audience with "Holy **** this guy is evil" immediately.

We're in a visual medium where an outfit can tell a lot about somebody.
Why does Kratos look as he does? Because he's supposed to be a badass spartan warrior.
Why does Morrigan have her robe? Because some normal robes wouldn't have helped with the "raised in the wilds" and "witch" character.

Characters are iconic by their writing as well as their look.

To be fair, Kratos isn't a very good character to use as a justification for...any form of characterization.  Like I said though, I'm not saying it isn't important, just not AS important.

[Dave of Canada]

Maria Caliban wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

I just think this is setting a bad precedent, and considering they've never done this before, it worries me. Why fix what isn't broken? 

They have done this before. With ME 2.

And they've expanded upon it greatly to still allow customization with stats, pretty much the biggest complaint from the people that hated the new ME2 system (though that complaint changed when they fixed what people hated).

[Ziggeh]

ajbry wrote...

That's a totally different argument, though. I'm more satisfied with being granted the choice to alter my companions appearances than being consumed with how nice the options really are.

Fair enough. I just don't believe DA:O represented a diverse choice in any way.

ajbry wrote...
Being wholly restricted is a huge step backwards.

It's aa trade, whether it balances is entirely subjective of course, but I think it's important to look at the whole picture.

[Maria Caliban]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...


To be fair, Kratos isn't a very good character to use as a justification for...any form of characterization.

What? Kratos is an excellent example of characterization.

[Leonia]

I only want to look at half of the picture, darn it.

I also support the companion outfit system of DA 2. I just wish we had more unique outfits for more of our Origins charcters. But that's hindsight for ya.

Modifié par leonia42, 11 décembre 2010 - 03:08 .

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Maria Caliban wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

I just think this is setting a bad precedent, and considering they've never done this before, it worries me. Why fix what isn't broken? 

They have done this before. With ME 2.

And that worked terribly. ME2 was basically an FPS with a RPG elements.

[Ziggeh]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...
Why fix what isn't broken?

Because it was broken, or at least a problem. It severely limited character models and animations.

[Leonia]

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

TonyTheBossDanza123 wrote...

I just think this is setting a bad precedent, and considering they've never done this before, it worries me. Why fix what isn't broken? 

They have done this before. With ME 2.

And that worked terribly. ME2 was basically an FPS with a RPG elements.

What does FPS with RPG elements have to do with the clothing?

[Wicked 702]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I think ideally we'd all be able to have our cake and eat it too. The number of choices DA:O presented with the unique, different looking outfits DA:2 offers. If Isabela could choose from 6-12 outfits of varying states of utility and/or modesty, that'd be great.

I'm just not sure asking for that is a reasonable request - as it strikes me as heavily resource intensive. So, we get a tradeoff. And tradeoffs, being compromises, have a price to pay and for some it will be too high.

I have to disagree with you here because that's (as I've said before) only a half-truth. We're not talking about adding new elements to the game but rather preserving elements that already existed. Now the difficulty here is of course the fact (right?) that the character models are unique. So presumably, there's a lot of extra work that would have to be done since the character models are no longer interchangeable.

Ok fine, I get that. But the problem is that most things (seriously) can be reduced to a simple set of mathematical values. In fact, that's how new age biometric scanners (like the face, heat, vein signature machine) work. But this isn't NEARLY that complicated. Armor textures and models, like any other piece of computer code, can absolutely be properly scaled by using proportions and some good old mathematics. I realize that the artists probably don't think in those terms, but I do. And once the proper formulas are written, the rest is not nearly as resource intensive as actually animating each one.

Modifié par Wicked 702, 11 décembre 2010 - 03:11 .