1309 réponses à ce sujet

[Mlaar]

For an RPG based on the decisions and choices you take they sure have a way of limiting the choices you can actually make.. here this is your start outfit hey you've hit lvl ten now so you've progressed far enough here is the new outfit you wear..



Someone earlier said if your on a ship you wouldnt really wear heavy armour and hey yes id agree with him but for the fact if your ever a character in heavy armour going onto a ship you dont have any choice in wearing anything different.



Now I remember reading a lot of past topics that go on about how it was always impractical to wear all this armour when they just wanted to wander around shopping which actually suprised me, after all you are the catalyst of the story infact shortly after arriving at lothering you discover that you were a hunted Warden alive or dead it didnt matter but in thier minds it was hey the rulers of the land want to take me out i'll remove all my armour and go shopping then if thats not bad enough not long after that you get subjected to an attack by an assassin but hey lets head to town remove our armour and do some shopping, never once did it occur to their minds that this would be a bad idea to do until after you resolved the issue.



Ugg sidetracked myself, For me personally its not about the stats its about the choice, Cant stand that garish outfit then lets try this, I think this character is a fool then put him in a jesters outfit, I am the one thats shelled out 40 - 50 quid I can at least hope that for the next 20 - 40 hrs of gameplay I can enjoy looking at the characters who join me, so try allowing us some control over our heros give us The choice of outfits they wear

[crimzontearz]

I kinda wonder just how much of this feedback the devs are listening to.....or if they made up their mind altogether for the DA series and it's going to be fixed outfits from now on in spite of the clamoring to a middle ground

[In Exile]

Liable****sman wrote...
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.

You've been reading wrong.

The problem is with saying something like, everyone wins with more choice. No, not everyone, because there is at least one person that likes unique apperance here who would lose with such an arrangement.

It is very frustrating when people bring up the subjective issue improperly. Not adding a qualifier to every statement does not mean I am making objective claims. It should be clear, since I have been repeatedly refering to a subset of the population, that when I make statements that are affirmative of some view, it should be the only for the subset I have been constantly refering to.

Liable****sman wrote...
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.

Sure it would. It just wouldn't be the same for all people. That's not my point though. I don't want to make the claim all things have some inherent value, though it is actually they case they do. Even if that value where subjectively assesed, it would still be inherent.

This is a side-issue, though, and we should drop it. You misunderstood what I was saying and raised a non-issue.

Liable****sman wrote...
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.

....

Let's see how this conversation started:

Addai Sez:
Anyway, not being able to change something
we used to be able to change is automatically going to make it more
difficult to please everyone.  But if the devs consider that a fair
tradeoff, more power to them I guess.  Not going to celebrate it, given
the fact that so many of the outfits in BW games are goofy looking.

I Sez:
Unless
that very feature displeased people, and it being gone pleases them.

Do you see how from the very beginning, I am only talking about the preference of a subset of people, ie. absolutely not making any sort of objective claim?

Addai67 wrote...
You say this like it's a law, but obviously
Isabela's skimpy number is going to be magically upgraded at some point.

In DA:O, it was law. I even quoted you at the start - we were talking about how you believe the reduction in options is an intrinsic bad. I am pointing out it is not.

If we had unique starter outfits, that wouldn't be good enough. They would have to upgrade to remain unique. This was not a feature in DA:O, and if it had to happen with armour as opposed to mage robes where starter equipment rapidly became obsolote, it could have been a serious problem.

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.

Who said it can't? This isn't the debate you're having with me. The one you're having with me has to do with the problems of satisfying the taste of those who want a unique apperance, which you constantly don't seem to be able to understand.

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

And this is apparently your problem. You keep making up motives for why people like features that have nothing to do with why they like them. Yes, it's pretty strange that people would like a static apperance. But who are these people?

Wishpig wrote...

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.

The problem with that is how equipment scales. You'd basically need to have every quest area drop an upgraded version, or have some way of upgrading the base item. Robes of Posession worked partially because they were a better item than her original outfit, but you still had to (for example) bite the bullet and not give her reaper vestments if you thought those were superior.

This isn't a compromise so much as it is throwing those who want unique apperance a bone.

That's also putting aside the issue of how armour scales, which would make even more frequent drops required.

Modifié par In Exile, 14 décembre 2010 - 03:19 .

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...

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

And this is apparently your problem. You keep making up motives for why people like features that have nothing to do with why they like them. Yes, it's pretty strange that people would like a static apperance. But who are these people?

Well if you're saying you approve of the changes in DA2, then that's what you're saying.  At the very least that you prefer a static appearance over a system that had some flexibility and customization of appearance.  Again, we are dealing in the obvious here.  Why?  I'm pretty close to moving on since nothing is being accomplished here.

The problem with that is how equipment scales. You'd basically need to have every quest area drop an upgraded version, or have some way of upgrading the base item. Robes of Posession worked partially because they were a better item than her original outfit, but you still had to (for example) bite the bullet and not give her reaper vestments if you thought those were superior.

So you thought having limited choices in DAO was bad, but having your choices limited even more in DA2 is better??

You quoted me earlier saying that limiting choice automatically means some people aren't going to be satisfied.  That's because you have to either like the outfit BioWare has stuck a companion in or lump it.  If there is some flexibility in outfitting companions, so long as you get your unique upgradeable item, everyone does win.

[crimzontearz]

wow still going.....

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...
Well if you're saying you approve of the changes in DA2, then that's what you're saying.  At the very least that you prefer a static appearance over a system that had some flexibility and customization of appearance.  Again, we are dealing in the obvious here.  Why?  I'm pretty close to moving on since nothing is being accomplished here.

Like Shorts pointed out, not having the choice to pick appearances is something I am willing to tolerate for the sake of at least one unique apperance, but this isn't a positive feature at all. An ideal feature would be several unique apperances per companion.

That sadly isn't possible, but on the whole I don't think this system is any worse than the DA:O one, because for me, the loss in customization is made up for by the gain in uniqueness. Depending on what the items look like, it can be net neutral or net positive.

We're accomplishing little because what I have been trying to do is help you understand the other view, which you seem uninterested in doing.

It is not about static apperance. If everyone had a static and identical apperance neither side would be happy. A unique apperance is not the same as a static one.

So you thought having limited choices in DAO was bad, but having your choices limited even more in DA2 is better??

No. You're moving the goalpost. You keep thinking this is about some broad meaning of choice. It isn't.

If I'm allergic to chocolate, offering me 10 different kinds of chocolate is not as good as two kinds of apple. One is simply not palpatable. This is what I am trying to explain to you. You cannot make this about choice alone.

You quoted me earlier saying that limiting choice automatically means some people aren't going to be satisfied.  That's because you have to either like the outfit BioWare has stuck a companion in or lump it.  If there is some flexibility in outfitting companions, so long as you get your unique upgradeable item, everyone does win.

You didn't say some people. You said more people. If you had said different people would like this feature, I never would have objected. What I am objecting to is the notion that customization of appearance with generic appearances is some universal good that we are losing, and the game is worse for it.

The sort of thing in italics you're talking about is closer to a compromise, but doesn't have anything to do with what Bioware is doing.

Modifié par In Exile, 14 décembre 2010 - 04:45 .

[jesuno]

crimzontearz wrote...

wow still going.....

LOL, it only because Biowear is such a polarizing company:D

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...

That sadly isn't possible, but on the whole I don't think this system is any worse than the DA:O one, because for me, the loss in customization is made up for by the gain in uniqueness. Depending on what the items look like, it can be net neutral or net positive.

I like how you subtly skirt the "net negative" option there.

[David Gaider]

crimzontearz wrote...
I kinda wonder just how much of this feedback the devs are listening to.....or if they made up their mind altogether for the DA series and it's going to be fixed outfits from now on in spite of the clamoring to a middle ground

a) This is how it's going to be for DA2. Nothing is set "for the DA series" and we will make decisions from project to project based on what we think that project needs. If someone takes our design decisions as some kind of manifesto for RPG's in general they're just possibly reading a bit too much into it.

Nobody has played DA2 yet. So we'll take feedback at this point with a giant grain of salt.

c) Some people just aren't going to like what we've done-- and, not surprisingly, you'll find a lot of them here on this forum, full of people who really liked DAO and everything about it. Should we ever make a DA3 and make other changes, no doubt there will be yet another group of fans clamoring about those, as well. This is not to say any of the concerns are irrelevent-- people will like what they like, from big reasons to the incredibly petty-- but if anyone is under the impression that we'll accept their personal preferences as dogma, or that we'll accept pronouncements made on features out of context with the rest of the game... sorry, but that's not going to happen.

Express your concerns, by all means, and discuss the idea with each other (politely, please) but I think we feel good enough about what we're doing to see how it plays in the actual game and see how it's received by the public at large.

Modifié par David Gaider, 14 décembre 2010 - 05:45 .

[crimzontearz]

uh...david? read my previous posts man I'm ok with static outfits as long as it's not chainmail bikinis LOL



was just wondering about the future...

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...

That sadly isn't possible, but on the whole I don't think this system is any worse than the DA:O one, because for me, the loss in customization is made up for by the gain in uniqueness. Depending on what the items look like, it can be net neutral or net positive.

The loss of the ability to customize is always going to be a negative in my book.  Choice and customization is a cornerstone of an RPG.  Trying to turn RPGs into action movies is what is driving the negative, IMO.

Plus, as I've said upthread, I'm not too keen on BioWare's fashion sense.  Other than Warden Commander Armor, I use pretty much all mod armors.  So I'm thinking neutral is a best case scenario and rather unlikely.

It is not about static apperance. If everyone had a static and identical apperance neither side would be happy. A unique apperance is not the same as a static one.

In this case we're talking about two different things.  I'm talking about an appearance that's static across the length of the game, which in this case would be over the length of 10 years of an NPC's life.  Here I'm going on what Mike Laidlaw has said in the forum, that while the appearance of outfits may change, that that is unlikely and that stat bonuses and rune configuration will be the extent we'll be able to customize.

Whether the companions are unique in the world or not is a different issue.  That Isabela looks unique but every other female in the world has the same two or three outfits does not add a lot to the game for me.  In fact, it's kind of strange in terms of realism in the look of the game.  And why Isabela's get-up is so wonderful in your eyes while the other armor models that might be available, you're allergic to, I don't get that.  They're all Bioware-designed equipment models.  I'm saying, the designs are all kind of iffy, but if you at least get to choose which brand of iffy you prefer, that's better than being stuck with one.

[David Gaider]

crimzontearz wrote...
uh...david? read my previous posts man I'm ok with static outfits as long as it's not chainmail bikinis LOL

I was responding to your post, and the question you asked about whether we were listening to the feedback, but not necessarily addressing only you. Just so you know.

was just wondering about the future...

We'll weigh our options in the future depending on what resources we have available for the project and what we think will work best from a design perspective. It's not set in stone, but neither are we suggesting it'll change-- at the very least we'll want to see how DA2 is received.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

I would love to see a really deep item system in a game some day that used unique outfits when the player firsts meets a NPC, but then have NPC preferences from there on out. Some items would also only fit certain character sizes. Examples might include armor only a qunari, dwarf or elf could wear instead of one-size-fits-all. I know alot of people would rage over this, but it make finding the right fit even better for a weapon or sword. It would also be funny if a character just wouldn't wear an outfit because of personal preferences. Once more, people would likely rage over this but it would seem more realistic if characters would protest from putting on a helmet because it is "uncomfortible" or the boots don't fit well. It could even be as seemingly trivial a reason as "it's not the color I want." That kind of stuff would really crack me up to have picky NPCs whom your PC had to either persuade through skill/charisma or reason with them through intellect as to why they would need to wear something.



Not everyone's cup of tea but I'm weird dammit, I reserve the right to be wierd.

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...

I like how you subtly skirt the "net negative" option there.

I don't skirt it. I'm talking about my view. Unique static apperance isn't a net negative. It could be a wash with DA:O (feature I dislike for feature I dislike) in the worst case, but anything above that puts it as a net positive.

Addai67 wrote...
The loss of the ability to customize is
always going to be a negative in my book.  Choice and customization is a
cornerstone of an RPG.  Trying to turn RPGs into action movies is what
is driving the negative, IMO.

So long as you're aware that the both bold portions are some particular idiosyncratic personal take and not at all indicative of any opinion other than your own, we're good.

Plus, as I've said upthread, I'm
not too keen on BioWare's fashion sense.  Other than Warden Commander
Armor, I use pretty much all mod armors.  So I'm thinking neutral is a
best case scenario and rather unlikely.

I don't understand. Are you saying you think there's some value for you in unique apperances? I thought you felt that any loss in customizatin is always a negative. I mean, you just said this. 

Addai67 wrote...
In this case we're talking about two
different things.  I'm talking about an appearance that's static across
the length of the game, which in this case would be over the length of
10 years of an NPC's life.  Here I'm going on what Mike Laidlaw has said
in the forum, that while the appearance of outfits may change, that
that is unlikely and that stat bonuses and rune configuration will be
the extent we'll be able to customize.

But you weren't talking about this before. You were talking about how the loss of choice means that less people will be happy. All I'm saying is that's not a good way of looking at the feature, because there are other things players might want from an RPG.

I agree with you that every character looking the same over 10 years is a little on the silly side. It's very likely this happens because of limited resources.

But the issue of unique apperance versus customization isn't about a static apperance, and what it means for something to be static isn't even well defined. For example, I think this is a case of static apperance:

The model is identical, and all you have is a reskin of some of the design of the armour at best. Cailan's armour and the Sentinel armour are just outright pallete swaps.

Addai67 wrote...
Whether the companions are unique in the
world or not is a different issue.  That Isabela looks unique but every
other female in the world has the same two or three outfits does not add
a lot to the game for me.

That was obvious from the start. I'm not trying to get you to change your preference. I'm just asking you to appreciate that it isn't universal. Once again - that for you this isn't a positive doesn't mean that this isn't a positive feature for some.

In fact, it's kind of
strange in terms of realism in the look of the game.  And why Isabela's
get-up is so wonderful in your eyes while the other armor models that
might be available, you're allergic to, I don't get that.

I think it's alright. I certainly don't think it's phenomenal by any stretch; I just happen to like it better than any previous DA:O model.

Once again, this is where you go off on your inputing motive tangent that makes conversation so frustrating. I don't think the design is wonderful. The only value with Isabella's design is that she has a unique appearance. You really need to wrap your head around the fact that the aesthetic evaluation of the armour is on a totally different dimension for me compared to whether or  not the armour is unique.

They're
all Bioware-designed equipment models.  I'm saying, the designs are all
kind of iffy, but if you at least get to choose which brand of iffy you
prefer, that's better than being stuck with one.

But this is, again, arguing about static armour. Which I don't prefer. I don't know how many more ways or times I can possibly say this to you.

Modifié par In Exile, 14 décembre 2010 - 06:40 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

I want to know why it's acceptable for someone who is visibly unarmoured to tank, even though that looks silly, while it's unacceptable for someone in heavy armour to dual-wield daggers on the grounds that it looks silly (even thought such a thing will probably be possible anyway, thus defeating the reasoning right there).

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
The loss of the ability to customize is
always going to be a negative in my book.  Choice and customization is a
cornerstone of an RPG.  Trying to turn RPGs into action movies is what
is driving the negative, IMO.

So long as you're aware that the both bold portions are some particular idiosyncratic personal take and not at all indicative of any opinion other than your own, we're good.

Obviously.

Plus, as I've said upthread, I'm
not too keen on BioWare's fashion sense.  Other than Warden Commander
Armor, I use pretty much all mod armors.  So I'm thinking neutral is a
best case scenario and rather unlikely.

I don't understand. Are you saying you think there's some value for you in unique apperances? I thought you felt that any loss in customizatin is always a negative. I mean, you just said this. 

Obtuse, again?  I'm not criticizing "unique."  I've said numerous times I'm fine with the skimpy bits as long as they're not fixed to Isabela like glue.  I'm criticizing not being able to change the outfit, regardless of whether it's "unique" or not.  You can keep your "unique model," as long as I don't have to.

Anyway, I'm done.  Seems to me you're just harping on the obvious for the sake of debate.

Modifié par Addai67, 14 décembre 2010 - 07:20 .

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I want to know why it's acceptable for someone who is visibly unarmoured to tank, even though that looks silly, while it's unacceptable for someone in heavy armour to dual-wield daggers on the grounds that it looks silly (even thought such a thing will probably be possible anyway, thus defeating the reasoning right there).

Depends on the tanking mechanics. If the tanking  works by avoiding being hit rather than by soaking up damage on invisible armor, there's no issue -- except maybe with the combat rules themselves.

I'm a little lost here. How come we're discussing this anyway? It's not going to happen in DA2, where characters without visible heavy armor won't have any heavy armor to equip.

[Brockololly]

AlanC9 wrote...
 It's not going to happen in DA2, where characters without visible heavy armor won't have any heavy armor to equip.

Isn't this the point of contention with Aveline before she gets her armor? That she's a sword and shield warrior and presumably tank, yet wearing street clothes?

[Liablecocksman]

In Exile wrote...
.

Okay. I was under the impression that you were placing some sort of inherent worth in unique appearance, and saying such worth would not be present in non-unique appearance. My point was, that it should be rather evident that every individual has their personal preferences, and that no universal inherent worth could be attributed anything over something else.

It appeared to me, that you were arguing that because of this fact, unique appearance would always be preferable to non-unique appearance.

This appears to not be the case, instead you seem to be arguing that there is no inherent worth in being able to customize your appearance, meaning that it is not always preferable to unique appearance.

With this, I agree completely... But that brings up the matter of the discussion as a whole. It seems you started it by pointing out that "not everyone thinks customization is better, you're wrong in saying it is intrinsically bad".
That is, essentially, exactly what I was doing, too("you are wrong in saying everyone would prefer unique appearance over customization"). I doubt Addai67, like yourself, was talking on the behalf of anyone other than herself, rendering your entire argument meaningless.

Modifié par Liablecocksman, 14 décembre 2010 - 09:24 .

[crimzontearz]

David Gaider wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...
uh...david? read my previous posts man I'm ok with static outfits as long as it's not chainmail bikinis LOL

I was responding to your post, and the question you asked about whether we were listening to the feedback, but not necessarily addressing only you. Just so you know.


was just wondering about the future...


We'll weigh our options in the future depending on what resources we have available for the project and what we think will work best from a design perspective. It's not set in stone, but neither are we suggesting it'll change-- at the very least we'll want to see how DA2 is received.

that's cool....

I know Bioware listens (I even made a thread about it in the ME2 board).

besides at least this particular topic is not stressing me out too much

[AlanC9]

Brockololly wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
 It's not going to happen in DA2, where characters without visible heavy armor won't have any heavy armor to equip.

Isn't this the point of contention with Aveline before she gets her armor? That she's a sword and shield warrior and presumably tank, yet wearing street clothes?

I see. But do we know that Aveline's street clothes actually have the stats that armor has?  I haven't seen any such information.

[anillop]

The outfits and equipment system in mass effect was one of the major defects in the game as far as I was concerned. I hated that I couldn't change my companions out of their old gear into something that perhaps didn't have a freaking giant hole going through. I just hope they don't remove the ability to customize the party from DA like they did for ME2.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

AlanC9 wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
 It's not going to happen in DA2, where characters without visible heavy armor won't have any heavy armor to equip.

Isn't this the point of contention with Aveline before she gets her armor? That she's a sword and shield warrior and presumably tank, yet wearing street clothes?

I see. But do we know that Aveline's street clothes actually have the stats that armor has?  I haven't seen any such information.

Does it matter? regular pants/shirts should not have the same defensive properties of full **** plate mail. The hell is wrong with you people.

[Altima Darkspells]

AlanC9 wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
 It's not going to happen in DA2, where characters without visible heavy armor won't have any heavy armor to equip.

Isn't this the point of contention with Aveline before she gets her armor? That she's a sword and shield warrior and presumably tank, yet wearing street clothes?

I see. But do we know that Aveline's street clothes actually have the stats that armor has?  I haven't seen any such information.

Well, she is wearing it in the beginning where her husband, being the type, is presumably wearing armor.  Hawke is, as well.  Heck, even Hawke's mage robe looks more protective than the monstrousity Aveline is.