1309 réponses à ce sujet

[PsychoBlonde]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

LA Noire has built a bridge over the uncanny valley. Or at least, it looks like it will.

Who's LA Noire?

http://www.rockstargames.com/lanoire/

If you Google LA Noire and uncanny valley you'll get dozens of pages, as well.

Damn, now that's creepy.  For me, it's always a very slight lighting issue that does it (the faces don't quite reflect light and have the same textural quality as real skin), plus there's a disjunct between how detailed the face is and how detailed the hat/clothing is (and the rest of the surroundings) that just makes it . . . not quite right.

You can see this same sort of thing in Lord of the Rings when Gollum first appears.  They did a GREAT job on the lighting when it's just him in the moonlight, but in the daylight he looks kind of plastic and rubbery.

[Ryzaki]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

Only because they decided graphics needed an update (which I disagree with. Then again most of my favourite games look ten years old, so I might be biased);

I'm ambivalent about much of the graphical update, but I see the model changes as a major step forward, and one I assume was a large factor in the outfit changes. Without it, I don't think I'd be terribly happy with any characters looks, and so for me, while I understand I might find a character stuck in gear I dislike the look of, at least there's an actual chance they might look ok.

I'm rather meh on it. Supposedly the unique outfit offers less clipping yet somehow Aveline still manages to drag her sword through her arm.

If I'm going to be stuck with static outfits the devs could at least make sure there's no clipping.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 15 décembre 2010 - 12:17 .

[upsettingshorts]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Damn, now that's creepy.  For me, it's always a very slight lighting issue that does it (the faces don't quite reflect light and have the same textural quality as real skin), plus there's a disjunct between how detailed the face is and how detailed the hat/clothing is (and the rest of the surroundings) that just makes it . . . not quite right.

For me it was mostly the expressions.  So it's easy to figure out why I like what LA Noire's doing.  That being said it's a start - textures for example have a ways to go.

[Atakuma]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Damn, now that's creepy.  For me, it's always a very slight lighting issue that does it (the faces don't quite reflect light and have the same textural quality as real skin), plus there's a disjunct between how detailed the face is and how detailed the hat/clothing is (and the rest of the surroundings) that just makes it . . . not quite right.

For me it was mostly the expressions.  So it's easy to figure out why I like what LA Noire's doing.  That being said it's a start - textures for example have a ways to go.

It's always been about the dead eyes for me.

Ecit: I mean that it's always the eyes that cause that dip into the valley.

Modifié par Atakuma, 15 décembre 2010 - 12:22 .

[Ryzaki]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Damn, now that's creepy.  For me, it's always a very slight lighting issue that does it (the faces don't quite reflect light and have the same textural quality as real skin), plus there's a disjunct between how detailed the face is and how detailed the hat/clothing is (and the rest of the surroundings) that just makes it . . . not quite right.

For me it was mostly the expressions.  So it's easy to figure out why I like what LA Noire's doing.  That being said it's a start - textures for example have a ways to go.

Ah yes I liked how the woman actually looked like a shocked and frightened woman than someone making an O face for once.

And really Shepard's rape face has scarred me for life.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 15 décembre 2010 - 12:24 .

[Eumerin]

The Companion Armor system seems quite similar to what was done in Planescape: Torment.  Admittedly in that game there were only four characters who even wore clothes (of the remainder, one was a floating skull, one was a clockwork box with arms and legs, one WAS the clothing - an animated suit of armor in this case, and one was on fire).  One of the four was the PC - and the only clothing option he ever had was a rough-looking robe (which he promptly took off anytime something happened).  I don't remember whether Dak had any alternate armor sets, although there's no reason that he couldn't have.  Annah and Fall-from-Grace each could equip alternate gear, but they only had a total of three items that they could wear in their body slot.  Each started with one, and you could buy two additional body slot items for each of them, all of which were customized for either one character or the other.

They'd also complain if you tried to completely remove their body slot items...  (I don't remember what Annah said, but FFG's line was something along the lines of, "I can't remove that because then I'd be naked.").

Also worth noting is that the player character was the only character in that game with a variety of weapon options.  For most of the characters, this was understandable.  Morte, for instance, would have trouble using a battle-axe since he was a floating skull.  Dakkon's sword was effectively an infinity+1 sword in potentia, so swapping that out wouldn't have made much sense either.  But Annah had no particular reason to stick with her punching daggers...  except for the fact that she was used to using them.  So while you could upgrade her weapons, the upgrades had to be punching daggers as well.  Punching daggers were just as much a part of her character as her gutter-snipe upbringing and tail.


In essence, if done right then limiting the costume options for the most visible NPC inventory slots can be a great way to develop the character of the NPC in question.

Modifié par Eumerin, 15 décembre 2010 - 12:33 .

[Qset]

Ryzaki wrote...

Really though I'd be willing to stake my cat on a part of the reasoning for static outfits being that it's cheaper, faster and more efficient.

it also creates a ready market for post release companion outfit DLC...

[Ryzaki]

Qset wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Really though I'd be willing to stake my cat on a part of the reasoning for static outfits being that it's cheaper, faster and more efficient.

it also creates a ready market for post release companion outfit DLC...

I was trying to forget about that.

[upsettingshorts]

Qset wrote...

it also creates a ready market for post release companion outfit DLC...

Judging by the popularity of modded armors and clothing in DA:O, this market already existed.

[DMC12]

Qset wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Really though I'd be willing to stake my cat on a part of the reasoning for static outfits being that it's cheaper, faster and more efficient.

it also creates a ready market for post release companion outfit DLC...

If they give Hawke sunglasses, I'd most definitely pay for it. To hell with Mass Effect's. But good call.

[SultryVulcan]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
I would have expected the major out cry after you did it in ME2, (since Maria and like 2 other people are the only ones who get off on the "UNIQUE COMPANONS" !!!111!), would have been enough to disuade you folks from making the same terrible design decision in regards to companion armor again. Yet amazingly you did it anyway.

You mean we don't make all our decisions based on how loud and nasty people can get on the forums?

Yes. It's amazing, I know.

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
since Maria and like 2 other people are the only ones who get off on the "UNIQUE COMPANONS" !!!111!

Incidentally, regarding this statement:

a) Simply because the people who support something or, at the very least, don't find it bothers them in the slightest don't rush to every thread and match the level of venom spewed by those against it does not make the venom-spewers the center of the universe.

Even if it was just "Maria and like 2 other people" that doesn't make them wrong. Possibly nobody cares what you think.

Sacasm FTW David, you of all people should get the jist of where I was going with that. I think you get the idea though and have obviously seen the negative outlook on static companion armors far outweigh the maybe 5 people who are for it, 4 of which are generally for anything you devs feed them for info in the first place.

I don't think I'd be as venom spewing if you guys would actually stop pandering so much to the console crowd and stop dumbing down your games thinking you'll automagically sell an extra 3-5 million and pull in AC or COD type numbers.

6 actually

[Crimson Invictus]

SultryVulcan wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Sacasm
FTW David, you of all people should get the jist of where I was going
with that. I think you get the idea though and have obviously seen the
negative outlook on static companion armors far outweigh the maybe 5
people who are for it, 4 of which are generally for anything you devs
feed them for info in the first place.

I don't think I'd be as
venom spewing if you guys would actually stop pandering so much to the
console crowd and stop dumbing down your games thinking you'll
automagically sell an extra 3-5 million and pull in AC or COD type
numbers.

6 actually

*Ponders if I'm one of the ones who approves everything the devs do*

Modifié par Liana Nighthawk, 15 décembre 2010 - 12:49 .

[Qset]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Qset wrote...

it also creates a ready market for post release companion outfit DLC...

Judging by the popularity of modded armors and clothing in DA:O, this market already existed.

yes of course it does, a quick look at the top 100 on any of the mod sites shows a high hit rate for cosmetic look and style changes.

I guess what I meant to say was that it gives EA a ready way of getting their slice of that market, sorry for not being clear.

[Eumerin]

Qset wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Really though I'd be willing to stake my cat on a part of the reasoning for static outfits being that it's cheaper, faster and more efficient.

it also creates a ready market for post release companion outfit DLC...

It doesn't appear to have worked so well for Mass Effect, though.  ME2 had one release with new outfits for three characters...

... and that was it.  Best guess is that the initial batch of outfits didn't sell as well as they'd hoped, and they figured it wasn't worthwhile to put more up for sale.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

We've been specifically told that we're not losing the ability to customise companion armour statistically.

"Not losing" didn't mean "keeping the exact same amount of." I know if you said "not losing" you'd have meant "not losing any", but that's you.

I'll agree their remarks were ambiguous, but my interpretation is the most reasonable starting point.  After all, remember what our source was:

Mike Laidlaw said in a podcast...

Isabela in platemail would look rather strange.  Knowing her, she’d probably still look pretty sexy.  But what it gives us is I think a really good opportunity to say, “Ok, we want these characters to stand out.  We want them to be recognizable.”  But we don’t want to sacrifice the elements that people who want to customize their party and I think that’s the vast majority of our players really enjoyed that.  And again, “How do I build up my tactics?"  “How do I build up my abilities?"  “How do I support that with gear?”  Again, that’s part of the experience.

I don't see any suggestion that our level of statistical control over the characters is going to change.

[Qset]

scyphozoa wrote...
Judging by how poorly the ME2 AA pack1 was received, I don't think milking AA packs is a viable business strategy that Bioware is counting on.

It is true though, these static outfits are imposing a limitation and then creating an outlet for more options to be sold later.

Truthfully, I don't care as long as the options are readily available and to my liking. I only have a problem with static outfits when they are not to my liking. In ME2, some outfits I love and don't feel the need to change ever, others I hate and would change asap.

well only EA know how many DLC units they truly sold, my guess is it was a lot more than we might expect, choosing the right price is also key.

Anyway, I agree with you, if I really like the static outfits look and can alter their stats via runes and they get upgrades during the game even if not visual then it it not the end of the world  as I am sure the game will deliver many other good things.... I hope

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote..
Only because they decided graphics needed an update (which I disagree with. Then again most of my favourite games look ten years old, so I might be biased); otherwise, keeping the actual model would be faster and more efficient.
So they work less in their added work because they decided to work more.

They decided the art style needed an updated, which meant a graphics update too. I prefer the new art style, but then I dislike a great deal of the faux medieval styles of armour available.

Ryzaki wrote...

Though I wonder how many different armors
do Hawke get in this case? I mean if they're going to bite of ME2's
outfit system we might as well been able to dye Hawke's armor. They
ripped off everything else. >_>

We've seen at least four for a warrior Hawke: the unique "Epic" Hawke armour which seems to be fixed for each class, a very flimsly looking set of leather armour, massive "Ferelden armour" and a snazzy heavy looking armour set.

I actually really like the armour design this time around. But I think that's just a consequence of liking the art style.

Ryzaki wrote...
I always
saw UV to mean it's more realistic than usual but not quite there. In
the attempt to be more realistic it becomes repulsive and strange
instead.

Empirically, it's supposed to mean creepy as ****ing hell. It's arguable how well this has been substantiated, but the literature looks at the uncanny valley as a face that looks realistic at first glance, but cannot quite capture the full expressiveness of a human face and so looks wrong somehow.

[Maria Caliban]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Company I used to work for did a dummy street survey to show clients that the way in which you ask questions is crucial to the excercise. My favourite question on it was "Have you ever felt like killing your spouse?"

51% of Americans support gay marriage, but only 42% of Americans think homosexuals should have the right to marry.

Incidently, at One News Now, their filtering automatically changes the word 'gay' to 'homosexual,' thus we learn that Tony Homosexual is doing well at the Olympics.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 15 décembre 2010 - 02:00 .

[Sharn01]

As much as I prefer the option to customize the outfits myself, I dont really think you can point at the ME2 complaints as a proper comparison. 

The vast majority of ME2 complaints in regards to the outfits where people wearing  them in inhospitibol enviroments such as a vacuum, a planet with a poisonous atmosphere or entering the Flotila without covering up rather then from their performance during combat or personal dislike of them in general.

[Stoomkal]

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.

At the same time, why not just get rid of his ability to wear a helmet? I mean, he's a guy with horns. That seems like a logical reason to not allow the PC to give him one.

...

Do you really believe that?

I thought that Qunari and their horns came out of a focus group long after DA:O had been completed.

To think that they did have horns in the original is strange, as it was never mentioned and surprised the heck out of people when it was released.

The only thing I think links to it is a dagger called the "Beastman's Dagger".

[In Exile]

Qunari had horns for a while. We thought they were lizard people back in the day.

[Stoomkal]

In Exile wrote...

Qunari had horns for a while. We thought they were lizard people back in the day.

...

Really?

I honestly don't remember that.

I do remember people being very suprised at the whole "horns" issue.

Were there pre-DAO concept art that had Qunari with horns? I only ever remember it from about six months ago.

[Altima Darkspells]

Eumerin wrote...

The Companion Armor system seems quite similar to what was done in Planescape: Torment.  Admittedly in that game there were only four characters who even wore clothes (of the remainder, one was a floating skull, one was a clockwork box with arms and legs, one WAS the clothing - an animated suit of armor in this case, and one was on fire).  One of the four was the PC - and the only clothing option he ever had was a rough-looking robe (which he promptly took off anytime something happened).  I don't remember whether Dak had any alternate armor sets, although there's no reason that he couldn't have.  Annah and Fall-from-Grace each could equip alternate gear, but they only had a total of three items that they could wear in their body slot.  Each started with one, and you could buy two additional body slot items for each of them, all of which were customized for either one character or the other.

They'd also complain if you tried to completely remove their body slot items...  (I don't remember what Annah said, but FFG's line was something along the lines of, "I can't remove that because then I'd be naked.").

Also worth noting is that the player character was the only character in that game with a variety of weapon options.  For most of the characters, this was understandable.  Morte, for instance, would have trouble using a battle-axe since he was a floating skull.  Dakkon's sword was effectively an infinity+1 sword in potentia, so swapping that out wouldn't have made much sense either.  But Annah had no particular reason to stick with her punching daggers...  except for the fact that she was used to using them.  So while you could upgrade her weapons, the upgrades had to be punching daggers as well.  Punching daggers were just as much a part of her character as her gutter-snipe upbringing and tail.


In essence, if done right then limiting the costume options for the most visible NPC inventory slots can be a great way to develop the character of the NPC in question.

The game is also twelve years old.  There's an excuse for doing that way back then.  Not so much anymore, especially from BioWare, and a sequel that was in development before the original was even shipped.

[tmp7704]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

maybe this time the armor stats requirements are higher than in origins so you'd be basically gimping the rogue by allocating most points into strength just for the armor.

Actually, it sounds like bows and daggers get damage bonuses from Dex, not Strength, so you probably would be gimping the Rogue by having him wear massive armour (since daggers and bows are the only weapons a Rogue can equip).

Well, they were also talking about how the function of individual stats was revamped to make each stat more useful for every class. Leaving aside that the implementation (based on what we were told regarding it) may have quite possibly achieved something exactly opposite, *if* that goal was actually met then in theory giving your rogue more strength shouldn't "gimp" them but instead create just a somewhat different rogue.

Of course there's always the "if it's not built in this one way then it's useless" mindset, but, well. ugh, whatever.