495 réponses à ce sujet

[Rohx]

but realy guys, i dont mind having specific looks for our companions.



but i do hope there is more than 2 choices for progetion sence.

even if the stats upgrade i want their look to upgrade also.



like if there are 7 tires. i want at least 5 looks for my companions.

some skimpy, some covering, some "realistic", etc.



as long as we can have some say in how our companions look, im all for it.



ME2 problem for me was the lack of choise, you had, starting and the "black" upgrade, witch was the same "Skin" painted with another color!



i hope we get a lot more in DA2, but we will have to wait and see!

[Schneidend]

TJPags wrote...

She may be dressed well for swashbuckling, but, you know, we're not on a ship.  Is it so hard to imagine her putting on pants and a leather vest (sort of like she wore in DAO)?  Or is that too un-pirate-like?

She wore leather armor when she appeared in Origins, which didn't include pants, either. She had a leather kilt like everybody else who wears leather armor.

Further, swashbuckling has nothing to do with being on a ship.

[TheMadCat]

But the party is not your character. That is where you will find a serious objection from those (like myself) who favour unique apperances. Now, I do think having more than one apperance is good - but I believe at least one unique apperance with no customization is better than the DA:O approach, with generic armour and the ability to use different armour classes.

I think a good compromise is to restrict armours unique armours to companions to maintain a character consistent apperance but allow some customization.

I don't understand this argument in the least, a group of people climbing Mt. Everest are all going to be wearing the same heavy clothes, not because of some "hive mind" but because it's the most practical attire. Same thing with battle, everyone is going to be wearing the same armor and equipment because it gives them the best chance to survive, being rebel and running around in your underwear just to be different accomplishes nothing except making you easier to kill.

You wear whatever is the most practical for the situation at hand, not what makes you look unique.

Modifié par TheMadCat, 27 décembre 2010 - 11:15 .

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

The best of both worlds for me would be to have casual outfits for when you meet them in town and fighting garb for when you go adventuring. Even if both are static, its far better than the ME2 style.

[Pwnsaur]

Ok, I understand the hive mind mentality and how that is in some way detrimental to the experience of some players. If you can at least alter some armor stats that somewhat mitigates my disappointment in this department. The way I play these kinds of games, when I decide what my party is wearing, it is not actually the Warden, or Revan or whoever else, it's the governing character. The problem is that the AI is not at a point right now where they can unilaterally make those kinds of decisions, so you as the player assume that role with the idea that you are acting on their behalf.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'd absolutely love the AI to be able to consistently be changing their armor based on scenarios, skill, and time period but that's just not the case. Instead we get each character wearing basically the same thing for extended and prolonged periods of time with no ability to alter it. That to me is not a step-forward at all, it's definetely more of a streamlining shift. Streamlining (or watering down) is basically a function of trying to appeal to a wider target demographic with the risk of alienating your core to some degree, which is how I feel. Less micro-managing = easier/less complicated gameplay = less dedicated/casual audience = more money/less features.

Essentially, we are losing an option for customization and gaining nothing in it's place. Afterall, DA:O already had static outfits that were personal to each party member, but also gave the option to customize. How can more content ever be seen as a negative in this way?

Also, the agrument (if you can call it that) of BioWare spending time on one thing and it directly affecting the time they spend on another thing is done to death and is so completely uninformed it has no credence on any level. You are not a game designer and you have little/no knowledge of how a game is created, so please stop assuming you do. You really believe Ray Mizyka sits down and says, 'Ok...I'd love to add (content) here but.. It seems we already have this thing over here.." How simplistic and ignorant.

Modifié par Pwnsaur, 27 décembre 2010 - 11:25 .

[Schneidend]

TheMadCat wrote...
I don't understand this argument in the least, a group of people climbing Mt. Everest are all going to be wearing the same heavy clothes, not because of some "hive mind" but because it's the most practical attire. Same thing with battle, everyone is going to be wearing the same armor and equipment because it gives them the best chance to survive, being rebel and running around in your underwear just to be different accomplishes nothing except making you easier to kill.

You wear whatever is the most practical for the situation at hand, not what makes you look unique.

Armor isn't always the answer, and this is coming from somebody who really thinks armor is cool and great and whatever else.

If we define "practical" as what provides the most protection, then there is no universal solvent in this instance. Plate mail is arguably the best protection money can buy, but it is expensive, heavy, restrictive, and most metal bludgeoning weapons are specifically designed to kill somebody wearing it.

[In Exile]

TheMadCat wrote...
I don't understand this argument in the least, a group of people climbing Mt. Everest are all going to be wearing the same heavy clothes, not because of some "hive mind" but because it's the most practical attire. Same thing with battle, everyone is going to be wearing the same armor and equipment because it gives them the best chance to survive, being rebel and running around in your underwear just to be different accomplishes nothing except making you easier to kill.

That isn't an argument for customization. That's an argument for practical armour. When I climb (I've never climbed in winter, to be fair) I don't lay out clothes for people who are my rope mates. They just wear whatever they want.

This is the issue with customization. It has nothing to do with practical or not.

I prefer armour not to be practical in video-games, but that's a totally different argument from armour being customizable.

You wear whatever is the most practical for the situation at hand, not what makes you look unique.

How does that tie into playing dress-up?

[Gill Kaiser]

In principle I don't have a problem with each party member having their own unique look. I just don't think that should be an excuse for vastly limiting their options. If each party member had three or four different outfits that fit their "theme", that would be great.

Of course, the ideal solution would be to allow every party member to wear any type of armour, but to have it look different depending on who was wearing it (ie. Leather Armour on Isabela looks like a swashbuckler's outfit, but the same suit of armour looks like a ragged, awesome mishmash when Hawke wears it). Unfortunately I think this would be too much work for the modellers.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

Pwnsaur wrote...

Ok, I understand the hive mind mentality and how that is in some way detrimental to the experience of some players. If you can at least alter some armor stats that somewhat mitigates my disappointment in this department. The way I play these kinds of games, when I decide what my party is wearing, it is not actually the Warden, or Revan or whoever else, it's the governing character. The problem is that the AI is not at a point right now where they can unilaterally make those kinds of decisions, so you as the player assume that role with the idea that you are acting on their behalf.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'd absolutely love the AI to be able to consistently be changing their armor based on scenarios, skill, and time period but that's just not the case. Instead we get each character wearing basically the same thing for extended and prolonged periods of time with no ability to alter it. That to me is not a step-forward at all, it's definetely more of a streamlining shift. Streamlining (or watering down) is basically a function of trying to appeal to a wider target demographic with the risk of alienating your core to some degree, which is how I feel. Less micro-managing = easier/less complicated gameplay = less dedicated/casual audience = more money/less features.

Essentially, we are losing an option for customization and gaining nothing in it's place. Afterall, DA:O already had static outfits that were personal to each party member, but also gave the option to customize. How can more content ever be seen as a negative in this way?

Also, the agrument (if you can call it that) of BioWare spending time on one thing and it directly affecting the time they spend on another thing is done to death and is so completely uninformed it has no credence on any level. You are not a game designer and you have little/no knowledge of how a game is created, so please stop assuming you do. You really believe Ray Mizyka sits down and says, 'Ok...I'd love to add (content) here but.. It seems we already have this thing over here.." How simplistic and ignorant.

Aside from Morrigan, I don't recall any static outfit for each character. I said in the post above yours that the best of both worlds would be for both casual outfits and actual armour in the field. I don't mean that's what I prefer, I actually liked the Origins style. however since we're getting lemons, why not make lemonade? Its not like complaining on these boards is going to change anything.

[In Exile]

Pwnsaur wrote...

Ok, I understand the hive mind mentality and how that is in some way detrimental to the experience of some players. If you can at least alter some armor stats that somewhat mitigates my disappointment in this department. The way I play these kinds of games, when I decide what my party is wearing, it is not actually the Warden, or Revan or whoever else, it's the governing character. The problem is that the AI is not at a point right now where they can unilaterally make those kinds of decisions, so you as the player assume that role with the idea that you are acting on their behalf.

I don't think the AI should ever make these decisions. Gameplay (i.e. combat) is there for the player and has nothing to do with the RP part of the world. That's how you have BS HP mechanics and so in. In PnP it works because combat is in your head, so when you lose HP you don't have to imagine your characters get hacked 19 times in the gut and shrug it off like nothing.

Since the actual control mechanism for interact with the party, i.e.the dialogue system, sets the PC apart from the NPCs, then the player ought to have no input into what the player says. 

After all, you can't RP both sides of a conversation with Morrigain. You only get to pick your responses for the Warden, and Morrigain is independent.

This is my position on clothing, as well. I think it needs to be unique to represent that the NPCs are noti player avatars. At the same time, there needs to be some variability (and it might as well be visual too) in terms of stats and so on for gameplay and combat.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'd absolutely love the AI to be able to consistently be changing their armor based on scenarios, skill, and time period but that's just not the case.

I wouldn't. I prefer games with control over the party. My biggest fear (that I still don't have confirmed) is that we can't turn off tactics completely for DA2 . I don't want my party running off and auto-attacking when I don't want them to.

Instead we get each character wearing basically the same thing for extended and prolonged periods of time with no ability to alter it. That to me is not a step-forward at all, it's definetely more of a streamlining shift.
Streamlining (or watering down) is basically a function of trying to appeal to a wider target demographic with the risk of alienating your core to some degree, which is how I feel. Less micro-managing = easier/less complicated gameplay = less dedicated/casual audience = more money/less features. 

This isn't what streamlining is. Streamlining is ease of use. An example of streamlining is the star feature of equipment in DA2 where each item has an "at a glance" star rating for how good it is for your class + level. This lets someone who is 100% unfamiliar with an RPG equip good items while allowing an experienced player to optimize a build.

The kind of thing you're talking about is just using streamlining as a pejorative.

Essentially, we are losing an option for customization and gaining nothing in it's place. Afterall, DA:O already had static outfits that were personal to each party member, but also gave the option to customize. How can more content ever be seen as a negative in this way?

We gain unique items. This is a major gain. I get that you don't actually value the aesthetic, but I do. Having Sten, Alistair and another warrior look identical wearing massive armour sucked.

Also, the agrument (if you can call it that) of BioWare spending time on one thing and it directly affecting the time they spend on another thing is done to death and is so completely uninformed it has no credence on any level. You are not a game designer and you have little/no knowledge of how a game is created, so please stop assuming you do. You really believe Ray Mizyka sits down and says, 'Ok...I'd love to add (content) here but.. It seems we already have this thing over here.." How simplistic and ignorant.

The argument (at least from my part) comes from the ME1 board when we discussed the UNC worlds. Casey Hudson said it was not so simple as just adding more content because the programming and design resources were limited. We could have had more developed UNC worlds ... for half the the total number of worlds. Alternatively, we could have lost all the UNC missions for 1 1/2 more plot worlds.

So I would watch what I say if I was you.

[Lord Atlia]

@Pwnsaur: Less micro-managing makes the game harder sometimes as it means less instances of finding a gear combination that breaks the game. I like it when my characters think for themselves unless it becomes illogical, see Jack in space.

[filetemo]

As long as the outfits are cool, I don't mind. But I hope we'd get some companions in real massive armor. It's silly to have a party of four and nobody wearing anything more protective than kneepads, spiky shoulderpads and claw gauntlets going into sword fighting battles.



Varric, Fenris, Isabela, Bethany, and Carver, none of those wear massive plate, I'm starting to get nervous.I don't count Aveline because she seems to be a temporary companion.And still, only one companion in massive armor doesn't cut it.

[SultryVulcan]

TheMadCat wrote...

But the party is not your character. That is where you will find a serious objection from those (like myself) who favour unique apperances. Now, I do think having more than one apperance is good - but I believe at least one unique apperance with no customization is better than the DA:O approach, with generic armour and the ability to use different armour classes.

I think a good compromise is to restrict armours unique armours to companions to maintain a character consistent apperance but allow some customization.

I don't understand this argument in the least, a group of people climbing Mt. Everest are all going to be wearing the same heavy clothes, not because of some "hive mind" but because it's the most practical attire. Same thing with battle, everyone is going to be wearing the same armor and equipment because it gives them the best chance to survive, being rebel and running around in your underwear just to be different accomplishes nothing except making you easier to kill.

You wear whatever is the most practical for the situation at hand, not what makes you look unique.

Your aurgument is based on real world circumstances and consequences.
We're discussing a video game...er, right?

[TJPags]

Schneidend wrote...

TJPags wrote...

She may be dressed well for swashbuckling, but, you know, we're not on a ship.  Is it so hard to imagine her putting on pants and a leather vest (sort of like she wore in DAO)?  Or is that too un-pirate-like?

She wore leather armor when she appeared in Origins, which didn't include pants, either. She had a leather kilt like everybody else who wears leather armor.

Further, swashbuckling has nothing to do with being on a ship.

See, she already has some leather armor.  Did she forget it in Denerim or something? 

I don't care about the swashbuckling semantics.  She knew how to wear armor once.  Is her thong so magical that she doesn't need it anymore?

[TheMadCat]

Schneidend wrote...
Armor isn't always the answer, and this is coming from somebody who really thinks armor is cool and great and whatever else.

If we define "practical" as what provides the most protection, then there is no universal solvent in this instance. Plate mail is arguably the best protection money can buy, but it is expensive, heavy, restrictive, and most metal bludgeoning weapons are specifically designed to kill somebody wearing it.

Practical is defined by the moment. If you're in a narrow corridor in the Deep Roads getting ready to plow through a horde of Darkspawn people capable of wearing heavy armor are going to want to be in heavy armor because there isn't much more you can do aside from charge through or hold a line. On the flip side if you're on some city street against a couple of lighlty armed bandit you'd want lighter stuff to get around quicker. You wear based on what you're expecting.

In Exile wrote...

That isn't an argument for
customization. That's an argument for practical armour. When I climb
(I've never climbed in winter, to be fair) I don't lay out clothes for
people who are my rope mates. They just wear whatever they want.

This is the issue with customization. It has nothing to do with practical or not.

I prefer armour not to be practical in video-games, but that's a totally different argument from armour being customizable.

In the context of DA2's inventory system I'd say custimization and practicality are one in the same. We're not really talking about a wide variety of styles and brands here, you have your weight class and within those classes you have maybe a couple of styles. Sticking with the hiking example we're not talking about you wearing a black hoodie and you're partner wearing a green jacket. We're talking more along the lines of you wearing a black hoodie and you're partner wearing a T-Shirt and shorts. The first case you wouldn't say anything because what they're wearing is practical, but I'd hope you'd tell your partner that wearing a T-Shirt and shorts in an area where the tempertaures around going to be below freezing is an incredibly bad idea and they should put something else on right now.

Having a unique look is fine, but not at the expense of common sense and locking the player out of instilling common sense.

How does that tie into playing dress-up?

Switching gear to whatever is the most beneficul to the planned situation is considered playing dress up? Not like I'm talking about choosing between the thin purple dress or the pink blouse here. I'm talking about not having Isabella go into a line of archers half naked with a think cloth shirt.

Your aurgument is based on real world circumstances and consequences.
We're discussing a video game...er, right?

Certainly, but that doesn't mean we can't employ real world logic to situations which are viewed as almost identical.

Modifié par TheMadCat, 27 décembre 2010 - 11:44 .

[Big Blue Car]

The ME2 costumes were awesome though, all of them played to each characters personality and gave them a unique silhouette (which is an awesome, difficult thing in character design).

Jacob - professional soldier, uniform.
Miranda - "even my body," used to give her an advantage, skin-tight outfit.
Jack - gives no ****s badass biotic, tattoos and no armour as she doesn't need it.
Garrus - damaged, damaged.
Mordin - alien so less important as he already has a distinct look, but still scientific gear around his head.
Grunt - alien in big battle armour.
Zaeed - old warrior, gladiatorial single pauldron.
Kasumi - secretive thief, hood.
Thane - anime assassin, big collar and long coat on a skinny dude.
Legion - alien, but using Sheps armour adds character.
Samara - I thought her costume was dull actually and added nothing to her, but she's the exception.

But the Dragon Age 2 costumes are just dull, they look like generic NPC outfits and fail from a general design standpoint as well. Even the glowing tattoos bishy elf looked dull in that screen shot.

Personally I don't mind static costumes as long as they are interesting, stand out from NPCs and play a role in defining the character. The DA2 costumes we've seen fail on those counts so I don't like them.

Modifié par Big Blue Car, 27 décembre 2010 - 11:47 .

[In Exile]

TheMadCat wrote...
In the context of DA2's inventory system I'd say custimization and practicality are one in the same. We're not really talking about a wide variety of styles and brands here, you have your weight class and within those classes you have maybe a couple of styles.

They're not. You're assuming an aesthetic for the game.

The first case you wouldn't say anything because what they're wearing is practical, but I'd hope you'd tell your partner that wearing a T-Shirt and shorts in an area where the tempertaures around going to be below freezing is an incredibly bad idea and they should put something else on right now.

You don't need to hike in winter. Wearing a hoodie in winter is a decidedly bad idea. Unless you're hiking at say 10C or something.

Having a unique look is fine, but not at the expense of common sense and locking the player out of instilling common sense.

For the third time - this all comes back to you wanting armour to look practical. Even if we have massive armour for every companion, that doesn't mean we should have get a choice of what massive armour, or that the ornate design of each piece of massive armour is the same.

You're still debating aesthetic and not customization.

Switching gear to whatever is the most beneficul to the planned situation is considered playing dress up? Not like I'm talking about choosing between the thin purple dress or the pink blouse here. I'm talking about not having Isabella go into a line of archers half naked with a think cloth shirt.

Which is irrelevant, unless you care about practicality. Not to mention that in this case, if we were looking at archery plate would not be very effective, because of the way in which an arrow penetrates through it.

It actually makes more sense to charge archers in light mobile clothing than with massive armour.

[SultryVulcan]

TheMadCat wrote...

[Certainly, but that doesn't mean we can't employ real world logic to situations which are viewed as almost identical.

There's nothing wrong with my imagination but I'm having a hard time employing real world logic to a game called Dragon Age.

[Pwnsaur]

So.... You don't want the AI to make decisions about their own armor, and you also don't want to be able to customize it yourself? Then who the hell is going to change it then? NO ONE. That's why were getting characters with outfits that DON'T CHANGE.

You are referring to elements of innovation as streamlining. Innovation is adding ease of use in the way you were speaking. Taking something and making it better through innovation creates the things you were talking about. Streamlining in reference to consumable media is NOT innovation, it is the removal of resistance. The resistance of what you ask? The resistance of being consumed by customers. Anything that 'complicates' the gaming experience in the eyes of BW is a possible point of resistance to mass consumption. So, from my perspective, streamlining IS pejorative. C'mon man.. This is basic stuff..

Unique items? You mean the one, MAYBE 2 outfits each companion will have to choose from throughout the entire playing experience? I don't know exactly what was going on with your characters, but each one of my characters looked COMPLETELY different. Warden had the superior drakeskin outfit, Alistair had blood dragon, Oghren had Legionaire, Sten had some huge evil armor of which I found only one, etc. It was plenty unique, and what's more, it was completely MY decision.

And also, who the hell is petitioning for all massive plate armor? That's not the issue and I don't even know where it came from. I only had 3 people in plate, most were in leather.

Modifié par Pwnsaur, 28 décembre 2010 - 12:03 .

[Addai]

The lack of customization in ME2 bothered me less than I thought it would, but mainly because a) the game was so short anyway, and all but one or two of the armor models in ME1 were so hideous that we all stayed in the same armor types anyway.  It just feels lazy.  Yes, yes, I know about resource allocation blah blah.  I'd rather have fewer companions who are better fleshed out, however, including how they look- and since it's a team-based RPG, I do think the player should have some control over that.

At the very least, for the love of the gods, cut out the blatant fan service.  Miranda's shelf bra and body-paint suit is as ridiculous as Isabela's panty shots, and in DA2 we see boob size growing even over ME2's proportions.  Characters can be sexy during the sex scenes and otherwise they ought to look... normal.

[Big Blue Car]

But no Bioware character has ever been sexy in their sex scenes, ever. They work best as hilarious ironic humour, looking like when you made your Action Man hump your sisters Barbie.

[TheMadCat]

In Exile wrote...

They're not. You're assuming an aesthetic for the game.

Don't understand, how am I assuming an aesthetic?

You don't need to hike in winter. Wearing a hoodie in winter is a decidedly bad idea. Unless you're hiking at say 10C or something.

I've hiked in the winter a few times, snow adds a certain amount of beauty to a moutain range that you don't get in the spring. Is cold as hell though and you do wear thick clothes when it becomes sub-freezing.

For the third time - this all comes back to you wanting armour to look practical. Even if we have massive armour for every companion, that doesn't mean we should have get a choice of what massive armour, or that the ornate design of each piece of massive armour is the same.

Fair enough, though in case you haven't noticed I do like my equipement looking pratical.

I'm a stickler for realism, was hard enough to swallow Origins and it looks like 2 is going to be even harder.

There's nothing wrong with my imagination but I'm having a hard time employing real world logic to a game called Dragon Age.

People and creature are flesh, blood, and bone. They have the same vital areas and are sensative to the same materials. Materials seems to funiction at an identical level to our world, physics seem to be identical. I think we could agree something like getting hit in the head by a sledge hammer in Thedas would have a very similar effect to getting hit int he ehad by a sledge hammer in our world, and thus you'd take the same necessary percautions to protect against that.

[SultryVulcan]

Addai67 wrote...

The lack of customization in ME2 bothered me less than I thought it would, but mainly because a) the game was so short anyway, and all but one or two of the armor models in ME1 were so hideous that we all stayed in the same armor types anyway.  It just feels lazy.  Yes, yes, I know about resource allocation blah blah.  I'd rather have fewer companions who are better fleshed out, however, including how they look- and since it's a team-based RPG, I do think the player should have some control over that.

At the very least, for the love of the gods, cut out the blatant fan service.  Miranda's shelf bra and body-paint suit is as ridiculous as Isabela's panty shots, and in DA2 we see boob size growing even over ME2's proportions.  Characters can be sexy during the sex scenes and otherwise they ought to look... normal.

Tried being normal once, didn't work out.
Did anybody else notice that between ME1 and LOTSB Liara got a boob job? Seriously?
SultryVulcan approves +30.

[Never]

I just don't understand why we can't have the best of both worlds. I like the idea of the outfits specific for each character, but why not be able to change them into regular armor if we don't like it? Is there no such thing as regular armor in DA2?

[crimzontearz]

Big Blue Car wrote...
The ME2 costumes were awesome though, all of them played to each characters personality and gave them a unique silhouette (which is an awesome, difficult thing in character design).
Jacob - professional soldier, uniform.
Miranda - "even my body," used to give her an advantage, skin-tight outfit.
Jack - gives no ****s badass biotic, tattoos and no armour as she doesn't need it.
Garrus - damaged, damaged.
Mordin - alien so less important as he already has a distinct look, but still scientific gear around his head.
Grunt - alien in big battle armour.
Zaeed - old warrior, gladiatorial single pauldron.
Kasumi - secretive thief, hood.
Thane - anime assassin, big collar and long coat on a skinny dude.
Legion - alien, but using Sheps armour adds character.
Samara - I thought her costume was dull actually and added nothing to her, but she's the exception.

But the Dragon Age 2 costumes are just dull, they look like generic NPC outfits and fail from a general design standpoint as well. Even the glowing tattoos bishy elf looked dull in that screen shot.

Personally I don't mind static costumes as long as they are interesting, stand out from NPCs and play a role in defining the character. The DA2 costumes we've seen fail on those counts so I don't like them.

dude...I'm all for cool static outfits but they have to make sense. Mass Effect specified why combatants wore armor and how that armor worked and then in ME2 we have outfits like Miranda's and Jack's that don't even change when they enter vacuum....no I'm sorry that's kinda laighable. There is no reason why static outfits can't be cool and make sense