269 réponses à ce sujet

[lostspline]

MaxBendu2 wrote...

I am going to be Hawke, not the 6+ people in my Party. Why would I tell them how to dress?

You tell them to "walk to that spot", "cast fireball there", "learn Pommel Strike", "equip this sword", so what's wrong with "equip this breastplate"?

[Sylvianus]

You tell them to "walk to that spot", "cast fireball there", "learn Pommel Strike", "equip this sword", so what's wrong with "equip this breastplate"?

This. They make me laugh. Their reasoning is pathetic. There are lots of thing that makes that we already controls our team and choose for them, and now they are trying to find reasons to justify the failure to choose the weapons, armor, and items of our companions.

Stop making excuses, there was just a loss. Either they're satisfied or not.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 02 mars 2011 - 01:35 .

[Cloaking_Thane]

Buffy-Summers wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

Buffy-Summers wrote...

I want to be able to give Fenris some + healing high defense armor instead of what ever he might have, because i think its the best for warriors


If they kow tow to the , but its boring i dont want to have to change armor, dont make me" crowd, are they going to bow down to the , i dont want to ever level them up crowd?

On goes the slippery slope toward action game

AFAIK u can give him runes to have high health and defense not to mention rings etc

Yes you can, rings, amulet and runes

But not gloves, chest piece, helm, boots

From the boots alone thats enough to reduce resistances to all elements by 5% (Juggernaunt boots) Now imagine better boots or all the other items we cant change. It is not a little change

How do you know there isnt a Boot Rune slot, etc

[CosmicTony]

lostspline wrote...

MaxBendu2 wrote...

I am going to be Hawke, not the 6+ people in my Party. Why would I tell them how to dress?

You tell them to "walk to that spot", "cast fireball there", "learn Pommel Strike", "equip this sword", so what's wrong with "equip this breastplate"?

The difference between real characters who are companions and not drones or military subordinates I guess.

[Sengoku no Maou]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Blastback wrote...

Hated it in ME2, hate it now. But I've said my piece.

Keep saying it.  You won't change people's minds by being quiet.

This is true.

[DinosaursRock]

I am perfectly happy with this system. I'll take unique companion body models over generic changeable armour any day of the week and twice on Fridays.

[lostspline]

MaxBendu2 wrote...
The difference between real characters who are companions and not drones or military subordinates I guess.

But, they are acting like subordinates except for clothing.  "You can tell me who to kill, how to kill them, and with what weapon. You can also tell me to wear gaudy jewelry!  But, don't you dare tell me that my boots need replaced!"

Some games (e.g., Fallout: New Vegas) treat your followers less like subordinates.  You can talk to them and order them around but you don't control them in combat, level them, or determine the items that they equip. Automagically, they fight any enemy nearby, level, and equip the "best" items in their inventory.

So, if it doesn't make sense to dress them, we should have companions that fight who they want to fight, level up the talents that they want to level up, and equip the items that they want to equip.

[Fredvdp]

I believe most people only started complaining about the lack of party equipment in ME2 after they had played the game.

Modifié par Fredvdp, 02 mars 2011 - 02:13 .

[Veex]

ValkyrieShan wrote...

I am perfectly happy with this system. I'll take unique companion body models over generic changeable armour any day of the week and twice on Fridays.

I'm of like mind. I greatly prefer a unique companion appearance over the armor scheme in DA:O, especially the leathers and robes. I enjoy customization as much as the next person but I'd like those options to be both stastical and visual.

[CaptainBlackGold]

Fredvdp wrote...

I believe most people only started complaining about the lack of party equipment in ME2 after they had played the game.

I know that personally, when I discovered that you could not change companion armor in ME2 (apart from the "alternate appearence" when you did their loyalty missions) I was really put off the game - still played it and enjoyed it but really felt something central to my enjoyment of the game had been lost. It is no accident that I have logged a LOT of time in DAO and probably a tenth in Jade Empire and ME2 and that is due to being unable to customize either game.

Of course, from a bottom line perspective, Bioware/EA got my money either way; whether you play the game once or twice and put it aside or play it hundreds of times makes no difference to them. But for me, customizing a game to look and play the way I want it is a central fact in determining future purchases.

Modifié par CaptainBlackGold, 02 mars 2011 - 02:33 .

[BoneDealer]

I so far like the new system in DA2 (have to cast my final judgement when the game is out). But I would have much rather had a DA2 style Custom Sten horned qunari instead of the boring "large human" DAO ken doll Sten.

As long as the upgrades and rune slots mentioned by bioware meet that role of customizing squadmates I think it's all good. Was not totally on board with ME2's go at it as all you really got were color swaps and then purchasable DLC for minor tweeks to your companions appearence. Once again ME3 crew hope you taking notes from your DA brethren.

[Virginian]

I hated the armor system in ME2, I hate it in DA2. There's nothing I can do about it. They are going to do it again even though it is the stupidest set up.

[Icy Magebane]

After ME2, the news about not being able to have companions equip new armor in DA2 wasn't really a shock. I don't like it, but I don't mind either... Even if they always look the same (aside from time-jumps), the accessories, runes, etc are enough. As long as I can change stats, that's fine.

[SnowHeart1]

Not sure why I'm bothering but... look, it comes down to playstyle and personal preference, maybe also a bit of traditionalism. DA is billed as an RPG. Okay, an "action RPG" but still an RPG. Technically, it's a CRPG (computer-RPG) because a real RPG requires a degree of freedom and on-the-fly improvisation a computer program just can't provide. For at least 20 years, it has been a staple of CRPGs (at least Western ones) to have inventory systems. The idea behind this is a classic staple of RPG, which is getting loot and having to make choices between different powers that the pieces of loot provide. ("Gee, I can have this +5 Breastplate which will protect me from lots of hits, or the +2 Chainmail with 30% fire resistance, which will help against those fireball casting mages and red dragons.")

Maybe that's needlessly complicated to some people (e.g., "I just want them to look cool and do their own thing so I can focus on playing my own character.") but those of us who are CRPG-geeks love these systems; it is part of the reason (not the only reason, but a big reason on its own) as to why we love these kinds of games. ME2 completely ripped that system out. In fairness, ME's inventory system was... okay, not just cumbersome, it was bad. But they just chucked the baby out with the bathwater. "Two weapons, and your companions' armor doesn't do sh** (except look cool, or at least whatever we think "cool" is). Enjoy!" Some of you may think that's excellent and, if so, I'm genuinely happy for you. It is one less mechanic in the game that gets in your way of doing whatever it is you do enjoy. For some of us, however, it is part of the game that we really enjoy and we're sad to see it go.

Personally, I think the only reason there hasn't been as much griping about the DA2 system is they haven't completely chucked the inventory system. You still select weapons, rings, belts, etc. And, unlike ME2, companions armor does change over time so there isn't a sense of it being static* -- it evolves with the character. This may be the "improvement" that the ME2 designers failed to see. But for RPG purists (or traditionalists, let's not get hung up on semantics), it is still a loss because, however it's dressed up, it takes a degree of control away from us. You may be happy with what you see as "streamlining", but we are unhappy with what see as "stripping down".

* A change in color scheme is not the same, and that's the only thing you got to do in ME2 without the purchase of the appearance packs.

Modifié par SnowHeart1, 02 mars 2011 - 02:48 .

[Poison_Berrie]

outlaw1109 wrote...
Video games evolve. That's the reason we have them in our home now instead of having to travel to an arcade to actually play. There have been some outstanding games with great inventory systems in the past, but that's all it is: the past. Not saying it's going to be terrific, but let's at least see what this one is like before saying "Oh no! Someone changed something! UGH! It makes the game unplayable."

That's stupid.
It's not evolution to remove something and going through an inventory doesn't belong in the past.
It's a design decision. Nothing more to it. Don't make it sound like by removing party armor the game just made a leap into 21st century gaming.
You now what's also in the past... ME2! Wait that game had unique party armor. Why are they adding unique party armor, it's a thing of the past.

OT: I'm not against unique design for each party member, but it would be nice that you could buy/upgrade some armor for them. Even if it's just so that they actually wear something that looks like it could protect them.

[Mr. Gerbz]

It's called simplification. Apparently the masses prefer it over being able to customize your party. The next DA will probably have vastly reduced talents, but will make them 'evolve', making them either hit a single target harder, or give an AoE effect.

[CosmicTony]

lostspline wrote...

MaxBendu2 wrote...
The difference between real characters who are companions and not drones or military subordinates I guess.

But, they are acting like subordinates except for clothing.  "You can tell me who to kill, how to kill them, and with what weapon. You can also tell me to wear gaudy jewelry!  But, don't you dare tell me that my boots need replaced!"

Some games (e.g., Fallout: New Vegas) treat your followers less like subordinates.  You can talk to them and order them around but you don't control them in combat, level them, or determine the items that they equip. Automagically, they fight any enemy nearby, level, and equip the "best" items in their inventory.

So, if it doesn't make sense to dress them, we should have companions that fight who they want to fight, level up the talents that they want to level up, and equip the items that they want to equip.

You make a good and fair point. But everything except what they wear is "under the hood" stuff no one in that world actually sees. I am sorry if I can only speak in terms of story and playing a role to make my point. Stats and tactics are irrelevant for what I am saying. You as the Player Character aren't actually telling them to do anything for the most part. We as Users decide there actions, not we as player characters. If in your mind every time you pause and pick a spot on the ground, Hawke is actually yelling a command, cool, it's just not supported by the world, actions or story. There is in fact no evidence for that. My imagination fills in the blanks and suspension of disbelief accepts that maybe I just acted as a User then, not a PC and the Companion was actually doing that move in support of allies not because Hawke's Third Person View mind-control powers told them too.

The current interfaces and pause menu methods are all symbolic of things that you effectively have to imagine happen in camp or "while you weren't looking". There's so much we don't make them do or see them do that it's silly talking about the slack we have to pick up in the meantime. You don't make them eat but they must right? We accept things for the sake of technology limitations.

There is a very strong case built with Fallout and even stuff in Bioware games that are evolving well for what will actually happen as technology/A.I. gets better. That being diminishing the role of the USER in deciding under the hood stats for characters that aren't them, the Player. Instead basing everything on LIVE and ongoing choices.
A true RPG should effectively keep the player out of affecting anything in/on Companions except through 'actions and interactions' or World Based story progresson. I actually see Bioware doing some very minor stuff like that with dialogue trees and the like now.

There are so many fallacies and compromises that people have gotten use to in current RPGs they don't realise that when things change, maybe it's for the better. Clearly I won't be happy till we are playing Bioware Games on a holodeck or in the freakin Matrix, until then, we compromise with trying new ideas and tweeking stuff that didn't quite make sense. Armour slots and customising the hell out of companions may be one of those tweaks?

[Kmead15]

Poison_Berrie wrote...

That's stupid.
It's not evolution to remove something and going through an inventory doesn't belong in the past.
It's a design decision. Nothing more to it. Don't make it sound like by removing party armor the game just made a leap into 21st century gaming.
You now what's also in the past... ME2! Wait that game had unique party armor. Why are they adding unique party armor, it's a thing of the past.

OT: I'm not against unique design for each party member, but it would be nice that you could buy/upgrade some armor for them. Even if it's just so that they actually wear something that looks like it could protect them.

Technically, evolution does remove things. All the time, actually. You ever hear about those eyeless cave fish in Mexico? As to whether or not removing things from the game makes it better, that's more of a matter of opinion. But to claim it isn't evolution is foolish.

More on topic, I'm of two minds about the situation. On one hand, I find inventory management annoying when it's simply "Oh look, this set of armor does the exact same thing as my last set, but slightly better. Gee, I wonder if I should change it?" If the stats for the item drops are going to get better as my level increases, why not just include those stats into the level-up and save me ten seconds of my life?

However, when it comes to more tactical choices like "Do I want the elemental protection or stronger damage protection for this fight?", then I can see why some people enjoy it. I'm not one of them, but I get that they like being rewarded for making good equipment decisions. As far as I can tell, these people shouldn't be complaining much because swapping out runes and accessories keeps this gameplay aspect in.

When inventory management is just a matter of changing companion appearance, I’m once again of two minds. There is a large part of me that wants Hawke to smack Isabella upside the head and hand her some more protective clothing. Or heck, something with pockets, at least.

However, I also understand that I don’t control the companions completely. I can have Zevran learn lock-picking, but I can’t force him to learn pommel strike because he is either unable or unwilling to gain that ability. I suppose those same limitations can be extended to dress. It’s like working for a company, I suppose. They can tell me to follow dress code all they want, but they can’t actually force me to do it if I’m unwilling or somehow unable. However, they can kick me out because I refused. As far as I’m aware, we have this same choice with our companions. If your Hawke doesn’t like how Isabella dresses, then refuse to bring her along until she changes.

[lostspline]

MaxBendu2 wrote...

The current interfaces and pause menu methods are all symbolic of things that you effectively have to imagine happen in camp or "while you weren't looking". There's so much we don't make them do or see them do that it's silly talking about the slack we have to pick up in the meantime. You don't make them eat but they must right? We accept things for the sake of technology limitations.

Equipping your party members can be viewed as an abstraction of apportioning loot between party members (e.g., we find a Legion of the Dead Helm so the party decides who gets it).  This is something I accept "for the sake of technology limitations".

MaxBendu2 wrote...

A true RPG should effectively keep the player out of affecting anything in/on Companions except through 'actions and interactions' or World Based story progresson.

I wouldn't say a "true" RPG as if all other RPGs are faux.  Nonetheless, some RPGs have a lower level of abstraction (e.g., The Elder Scrolls games) whereas others have higher level of abstraction (e.g., Bioware games). For example, compare the abstraction level of their respective cities: all buildings can be entered vs. only important buildings can be entered.  Some people like one level of abstraction for cities versus the other but it doesn't make one a more "true" RPG.

[FieryDove]

lostspline wrote...

MaxBendu2 wrote...

I am going to be Hawke, not the 6+ people in my Party. Why would I tell them how to dress?

You tell them to "walk to that spot", "cast fireball there", "learn Pommel Strike", "equip this sword", so what's wrong with "equip this breastplate"?

Haha..Ok that was good. Too funny.

[CosmicTony]

lostspline wrote...

MaxBendu2 wrote...

The current interfaces and pause menu methods are all symbolic of things that you effectively have to imagine happen in camp or "while you weren't looking". There's so much we don't make them do or see them do that it's silly talking about the slack we have to pick up in the meantime. You don't make them eat but they must right? We accept things for the sake of technology limitations.

Equipping your party members can be viewed as an abstraction of apportioning loot between party members (e.g., we find a Legion of the Dead Helm so the party decides who gets it).  This is something I accept "for the sake of technology limitations".

MaxBendu2 wrote...

A true RPG should effectively keep the player out of affecting anything in/on Companions except through 'actions and interactions' or World Based story progresson.

I wouldn't say a "true" RPG as if all other RPGs are faux.  Nonetheless, some RPGs have a lower level of abstraction (e.g., The Elder Scrolls games) whereas others have higher level of abstraction (e.g., Bioware games). For example, compare the abstraction level of their respective cities: all buildings can be entered vs. only important buildings can be entered.  Some people like one level of abstraction for cities versus the other but it doesn't make one a more "true" RPG.

"True" was actually in referance to the only comparison that can be made - Real Life. No one wants realistic just yet but I am saying that while some see things as becoming overly simplified, or dumbed down, others get that it's more about the story and the gameplay then the materialism aspect of loot and aesthetics. Is your fun factor and enjoyment tied only too being able to mess around with Party attire? Or were you really drawn to this world because you want to find out how you can make it play out? It just seems odd that its such a sticking point for people when its not the point at all, and in fact, not essential to RPGs. Action or otherwise. You can still change your character a lot, you still alter the foundation of your companions and can even still Power game there stats with runes and accessories (and weapons except Varric's). Just not attire. Hmm, I have really been trying to understand, I mean as I have already said, I prefer being able to dress up the Party too, its just such a small part of why anyone would be playing DA. Or in fact, any Bioware game from the last few years.

Anyway, your abstraction observations are true, just meaningless if you are trying to make an argument for customisable Character attire. You just made the point that maybe people should accept it like they would not being able to explore the whole city. For all we know the conceit is unseen that Hawke (you) have agreed not to judge everyones wardrobe yet get on with commanding them in battle. Just like you may accept the conceit is Hawke will not try to enter buildings he has no right too. Its all good, hopefully people can get past it and have some fun.

[Blastback]

SnowHeart1 wrote...

Not sure why I'm bothering but... look, it comes down to playstyle and personal preference, maybe also a bit of traditionalism. DA is billed as an RPG. Okay, an "action RPG" but still an RPG. Technically, it's a CRPG (computer-RPG) because a real RPG requires a degree of freedom and on-the-fly improvisation a computer program just can't provide. For at least 20 years, it has been a staple of CRPGs (at least Western ones) to have inventory systems. The idea behind this is a classic staple of RPG, which is getting loot and having to make choices between different powers that the pieces of loot provide. ("Gee, I can have this +5 Breastplate which will protect me from lots of hits, or the +2 Chainmail with 30% fire resistance, which will help against those fireball casting mages and red dragons.")

Maybe that's needlessly complicated to some people (e.g., "I just want them to look cool and do their own thing so I can focus on playing my own character.") but those of us who are CRPG-geeks love these systems; it is part of the reason (not the only reason, but a big reason on its own) as to why we love these kinds of games. ME2 completely ripped that system out. In fairness, ME's inventory system was... okay, not just cumbersome, it was bad. But they just chucked the baby out with the bathwater. "Two weapons, and your companions' armor doesn't do sh** (except look cool, or at least whatever we think "cool" is). Enjoy!" Some of you may think that's excellent and, if so, I'm genuinely happy for you. It is one less mechanic in the game that gets in your way of doing whatever it is you do enjoy. For some of us, however, it is part of the game that we really enjoy and we're sad to see it go.

Personally, I think the only reason there hasn't been as much griping about the DA2 system is they haven't completely chucked the inventory system. You still select weapons, rings, belts, etc. And, unlike ME2, companions armor does change over time so there isn't a sense of it being static* -- it evolves with the character. This may be the "improvement" that the ME2 designers failed to see. But for RPG purists (or traditionalists, let's not get hung up on semantics), it is still a loss because, however it's dressed up, it takes a degree of control away from us. You may be happy with what you see as "streamlining", but we are unhappy with what see as "stripping down".

* A change in color scheme is not the same, and that's the only thing you got to do in ME2 without the purchase of the appearance packs.

This

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ecaiki wrote...

Exactly, so his original statement about having to hoard gear for NPCs is an accurate one.

But it's metagame behaviour.  Your character has no reason to hoard gear because your character doesn't know that those future companions exist.

That the game doesn't help you metagame is a good thing.

No it didn't, but that information isn't readily available at any time, so the game is keeping it secret in a fashion.

I find it amusing that it's my fault the game doesn't provide said information, considering it's designed around not being able to bring every companion, and thus not have access to all information all the time.

The game did provide that information.  You simply chose not to learn it.  That you have to live with that choice is, again, a good thing.  I don't want the game to coddle me and protect me from my own mistakes.

Keep a notepad handy and record those numbers.  How did you keep track of quests before games started giving you in-game journals?

It's not like BG where you only have (at most) 6 party members and can easily check.  Instead (for DA:O) you have only 4, and then 1.5x that back at camp, that's a lot of stats and equipment to have to constantly jot down and update.  I'd go as far as to say it's a failure of the game to not provide non-active NPC data at all times, not a failure of the player to note information they shouldn't have to.

Why shouldn't you have to?  It's information you want, and it's not like the Warden can actually examine Morrigan's clothing while she's back at camp and he's locked in the Circle Tower, or trapped in the Deep Roads.

Letting you examine things that aren't nearby would be stupid.  I'm glad the game didn't do that.  Again, you should have done that when you had the opportunity.

[Ignoble Fat Man]

I'd rather have the ability to change the appearances at will but I am willing to accept less customization of visuals for smoother rendering and quicker load times. Its all about trade-offs and DA:O had some seriously lousy load times and weird cut-scene issues that were partially related to the game not being able to predict ahead of time how to render your party.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MaxBendu2 wrote...

I am going to be Hawke, not the 6+ people in my Party. Why would I tell them how to dress?

So then don't.  No one's making you change their clothing.

But why should players who are playing the whole party be forced to behave similarly?