30 réponses à ce sujet

[Zaldemon]

I was wondering if they were going to bring back the rune effects on your weapon like they did in DA Origins as that was a nice touch and looked cool too. Now when you put a rune on your weapon it doesn't change at all and looks dull as ever. any thoughts anyone ?

[Vhalkyrie]

Yeah! I really missed that, too. I could only get my weapons to glow when using the potions.

[Torax]

I do kind of miss the rune effects. But personally I'd almost prefer being able to customize the companion's armor as well because right now it's just another form of gifting almost.

Modifié par Torax, 29 mars 2011 - 05:24 .

[Avissel]

I can run this game, with all options at max and not have problems until I get too close to a fire.

So I am not upset that I don't get to carry a mobile fire on my back XD

[Addai]

Ugh, RIP. In Origins I used a mod to limit those effects. Sustainable sparklies are a nuisance.

[Torax]

You know what would also be better than not having Rune Effects? Not having to loot Armor that isn't for your class of which neither can your companions. Why not just have me loot extra money and save the bag space?

[hoorayforicecream]

Colored and glowy weapons effects come from the Elemental Weapons sustain and using poisons and potions. The runes adding that stuff was taken out so that you'd notice the sustain and poisons more.

[UltiPup]

I am angry enough that my daggers grew moss because of a nature buff. I want my steel to be clean and pretty.

[Zaldemon]

ok so if you don't happen to bother training Elemental weapons on any of your mages and/or not bother using poisons and potions etc....then no glowing effects for you....(((( that is poor programing they just could not be bothered adding an effect. I completed my first playthrough on normal and as a warrior never used a mage at all in my party and only ever used healing and stamina potions so I get no glowing effects.......seriously its a prime characteristic of any fantasy roleplaying game.....the glowing magical weapon that looks infinitely cool....sorry but bioware dropped the ball there in my opinion.

And while we are on the subject what happened to cool armor skins for the party members, at least in DA1 you could change them now they are fixed....ok fair enough but even when you upgrade them thru the sotry etc....they look the same no different at all even at max upgrade....sorry but that was lazy programming too.......another ball dropper by bioware.

DA3.....more customization, more effects, more choice on weapons and armor for party members, less yoda looking elves and demon looking qunari....))))))))

[hoorayforicecream]

It isn't poor programming at all. It's a conscious design choice. If you used the poisons or elemental weapons sustain, you wouldn't be able to tell what was currently active. Since they wanted the poisons to be more than just "Hey look, some more numbers", something had to go.

The reason they made companion-specific armor is because they wanted the companions to all have unique and iconic looks. You could tell from a glance "This is Isabela" or "This is Fenris". In DA:O, you couldn't tell immediately whether the dwarf was Oghren or generic dwarf 42b, especially with a helmet. Rather than having only their faces be unique, they wanted the entire companion to look unique.

[The 13th Black Cat]

I kind of miss it, but I can live with it. More than anything, I wish more "unique" weapons had some sparklies, to make them look more special. Namely, the Blade of Mercy...you give it to Fenris, he activates this glowing-through-the-cracks fire effect to show how cool it is, and that's the only time you'll ever see the sword do that without outside help. Fff. <_<

As for companion armor, I like the idea, but wish I could still switch...mostly because I want to see what certain armors look like, but my Hawke's class won't let me test it on him. Anyway, I'd always switch back to the unique armors...I never even took off the unique companion-only accesories in DAO after all, and they didn't even change anything visually.

[Killjoy Cutter]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

The reason they made companion-specific armor is because they wanted the companions to all have unique and iconic looks. You could tell from a glance "This is Isabela" or "This is Fenris". In DA:O, you couldn't tell immediately whether the dwarf was Oghren or generic dwarf 42b, especially with a helmet. Rather than having only their faces be unique, they wanted the entire companion to look unique.

Yes, exactly. Just like each character in a cartoon for 5-year-olds is always dressed exactly the same way, so that the tiny undeveloped brains of their target audience can tell characters apart.

It was a design decision made for simplistic aesthetic reasons; rather than for story, setting, or immersion reasons.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 30 mars 2011 - 04:31 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

The reason they made companion-specific armor is because they wanted the companions to all have unique and iconic looks. You could tell from a glance "This is Isabela" or "This is Fenris". In DA:O, you couldn't tell immediately whether the dwarf was Oghren or generic dwarf 42b, especially with a helmet. Rather than having only their faces be unique, they wanted the entire companion to look unique.

Yes, exactly. Just like each character in a cartoon for 5-year-olds is always dressed exactly the same way, so that the tiny undeveloped brains of their target audience can tell characters apart.

It was a design decision made for simplistic aesthetic reasons; rather than for story, setting, or immersion reasons.

I'd say it's more for character reasons. Having an iconic look is incredibly important for establishing a character as a person in one's mind. Look at some iconic science fiction or fantasy characters. Many times there are lots of specific visuals that are baked into them. Princess Leia's hairstyle, Han Solo's white shirt and black vest, Malcolm Reynolds' brown coat, Zangief's red trunks, huge muscles, mohawk and chest scar, Mario's mustache, red shirt and blue overalls, etc. are all examples of characters with iconic looks.

It's a lot easier to remember a character when you have a solid visual than a non-solid visual. 

[Vhalkyrie]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
I'd say it's more for character reasons. Having an iconic look is incredibly important for establishing a character as a person in one's mind. Look at some iconic science fiction or fantasy characters. Many times there are lots of specific visuals that are baked into them. Princess Leia's hairstyle, Han Solo's white shirt and black vest, Malcolm Reynolds' brown coat, Zangief's red trunks, huge muscles, mohawk and chest scar, Mario's mustache, red shirt and blue overalls, etc. are all examples of characters with iconic looks.

It's a lot easier to remember a character when you have a solid visual than a non-solid visual. 

If someone shows up dressed as Anders at my next Halloween party, I'm blaming you. 

[Torax]

I'm fine with them wanting the companions not wear armor. But then don't let my Warrior loot mage clothes. It's a waste of my time.

[hoorayforicecream]

Vhalkyrie wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
I'd say it's more for character reasons. Having an iconic look is incredibly important for establishing a character as a person in one's mind. Look at some iconic science fiction or fantasy characters. Many times there are lots of specific visuals that are baked into them. Princess Leia's hairstyle, Han Solo's white shirt and black vest, Malcolm Reynolds' brown coat, Zangief's red trunks, huge muscles, mohawk and chest scar, Mario's mustache, red shirt and blue overalls, etc. are all examples of characters with iconic looks.

It's a lot easier to remember a character when you have a solid visual than a non-solid visual. 

If someone shows up dressed as Anders at my next Halloween party, I'm blaming you. 

If that happens, I demand pics! 

[Killjoy Cutter]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

The reason they made companion-specific armor is because they wanted the companions to all have unique and iconic looks. You could tell from a glance "This is Isabela" or "This is Fenris". In DA:O, you couldn't tell immediately whether the dwarf was Oghren or generic dwarf 42b, especially with a helmet. Rather than having only their faces be unique, they wanted the entire companion to look unique.

Yes, exactly. Just like each character in a cartoon for 5-year-olds is always dressed exactly the same way, so that the tiny undeveloped brains of their target audience can tell characters apart.

It was a design decision made for simplistic aesthetic reasons; rather than for story, setting, or immersion reasons.

I'd say it's more for character reasons. Having an iconic look is incredibly important for establishing a character as a person in one's mind. Look at some iconic science fiction or fantasy characters. Many times there are lots of specific visuals that are baked into them. Princess Leia's hairstyle, Han Solo's white shirt and black vest, Malcolm Reynolds' brown coat, Zangief's red trunks, huge muscles, mohawk and chest scar, Mario's mustache, red shirt and blue overalls, etc. are all examples of characters with iconic looks.

It's a lot easier to remember a character when you have a solid visual than a non-solid visual. 

At the risk of sounding like a jerk... please refer back to my comment you just replied to.

[hoorayforicecream]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

At the risk of sounding like a jerk... please refer back to my comment you just replied to.

I replied because I felt your comment was an overgeneralization. You seem to think iconic looks are a bad thing, but, historically, having iconic characters make stories more memorable, not less.

[Killjoy Cutter]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

At the risk of sounding like a jerk... please refer back to my comment you just replied to.

I replied because I felt your comment was an overgeneralization. You seem to think iconic looks are a bad thing, but, historically, having iconic characters make stories more memorable, not less.

Memorable for being cheesy and/or written to the lowest common denominator, maybe.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 30 mars 2011 - 06:05 .

[Torax]

It really was Dragon Age 2 was trying to be like Mass Effect 2 which removed companion Armor that they all wore in Mass Effect 1. The key difference is that armor for the player in Mass Effect 2 was bought from stores and not looted randomly. So in other words was controlled and all use able only by the main character. Don't get me wrong, hunting for armor is cool. But if the game could already sniff out which item sets are for my class then why can't it also notice that my rogue is not a warrior?

Modifié par Torax, 30 mars 2011 - 06:09 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Torax wrote...

It really was Dragon Age 2 was trying to be like Mass Effect 2 which removed companion Armor that they all wore in Mass Effect 1. The key difference is that armor for the player in Mass Effect 2 was bought from stores and not looted randomly. So in other words was controlled and all use able only by the main character. Don't get me wrong, hunting for armor is cool. But if the game could already sniff out which item sets are for my class then why can't it also notice that my rogue is not a warrior?

The loot isn't actually that random. Randomly generated gear is the stuff like "Superior Boots" and "Dagger". Named and unique items (like item sets) are placed on purpose. Belts/Amulets/Rings are all usable by the party... armor stuff I guess they just expect you to vendor. I did find it a little annoying that I found unusable gear, but I understand why they did it. They wouldn't have to have multiple loot tables for specific gear, they wouldn't have to create more sets of art, and they give you stuff to sell to buy stuff you do want.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Torax wrote...

It really was Dragon Age 2 was trying to be like Mass Effect 2 which removed companion Armor that they all wore in Mass Effect 1. The key difference is that armor for the player in Mass Effect 2 was bought from stores and not looted randomly. So in other words was controlled and all use able only by the main character. Don't get me wrong, hunting for armor is cool. But if the game could already sniff out which item sets are for my class then why can't it also notice that my rogue is not a warrior?

Along those lines, it's too bad they couldn't do a blood dragon set for rogues, and a blood dragon set for mages, as well, with slightly different visuals for each set...

[Makeshift Riot]

It was annoying and I am glad its gone. The weapons are so pretty, why would one want them covered up with that?

[Killjoy Cutter]

Makeshift Riot wrote...

It was annoying and I am glad its gone. The weapons are so pretty, why would one want them covered up with that?

A more subtle effect, or one that only appeared at the moment of impact, might be better than what we saw in DA:O. 

Actually, I think when you put a lighting rune on Bianca, there are sparks at the moment of impact whenever Varric shoots someone.

[Zaldemon]

I am sorry but I still have to disagree with "Not showing upgrades on Companion Armor" Fair enuff you want icons, and stability and identification etc.....but they could have still done that by adding some graphic effect for each armor upgrade that you buy for your companions....seriously that was it's major downfall not just being able to swap them out all together. For example could they have added an extra bracer or bangles on Isabella's other "Bare" arm and still keep the same look. And could they at least give Fenris the ass kicking warrior some bloody boots when he gets upgraded. Both of these would not take away any identification or iconism just added a nice touch......eg Luke Skywalker getting his black robes when he becomes a Jedi Knight for instance....yest it's still Luke and yes he's still an icon but now he looks cooler.

Nearly finished my second full playthrough of DA2 now and it is getting tedious and old with stareing at the same stuff all the time both skins on characters and maps for levels etc....they really could have tried harder and not over simplified everything to appeal to the button bashing 11 year olds even though it's supposed to be a mature rated game anyway...sheeeshhh !!!! ((