495 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Isabela actually gains more power the less she wears. Her upgraded outfit is nothing but boots, the thong of awesome, and a smile.

Then I want my Naked Barbarian Alistair to be canon dammit!

[Schneidend]

TJPags wrote...
I'm not saying she should be wearing plate armor for crying out loud. 

But when you know you're going to be in a sword-fight, where people are going to be trying to stick shapr pieces of metal into you, it makes sense to wear some form of protection, I don't care HOW talented you are at getting out of the way.  Her evasive skills aren't going to do her much good against 5 or 6 opponents.

She may look like she's not expecting a fight, but when Hawke gets a quest like, say, clean out the thugs in the Chantry, and she comes along, what the heck does she EXPECT will happen?  No fight?

Some leather armor is very appropriate for her character.  And if she had half a brain, she'd wear some.  I'm sure she could still wear her thong of awesomeness, since the leather armor (as someone reminded me) actually has a short skirt. 

When evasion fails, her swordarm is her defense. Parries, blocks, etc. Plenty of warriors throughout real world history, pirates included, have done just fine without armor.

I'm not certain why you're so adamant about this. She simply doesn't wear armor, and no precedent has been set that mandates the wearing of armor. In fact, as I've pointed out there are many forms of attacks in Thedas against which armor is a liability. Whether it's to your tastes or not is immaterial, she has as much reason to not wear armor as she does to wear it. It may even be that, for all her experience as a swordswoman, Isabela has never been trained to wear armor effectively and hasn't bothered to learn.

Further, should Bethany wear armor? Doesn't she face the same dangers? Moreso, even, given her knowledge of how to defend herself in melee combat is likely sorely lacking in comparison to Isabela's.

[crimzontearz]

Bethany is a mage...she can turn her skin in the organic equivalent of stone and the duty of 50% of the party is to make sure no one lays a finger on her.....I'd say she is good

Modifié par crimzontearz, 28 décembre 2010 - 03:46 .

[TJPags]

Schneidend wrote...

TJPags wrote...
I'm not saying she should be wearing plate armor for crying out loud. 

But when you know you're going to be in a sword-fight, where people are going to be trying to stick shapr pieces of metal into you, it makes sense to wear some form of protection, I don't care HOW talented you are at getting out of the way.  Her evasive skills aren't going to do her much good against 5 or 6 opponents.

She may look like she's not expecting a fight, but when Hawke gets a quest like, say, clean out the thugs in the Chantry, and she comes along, what the heck does she EXPECT will happen?  No fight?

Some leather armor is very appropriate for her character.  And if she had half a brain, she'd wear some.  I'm sure she could still wear her thong of awesomeness, since the leather armor (as someone reminded me) actually has a short skirt. 

When evasion fails, her swordarm is her defense. Parries, blocks, etc. Plenty of warriors throughout real world history, pirates included, have done just fine without armor.

I'm not certain why you're so adamant about this. She simply doesn't wear armor, and no precedent has been set that mandates the wearing of armor. In fact, as I've pointed out there are many forms of attacks in Thedas against which armor is a liability. Whether it's to your tastes or not is immaterial, she has as much reason to not wear armor as she does to wear it. It may even be that, for all her experience as a swordswoman, Isabela has never been trained to wear armor effectively and hasn't bothered to learn.

Further, should Bethany wear armor? Doesn't she face the same dangers? Moreso, even, given her knowledge of how to defend herself in melee combat is likely sorely lacking in comparison to Isabela's.

Oh for the love of . . . .

Fine.  Isabela is the be all and end all of swordsmanship  . . .excuse me, dagger-woman-ship.  She fears no blade.  Her thong and daggers are all the protection she needs.  Armor?  Who needs it?  Not Isabela!  If she can't evade your clumsy attack, she will parry your dull blade with one wondrous dagger, while stabbing you in the eye with the other.  Your armor is no match for her thong . . .errr, cleavage . . .err, daggers.

You do remember that she was wearing leather armor in Origins, right?

I honestly can't believe that you think it's normal, acceptable, practical, or in any way advantageous NOT to wear armor in a swordfight.  But so be it.

[TJPags]

crimzontearz wrote...

Bethany is a mage...she can turn her skin in the organic equivalent of stone and the duty of 50% of the party is to make sure no one lays a finger on her.....I'd say she is good

Bethany also doesn't carry a sword, or engage in, you know, sword fights.

But hey, I'm gonna have my Hawke go armor-less too.  In fact, I'm going to strip armor from ALL my characters from now on.  It's noble clothes all the way (just not the ones with those gawd-awful striped pants).

[Addai]

Schneidend wrote...

Further, should Bethany wear armor? Doesn't she face the same dangers? Moreso, even, given her knowledge of how to defend herself in melee combat is likely sorely lacking in comparison to Isabela's.

Yes, she should.

Ideally I should have the option in my game of fitting everyone out in armor, and you can put the handkerchief of defense on Isabela if you like.

[In Exile]

crimzontearz wrote...

yeah so....since you can die from arrows or magic (btw...studded leather does offer some protection at lease against glancing blows and longer range arrows) let's just go into combat just in a thong and not protect ourselves against anything else...sure...very sensible

It's not about protection. Most of these things are instant death. Getting hit twice in combat will likely kill you. Hell, getting hit once could open you to a finishing blow. That's putting aside AoE instant death grenades like fireball.

I'm just saying that since the combat is unrealistic, going with style over substance isn't a big deal, at least for me.

I find the no-pants bit ridiculous becausse I can't imagine why someone would go around in their underwear, not because there's no protection. It just seems silly on a 'why would you wear this as clothing" level, not "this is bad armour" level. Kind of like Jack's nipple straps, actually.

[PrinceOfFallout13]

in a game when you stab someone 45 times to kill him using realism with armor should be void and besides in leliana's song how easy did marjolaine stabbed leliana in one hit? so much for "protection" and mages dont use heavy armor's they use robes >_>

Modifié par PrinceOfFallout13, 28 décembre 2010 - 04:08 .

[crimzontearz]

yes but JUST because there are insta death situations inthe scenario granted by the fictional universe we are in that does not mean we should throw it allout of the window

[Sharn01]

Schneidend wrote...

I really don't see where the lack of "sensibility" lies. She's a skilled warrior who is in touch with her sexuality. Her outfit doesn't impede her ability to fight in any way.

I will point out her necklace once again, gold weighs approximately 2.45 times as much as steel, and her necklance appears to be at least an inch thick in screenshots, I would estimate she is toting a good 30 to 40 pounds around just her neck impeding her balance with as much weight as a suite of chain armor but very poorly distributed. 

Its still tolerable, I dont think anyone in DA is going to be going into a vacuum naked, but her outfit is not sensible even if you stretch your imagination to the point that you believe she can avoid all attacks with skill alone.

[AlanC9]

Pwnsaur wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Pwnsaur wrote...

BTW.... No more.... No more fighting.. pls.. I want to customize and you don't. Let's just leave it..

Is someone forcing you to keep posting?

Is someone forcing you to post antagonistic snark?

Nope. I just do that for fun. Though since it looks like you were trying to surrender gracefully, I shouldn't have made fun of you there.

It's OK to have different tastes -- even if they're different from every single person on the board.  The problem comes in when you try and make your position to be something more significant than just your own personal tastes; that's a much more difficult argument to make, and you need to be prepared.

And falling in love with your own rhetoric is always a mistake. Always. You should have backed off that "streamlined" business right away.

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

yeah so....since you can die from arrows or magic (btw...studded leather does offer some protection at lease against glancing blows and longer range arrows) let's just go into combat just in a thong and not protect ourselves against anything else...sure...very sensible

It's not about protection. Most of these things are instant death. Getting hit twice in combat will likely kill you. Hell, getting hit once could open you to a finishing blow. That's putting aside AoE instant death grenades like fireball.

I'm just saying that since the combat is unrealistic, going with style over substance isn't a big deal, at least for me.

I find the no-pants bit ridiculous becausse I can't imagine why someone would go around in their underwear, not because there's no protection. It just seems silly on a 'why would you wear this as clothing" level, not "this is bad armour" level. Kind of like Jack's nipple straps, actually.

This whole line of argument makes me wonder -- did we have the same level of debate back when DAO was released and we first saw those idiotic bare-midriff leather armor sets? I had dropped off the boards after one spoiler too many, so I was avoiding them at the time.

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...
This whole line of argument makes me wonder -- did we have the same level of debate back when DAO was released and we first saw those idiotic bare-midriff leather armor sets? I had dropped off the boards after one spoiler too many, so I was avoiding them at the time.

Yes. And with mage robes. But that's D&D kosher, so people tend to tolerate it more. It was still a huge debate when screens started coming out. Especially once we got screenshots of Morrigain. I honestly think arcane warrior came out of "mages should wear armour without being impaired by STR requirements". The leather skirt was not well appreciated.

To be honest, the DA:O boards were very good about spoilers close to release.

[Addai]

Sharn01 wrote...

I will point out her necklace once again, gold weighs approximately 2.45 times as much as steel, and her necklance appears to be at least an inch thick in screenshots, I would estimate she is toting a good 30 to 40 pounds around just her neck impeding her balance with as much weight as a suite of chain armor but very poorly distributed. 

She pity the fool!

[Pwnsaur]

In Exile wrote...

Pwnsaur wrote...
 We can agree to disagree on the application of the word streamlining being accurately depicted by one person or the other. Okay? Jesus christ.. Personally I find it more telling that you had to subjectively rely on an internet dictionary and I just basically quoted the definition from memory.. aaaannnywayss

You turned this into a debate on semantics. I also quoted a definition and said I was wrong, so I proved you wrong by showing you the alternate use for a word. Remember that I started the debate by pointing out the common usage in the industry.

Frankly, the debate I wanted to have is related to customization. Which you dropped when you got stuck on semantics.

You proved nothing except there are more than one definition for the word streamlining. Gratz on that.

I wanted to talk about customization (and the lack thereof) as well, but when someone tries to 'correct' me on a word definition it gets to me a bit. This may have something to do with my masters degree in English, or the fact that my college aptitude in english puts me in the top 1% in the country. But..yea.. If you feel a moral victory for quoting an online dictionary to prove you are right....power to ya bro..

[AlanC9]

It wasn't actually the skirt that bothered me; I guess because it's not so different from a hoplite outfit. It was the bare tummy over the skirt.

[ShadyKat]

TJPags wrote...

Schneidend wrote...

TJPags wrote...
I'm not saying she should be wearing plate armor for crying out loud. 

But when you know you're going to be in a sword-fight, where people are going to be trying to stick shapr pieces of metal into you, it makes sense to wear some form of protection, I don't care HOW talented you are at getting out of the way.  Her evasive skills aren't going to do her much good against 5 or 6 opponents.

She may look like she's not expecting a fight, but when Hawke gets a quest like, say, clean out the thugs in the Chantry, and she comes along, what the heck does she EXPECT will happen?  No fight?

Some leather armor is very appropriate for her character.  And if she had half a brain, she'd wear some.  I'm sure she could still wear her thong of awesomeness, since the leather armor (as someone reminded me) actually has a short skirt. 

When evasion fails, her swordarm is her defense. Parries, blocks, etc. Plenty of warriors throughout real world history, pirates included, have done just fine without armor.

I'm not certain why you're so adamant about this. She simply doesn't wear armor, and no precedent has been set that mandates the wearing of armor. In fact, as I've pointed out there are many forms of attacks in Thedas against which armor is a liability. Whether it's to your tastes or not is immaterial, she has as much reason to not wear armor as she does to wear it. It may even be that, for all her experience as a swordswoman, Isabela has never been trained to wear armor effectively and hasn't bothered to learn.

Further, should Bethany wear armor? Doesn't she face the same dangers? Moreso, even, given her knowledge of how to defend herself in melee combat is likely sorely lacking in comparison to Isabela's.

Oh for the love of . . . .

Fine.  Isabela is the be all and end all of swordsmanship  . . .excuse me, dagger-woman-ship.  She fears no blade.  Her thong and daggers are all the protection she needs.  Armor?  Who needs it?  Not Isabela!  If she can't evade your clumsy attack, she will parry your dull blade with one wondrous dagger, while stabbing you in the eye with the other.  Your armor is no match for her thong . . .errr, cleavage . . .err, daggers.

You do remember that she was wearing leather armor in Origins, right?

I honestly can't believe that you think it's normal, acceptable, practical, or in any way advantageous NOT to wear armor in a swordfight.  But so be it.

She's also a pirate, and they did indeed have sword fights, and did not wear armor.

[TheMadCat]

In Exile wrote...

The problem is HP. HP introduces such reality breaking BS I cannot actually take armour seriously. I would appreciate in a game if the mechanic was realistic.

But so long as a character can take 10 blows to the chest and not even flinch, realism has already gone out the window.

I don't think the HP system is the problem there, I think it's the incredibly simplistic combat mechanics (A flaw in almost all RPG's unfortunatly). Mount & Blade is HP based but it handles combat fairly realisticly (Though this can be attributed to it's FP perspective and combat). If you're not wearing any head gear and someone shoots you in the face with an arrow 10 feet away you're going to die with one shot and on the flip side if you're wearing iron greeves and someone shoots you in the shin from 50 yards away you'll hardly feel it. Dragon Age, and really all BioWare games, almost completley ignore range and hit location. Smashing someone in the head with the hammer is the same as smashing their big toe and people live as you said take a dozen blows before finially succumbing. 

I'd love to see them make it so that skills actually target specific body parts and allow you and the AI to exploit openings; speeding up battles and adding an entire layer to the combat system which is what the game really needed in my opinion rather then a ton of random flipping and rolling. Nothing but a pipe dream from a BioWare game though.

Modifié par TheMadCat, 28 décembre 2010 - 05:06 .

[Pwnsaur]

AlanC9 wrote...

Pwnsaur wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Pwnsaur wrote...

BTW.... No more.... No more fighting.. pls.. I want to customize and you don't. Let's just leave it..

Is someone forcing you to keep posting?

Is someone forcing you to post antagonistic snark?

Nope. I just do that for fun. Though since it looks like you were trying to surrender gracefully, I shouldn't have made fun of you there.

It's OK to have different tastes -- even if they're different from every single person on the board.  The problem comes in when you try and make your position to be something more significant than just your own personal tastes; that's a much more difficult argument to make, and you need to be prepared.

And falling in love with your own rhetoric is always a mistake. Always. You should have backed off that "streamlined" business right away.

Yea, ok....I AM in love with my own rhetoric.. you got me there. But that's only because I write opinion pieces for  a living. I CERTAINLY wasn't 'surrendering' however. The fact is, my interpretation of the word is exactly right... It's sad when people see a game developer use a term like streamlining and believe they are innovating or improving the game. It's industry lingo for simplifying, and either you can read between the lines or you can't. Because of what I do for a living, I am literally paid to interpret BS and I do it very, very well. Streamlining masquerading as innovation is just one such example of BS.

[Piecake]

Pwnsaur wrote...

Yea, ok....I AM in love with my own rhetoric.. you got me there. But that's only because I write opinion pieces for  a living. I CERTAINLY wasn't 'surrendering' however. The fact is, my interpretation of the word is exactly right... It's sad when people see a game developer use a term like streamlining and believe they are innovating or improving the game. It's industry lingo for simplifying, and either you can read between the lines or you can't. Because of what I do for a living, I am literally paid to interpret BS and I do it very, very well. Streamlining masquerading as innovation is just one such example of BS.

Dude, you're completely wrong

Adj.1.streamlined - made efficient by stripping off nonessentials; "short streamlined meetings"; "a streamlined hiring process"efficient - being effective without wasting time or effort or expense; "an efficient production manager"; "efficient engines save gas"
2.streamlined - designed or arranged to offer the least resistant to fluid flow; "a streamlined convertible"flowing, sleek, aerodynamicsmooth
- having a surface free from roughness or bumps or ridges or irregularities; "smooth skin"; "a smooth tabletop"; "smooth fabric"; "a smooth road"; "water as smooth as a mirror"

Perhaps you think that they are making Dragon Age 2 more flowing, sleek and aerodynamic?  If so, I aplogize

Modifié par Piecake, 28 décembre 2010 - 05:13 .

[AlanC9]

Pwnsaur wrote...

I wanted to talk about customization (and the lack thereof) as well, but when someone tries to 'correct' me on a word definition it gets to me a bit. This may have something to do with my masters degree in English, or the fact that my college aptitude in english puts me in the top 1% in the country. But..yea.. If you feel a moral victory for quoting an online dictionary to prove you are right....power to ya bro..

Is this where we whip out our degrees? Gods, Pwnsaur, you are new at this.

Edit: I gotta ask... when you're writing opinion pieces in your day job, do you try that same rhetorical move there?

Modifié par AlanC9, 28 décembre 2010 - 05:16 .

[Sharn01]

SultryVulcan wrote...

iakus wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...
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

Indeed.  Mass Effect 2 is in fact the entire reason why I'm worried about static outfits in DA2 .  The outfits have to make sense.  I'd rather have boriing outfits that made sense within the game world than gaudy outfits whose only purpose is to make the character stand out.

Cool and sensible is the best of both worlds of course.

Yeah...those pesky biotic abilities always make sense. I've found that biotic forcefields are superior to those bulky vacuum suits.

I just cant respect this excuse, it doesnt take much common sense to realize biotic barriers will not protect you from a vacuum, if common sense isnt enough it is actually written in the games description of biotic barriers as well as the games lore and codex that they do not protect against enviromental hazards.

I can respect any argument you make for aesthetic purposes whether I agree with them or not, but making things up just because you feel like it is rediculous.

[wwwwowwww]

I guess this all makes sense if you've played ME, which I have not but I swear I know most everything about the game from reading the DA2 forums.



Outfits that are personable to the characters give them character, go with their personality and make them seem more like companions rather than an extra group of people I control. When it comes to customization I want care about my Hawke and nobody else, so I like the fact that they have "static" outfits.

[Wicked 702]

wwwwowwww wrote...

Outfits that are personable to the characters give them character, go with their personality and make them seem more like companions rather than an extra group of people I control. When it comes to customization I want care about my Hawke and nobody else, so I like the fact that they have "static" outfits.

But presumably and in a very significant way, they have also limited "stat" customization. In DA:O you had the helmet, gloves, armor, and boots slots to mix and match stats to your liking. Assuming static outfits also means the removal of the player's ability to augment the stats of the NPCs vis-a-vis those four slots, is the trade-off still worth it?

Appearance is only one part of the puzzle. If DA2 played like a JRPG, where outfits are fixed but you are still able to to customize the stats of each NPC as much as any other, I'd still be totally disappointed but less outraged. As of right now, this does not appear to be the case which is personally why I really, REALLY hate the change.

Choice good.

...And so forth.

Modifié par Wicked 702, 28 décembre 2010 - 05:26 .

[AlanC9]

Pwnsaur wrote...
Yea, ok....I AM in love with my own rhetoric.. you got me there. But that's only because I write opinion pieces for  a living. I CERTAINLY wasn't 'surrendering' however. The fact is, my interpretation of the word is exactly right... It's sad when people see a game developer use a term like streamlining and believe they are innovating or improving the game. It's industry lingo for simplifying, and either you can read between the lines or you can't. Because of what I do for a living, I am literally paid to interpret BS and I do it very, very well. Streamlining masquerading as innovation is just one such example of BS.

Well, I certainly feel better about making fun of you now.

So you're doubling down on your interpretation of "streamlining"? Seriously? Well, at least you've moved it into the realm of rhetoric, so we can stop pulling out dictionaries.

You seem to be saying that not only is "streamlining" rhetoric, but always misleading rhetoric. Again, seriously? No one would ever say "streamlining" when talking about removing unnecessary complexity and opacity from a game? Or are complexity and opacity good in themselves, so any attempt at removing them must necessarily be making the game worse?