108 réponses à ce sujet

[Barryzc123]

While i can't say i'm that bothered by the look of the weapons - to be honest I prefer a plain and serviceable look - I do agree that not doing something even as simple as Deltrex's suggestion of colouring them to give a sheathing effect is just pure laziness.

It's not a game-breaker, and obviously from a fair percentage of those who've posted above it's not even an issue, but it does, for a serious immersion-seeker, get annoying.

The modders have said it's easily fixed, but it shouldn't have to be -it should be done right in the first place, and if we don't complain about these little things, the developers won't ever bother about fixing them, will they?

[RoninOmega]

Anyone know if they got katanas

Modifié par RoninOmega, 30 octobre 2009 - 10:04 .

[Shadow_Viper]

They look fine to me, but then again, I do not look for things to nitpick about.

Modifié par Shadow_Viper, 31 octobre 2009 - 04:23 .

[Maria Caliban]

The weapons are that large because the developers expect that a large part of the game will be played with a bird's-eye view. If the weapons were realistic you'd have trouble seeing them from far away.

[Inhuman one]

I dont even care if they dont pull the bowstring, if it would simply be there it would already be an improvement.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Maria Caliban wrote...

The weapons are that large because the developers expect that a large part of the game will be played with a bird's-eye view. If the weapons were realistic you'd have trouble seeing them from far away.

No you wouldn't. I'd played games that had a far bigger zoom and never had trouble seeing what everyone was unsing.

Even if that was true, so what? You only got a 4-person party. You know what everyone is using even without looking.

[TheMacias]

"I don't care much about the look of weapons" that would be a lie. Who would like to fight with a giant fork (or a spoon :-D ). But don't think that you should use the "cool and powerful" weapons from the beginning. That's the fun part of a good RPG - getting better weapons.

[aaniadyen]

Deltrex wrote...

I was realy exited about Dragon Age and still am but i got the first damper when i started my character creator and saw the ugly weapons on the chars.
 
The swords and bows in the character creator and some of the realesed films look just too big and undetailt, the swords are as always in almost every rpg worn on the back (wich as a fact allone pisses me off because people didn't and don't do that for a reason) the shortbow of the darlish elf is almost big enough to be a longbow (also artists in general seem not to know how to fire a bow because in one of the ingame videos on the main site there is an elf holding a bow having the arrow on the wrong side, a mistake done by so many games and artworks that it is almost calssic) and the daggers looking rather like ugly short swords.

Also even so it should be easily possible none of the blades have scabbards but are rather hanging in the air behind the characters.

the ambiente gain of having the weapons used crrectly (bow) and placed where they belong in a proper holder(probably all of them) insted of looking like big plastic toys hanging in mid air would be immense.

If it's really that important to you, are you sure Dragon Age is for you?

[aaniadyen]

RoninOmega wrote...

Anyone know if they got katanas

Probably not. This is designed to be an anglo-saxon setting in Ferelden. Hell, I don't even know if they have any asian themed settings in this world.

[Shadow_Viper]

Inhuman one wrote...

I dont even care if they dont pull the bowstring, if it would simply be there it would already be an improvement.

Personally, I'd much rather have an invisible bowstring than an immobile one. In my opinion, Bioware made the right decision.

[aaniadyen]

Inhuman one wrote...

I dont even care if they dont pull the bowstring, if it would simply be there it would already be an improvement.

Are you really upset about this? Who seriously gives a ****?

[Rikaze]

TheMacias wrote...

"I don't care much about the look of weapons" that would be a lie. Who would like to fight with a giant fork (or a spoon :-D ). But don't think that you should use the "cool and powerful" weapons from the beginning. That's the fun part of a good RPG - getting better weapons.

....Play Shin Megami Tensei: IMAGINE.

It's a free-to-play MMO...

My character uses a giant spoon...  (I am not joking.  It's called the Headhunter's Spoon.  You could probably find it on the IMAGINE wiki.)

I don't care if the weapons are ugly...  Actually, that's not true.  I would RATHER have ugly weapons.  The more gruesome looking, the better.  In video games, there are two types of bad-guys.  The pretty, narcisistic, arrogant uber bad-guy (Sephiroth, Galcian from Skies of Arcadia,) and the ugly, super-powerful, larger-than-life, monster bad-guy that everyone, even you, fear to some extent.  These bad guys are always my favorite, when done correctly.

So I treat my weapons on the same basis I treat my well-designed super-ugly, super-bad-*** bosses.
The uglier, the better, because it means they're stronger, and harder to kill...
Or in the weapons case, make killing that much more satisfying.

As for over-sized hands...  You know, I've thought that about a lot of video games over the years...  You see someone put their hand up to their face and say, "Hands aren't that big in real life!"

...Put your hand up to your face and compare...  Palm-to-finger tip, it should be almost as tall as your head, from jaw to top, and horizontally, if you place the edge of your palm on/near the corner of your eye, your thumb should go half-way to the back of your ear.  (I mean it'll be at about the middle of your hear, not that it'll only get halfway between the edge of your palm and the back of your ear.)  This is just on average of course, since everyone is different.  (My cousin, for instance, has REALLY small hands, about half the size of mine vertically, but she's also got about 3 inches on me in height.  My other cousin has almost 5 inches on me, and my hands are slightly bigger than his vertically, but slightly smaller horizontally.  My father has about 2 inches on me, and sausage fingers, but his hands are nearly TWICE the width of mine, while vertically his are only about 3/4's the size of mine.)

It's a little ridiculous to say that the hands aren't realistic, especially since, in my experience, most people, particularly gamers oddly enough, don't pay attention to what realistic hands should look like...  They are actually the MOST realistic generalization of hands I've seen.  The problem with WoW's hands is they're way too *thick,* but I expect these hands will be about right for the characters overall physiology, and they look that way in the CC.

Modifié par Rikaze, 31 octobre 2009 - 11:19 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Actually, if you bothered to take a better look, the hands are longer than the face. They ARE too big. This is not debatable. It's a fact.



Also, redicolous, ugly weapon design = more powerful weapon is the anti-thesis of logic. There is no logic in it. None. not a shred.

Weapons are designed to kill people. They evolved over time to better fulfill that purpose trough real field tests of the worst kind.

Swords look like they do because it's the best, most efficient form. You can add huge spikes at the tip of your sword, but anyone using even a mediocum of common sense will quickly realise how stupid and ineffective that is.



My perfect game would have very few magical weapon and all would be VERY realisticly designed. You wouldn't need to switch weapon every 5 minutes when you find a +1 sword. A quality blade you get would serve you well trough the game - especially if it's upgreadable.

[aaniadyen]

bknstbknst wrote...

(if i remember correctly, it was also possible to have "alternative" weapons that swung?(is this correct english?) at his side).

Yeah, that could be right, instead of swung, it would probably be best to use hung though.

Modifié par aaniadyen, 31 octobre 2009 - 12:41 .

[Rikaze]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Actually, if you bothered to take a better look, the hands are longer than the face. They ARE too big. This is not debatable. It's a fact.

I have taken a look.  It is debateable.  You're arguing with the massive amount of difference in human physiology, not with my post.  Besides, my hands ARE longer than my face.  I happen to have very long, very skinny hands.  I happen to be a long, skinny guy in general.  For you to say that the difference in human physiology is not debateable is akin to claiming we should all be exact clones of one another.  It's RIDICULOUS.  (NOT redicolous, learn to spell please.)  Furthermore, I failed to say this properly in my last post, so I'll say it again, but correctly this time.  The hands in DA:O are the best generalization of human physiology regarding the hands, in my opinion.

Also, redicolous, ugly weapon design = more powerful weapon is the anti-thesis of logic. There is no logic in it. None. not a shred.

  It's not supposed to be logical, the way you put it.  I mentioned that the ugly bad guys are always the stronger ones, and so, by extension of THAT logic, the ugliest weapon should be the strongest.  No, that's not perfect logic, it's entirely flawed, especially when playing a game where strength is determined in numbers, but it wasn't meant to be perfect logic, and anyone with a modicum of humor in their bones would've seen that.

Weapons are designed to kill people. They evolved over time to better fulfill that purpose trough real field tests of the worst kind.
Swords look like they do because it's the best, most efficient form. You can add huge spikes at the tip of your sword, but anyone using even a mediocum of common sense will quickly realise how stupid and ineffective that is.

They're the best for their intended purpose, not overall, and even then, there are MANY different kinds of swords, and weapons in general.  That's why things such as the greatsword, the axe, and the bow and arrow, were invented.  Because a sword, by itself, couldn't always get the job done.  And besides, this is a gratuitous misinterpretation and twisting of my meaning.  I never said looking ugly should make it ineffective, or that the two were inclusive of one another, only that I preferred my weapons ugly and gruesome looking.  A notched to hell and back sword will actually do more damage than a sharp one, because you fail to make clean cuts, you're suddenly tearing flesh, and that's a LOT worse.  I've never seen a game where a Serrated Sword looked pretty, but danged if they wouldn't hurt like none other.

My perfect game would have very few magical weapon and all would be VERY realisticly designed. You wouldn't need to switch weapon every 5 minutes when you find a +1 sword. A quality blade you get would serve you well trough the game - especially if it's upgreadable.

If it's upgradeable, then instead of finding new blades, you're just finding better upgrades all the time instead.  It's a give and take my friend.  While I prefer the low-magic setting, meaning either there isn't much magic in the world, both caster and item-wise, I don't mind the high-magic settings either.  And for many people in the 'Hardcore RPG'er' crowd, finding the perfect sword for your character matters more than what's strongest anyway.  So, the alternative would be, just find the sword you like the best or you think best fits your character, or whatever criteria you use, and stick with it, and don't worry about what the rest of us say.

And besides, if you want 'Your Perfect Game,' you shouldn't be wandering around forums for someone elses game, you should be out there making 'Your Game.' 

[gethsemani87]

Take a look at swords from the 10th-12th century (in particular Anglo-Saxon and Norse) and you'll quickly realize that the Longsword in the Character Creator isn't that oversized. Those swords were long, thick and compartively heavy, as they were mostly designed for chopping and slashing. As times changed, swords gradually became shorter and thiner and more suited for stabbing than slashing because of the fact that plate armoured enemies were largely immune even to the hardest of chops from the heaviest of swords. Plate armors did however have weak spots that a stabbing weapon could exploit.



In short, I don't find the swords ugly or unrealistic. Rather, they look like I expect a sword from the dark ages to look. They might be a tad bit too long, but that is nitpicking when you consider the fact that Dragon Age takes place in a world where you are expected to fight monsters three times your own size and win.

[Rikaze]

@gethsemani87:

I think if you're fighting monsters that big though, a few pin-pricks from your sword won't really do much, you're gonna wanna do what you can to cut them to ribbons... So your insinuation (intended or not,) that the weapons in DA:O are more similar to the Norse or Anglo-Saxon style of weaponry stands firm, at least in my opinion... Ya never know, maybe, just maybe BioWare actually did their research. ^^



For reference, I didn't mean to insinuate that I thought the swords were ugly. I haven't looked at them yet, just that I **liked** my swords and weaponry gruesome lookin'. =P



Question: Wasn't it ancient Roman's who first drilled their warriors to stab their enemy instead of slashing? I say drilled, because stabbing is actually a pretty unnatural action for the human hand and arm.

[Polluxor]

Deltrex wrote...

I've heared alot that it would be to dificult to do bowstrings and sheathe the swords but Bioware is a big company with alot of programmers and money.
As example on the good side i would point to "Mount and Balde" where one handed weapons are on the hip (swords and sabers in scabbards) bows have strings and weapons are only slightly flowing, also all the weapons look like real weapons. This was done my a rather small company with a rather small development budget.
Too much to ask is not to have the weapons look like such and 1h weapons on the hip, swords in scabbards, but to have 2h axes and staves acualy be held in the off hand when not in use and put aside when the hero needs both his hands. Even when it would look cool if a mage would realy use his staff for walking on the jurney and a dwarven fighter would have his Axe leger over his shoulder while walking throu a city there is realy see limitations.
I don't want perfect animations for everything but i don't think the easy way out by placing the wepons somwhere behind the back like 10 years ago is apropriate for a modern game with claim to a living atmospheric world.
Also the designs of the weapons I've seen in the character creator and some of the videos are not just "not so good" but actualy belong to the worst weapon designs I have ever seen in a game, I still hope they are only placeholders and the finished game will have much nicer disigns.

+1 I love M&B weaponry system.

[gethsemani87]

Rikaze wrote...

@gethsemani87:
I think if you're fighting monsters that big though, a few pin-pricks from your sword won't really do much, you're gonna wanna do what you can to cut them to ribbons... So your insinuation (intended or not,) that the weapons in DA:O are more similar to the Norse or Anglo-Saxon style of weaponry stands firm, at least in my opinion... Ya never know, maybe, just maybe BioWare actually did their research. ^^

For reference, I didn't mean to insinuate that I thought the swords were ugly. I haven't looked at them yet, just that I **liked** my swords and weaponry gruesome lookin'. =P

Question: Wasn't it ancient Roman's who first drilled their warriors to stab their enemy instead of slashing? I say drilled, because stabbing is actually a pretty unnatural action for the human hand and arm.

It was indeed my intention to "prove" that there are real life examples of swords similar to those in Dragon Age. For what it is worth, they were good weapons in those times because of their weight and size which allowed them to hack through the chainmails that were the best armors available back then. Similarly, your idea of big monsters requiring big chopping swords is probably how Bioware reasoned when they designed weapons of the larger variety as opposed to the shorter and thinner swords of the high and late medieval periods.

As for your question, I can't answer if they were the first or not, but it would hold to reason. Seeing as how the Romans were among the first to employ the sword in tight formations (most others at the time used Spears as the primary weapon in tight formations, while reserving swords for one on one encounters or when formations broke) and the size of their infantry shields made slashing next to impossible. Still, stabbing and thrusting with a sword fell out of favor and use when West Rome fell and would remain such for the next thousand or so years.

[Rikaze]

Okay, then first recorded would've been a better question, but I doubt if the answer to that will be any more definitive. Ancient History is always a bit of a mystery. ^^

[Kinthalis ThornBlade]

Common, people, there's a lot of misinformation here and most of you know better.



Medieval arming swords were NOT thick and heavy. In fact European's use of techniques such as distal and profile tapering were ingenious, allowing for blade geometries that resulted in weapon s that were light (from 2 to 4 pounds in weight) well balanced, and very tough.



Unlike what you've seen in movies, you cannot cut through mail in most cases. During the early medieval period mail armor was only worn by those who could afford it, or were lucky enough to salvage it from fallen foes. A spear was the preferred weapon against such armor, and the sword's point was used against it when a spear was not available.



Heavy, thick, clumsy swords were never used in battle.

[Tankenminnet]

ITSSEXYTIME wrote...

I can't think of a single game that didn't have floating weapons on the back, and the reason they do is because it's a clipping nightmare to make realistic looking scabbards. It's a limit of the technology really and each individual weapon model would have it's own specifically designed scabbard, not to mention the animations for drawing and sheathing a sword would have to be individually tailored.

Way

Too

Much

Work

What the... 

Hmmmm.

DoW2? GR.org?

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

SheffSteel wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

I'd even not mind it if there was a simple "sheathed" texture while it was on their back where the skin of the blade was changed. There would be no need for a sheath and no clipping issue, the bladed weapon would just change colors ...

That is a very good idea and it would work well for a PS2 game, but it's quite a bit more complicated with shader-based rendering. The sword model would need a dynamic material and at the end of the day I think it would burn CPU / GPU power whether or not the sword was drawn.

Take this with a pinch of salt - I do audio rather than shader programming.

Thank you for your input. Would it really burn that much CPU/GPU power though? It seems like it would be an easy solution to me, though I'm not a programmer at all so I don't even have a grain of salt to offer to that discussion.

What would be the difference between adding a sheath texture to a blade when a weapon isn't active and say...a texture like the shadowshield spell from NWN?

On the topic of making actual persistant polygonal sheaths for individual blades, I bet they could hide clipping by making the sheaths a bit larger than the weapon. The clipping could be hidden by the design of the sheath, like a fur lined Conan-esque sheath. Besides, Loghain's shoulderpads clip all the time on his massive armor and even his hair so I don't see why people use clipping as an excuse for the lack of sheaths. Also the excuse that the camera is going to be zoomed out all the time isn't much of an excuse either since it's zoomed in for dialogues. Plus, if the camera is zoomed out all the time, then you wouldn't notice minor clipping with a sheath so that arguement defeats itself.

I'm just tossing around ideas, don't mind me.

Modifié par Ryllen Laerth Kriel, 31 octobre 2009 - 03:10 .