94 réponses à ce sujet

[aries1001]

This is going to be a bit long so here's a reading guide. First, I'm going to talk about BG1+BG2 and compare these games to DA:O and DA2. Then I'm talking about companion armour, then talking to npcs and dialogues, then the closinf off of of areas visited before, then the story and plot driven Bioware games. Lastly, I'm going to talk about DA2's story.

I have been playing Bioware games since Baldur's Gate 1 in 1998 or 1999 (there's a point to this, don't worry) and as far as the npcs banter with our pc (our character) goes, in BG1, we couldn't just walk up to npcs and start talk with them. We could this, as I remember it, in a very limited way in BG2. Interparty banter e.g. banter, talks, between npcs in BG2, could be ridiculous at times. Anomen starting a banter with Jaheira for instance - in the middle of fight. Very annoying, but also very humorous at times. In BG2, most banter and interaction between npcs would take place as scripted events that took place after x, y or z period of time (hence the akward dialogues' moments at times). So Bioware now, in DA2, making it so that you, and the npcs only can talk with each other at certain times is actually a throwback to BG1 and BG2. In BG1+ BG2, you had romances for the first time in a Bioware game, maybe also in a crpg. Bioware has then tried several ways of presenting romances, and the romances are one of Bioware's hallmarks, I find.
As for the companion armour, I certainly can understand the reason for it. However, as someone has posted in varius threads about this subject, Planescape Torment did it as well - the unique companion armour. DA's execution of it was probably -ahem- not that great - in comparision to Torment's. A compromise could probably be reached by giving each companion unique armours that the player can upgrade, along with the suggestions from the OP e.g. give every companion a 1) civilian clothes 2) two in-mission (quests) armours the player can choose from. And for myself, I'll add this: 3) upgradeable companion armour through runes etc. for instance. Let me remind you, though, that people (at the forums) wanted more unique looking companions. I'll suggest that the way to do this would be to e.g. let Aveline keep her shield, Sten his swords, e.g. let each companion have his or her unique weapon set.

As for the free talking to npcs any time, yes, maybe. However, let me remind you that people were screaming their lungs off (yes, I know it sounds harsh, but they were) after the release of DAO saying - 'why can we only talk to our followers,npcs, at camp. We want to be able to talk to them or hear about their lives when we're not at camp.' Then Awakening came, and then DA2. And people got what they wanted - and people still complained...

As for the closing of areas, I'm sort of neutral here. Each Bioware game since BG2 has had what I'd call level designs; in DA:O, it is especially noticeable in the Brecilian Forests, or should I just call them corridoors with greenery, shrubbery and trees - to me the location in the Brecilian Forests felt like this. So did the Fade, so did very many locations in Orzammar. BG1 and BG2 did it, too - if you ever visited an area you've been to before, the game would respawn monsters in order for you to make progress in the main story.

And Bioware games are, and have always been, story and plot-driven. I like this, I even like the idea of a voiced protagonist as well as how this is implemented (done) in the game. As for  the main protagonist in DA:O being railroaded, yes, this is true - at least somewhat - for all Bioware games. In BG2, you're always the Bhaal Child, in DA:O, you're always the Warden, faded (destined) to kill the Archdemon. The Dalish Elf sees Duncan conscript you into the Wardens, and my Dalish Elf would have just preferred to stay with his clan, the keeper and the Halla.
 
The story in DA2 is, as I understand it, just a human (interest) story; Hawke's story it is. The story about a man or a woman and what happens to her or him during ten years in a certain time period. As I see it (from what I've heard and read), it is a story about loss, mourning and sadness. And best of all - no ancient evil, no secret organisation, no saving the world, Bioware wanted with David Gaider's word 'kick over the sandcastle.' The design, the execution and the implementation of this idea can be discussed, of course. Is it good, how well it is done or is done poorly - and does the game end in satisfactory manner....Since this is the general discussion forum, let's not discuss this, too much, here.

Modifié par aries1001, 05 avril 2011 - 07:40 .

[the_one_54321]

Aries brings up an interesting point in the comparison of companion armor.

I wonder how many people here played through all of FFXIII and really got in depth with the item system? Believe it or not, it was thoroughly fantastic. A full on crafting system for every kind of item, and items that gave you different benefits all across the spectrum of the combat system. And each base item having its own progression through upgrades and such.

It was deep. It was thoroughly customizable. It lasted you the entire run of the game and beyond. And there was nothing you could do to make your character or companions wear different cloths.

This is where the objectivity/subjectivity metes starts to break down in the OP. Both types of systems can be done incredibly well or incredibly badly. Even so, some folks simply do not enjoy one form or the other, at times. No matter if they are done well or not.

[AkiKishi]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Aries brings up an interesting point in the comparison of companion armor.

I wonder how many people here played through all of FFXIII and really got in depth with the item system? Believe it or not, it was thoroughly fantastic. A full on crafting system for every kind of item, and items that gave you different benefits all across the spectrum of the combat system. And each base item having its own progression through upgrades and such.

It was deep. It was thoroughly customizable. It lasted you the entire run of the game and beyond. And there was nothing you could do to make your character or companions wear different cloths.

This is where the objectivity/subjectivity metes starts to break down in the OP. Both types of systems can be done incredibly well or incredibly badly. Even so, some folks simply do not enjoy one form or the other, at times. No matter if they are done well or not.

I did, at least until I discovered that your clock time was actually changed by your equipment/skills then I went for the minimalist approach.

Taking down an Adamantoise though, that was very satisfying.

Fixed armour never really bothered me, not being able to equip companions for specfic roles did.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 05 avril 2011 - 08:18 .

[the_one_54321]

Yeah, I stuck entirely to speed items up until I could get some broad spectrum resistance items.

[Ieldra]

the_one_54321 wrote...
This is where the objectivity/subjectivity metes starts to break down in the OP. Both types of systems can be done incredibly well or incredibly badly. Even so, some folks simply do not enjoy one form or the other, at times. No matter if they are done well or not.

I'm wondering what triggered you going on and on about objectivity and subjectivity. I did not claim objectivity for my feeling increasingly constrained by the absence or narrowing of certain areas of choice. How could I, when some people exist who say it doesn't bother them? I do claim that those constraints exist, by the facts you do not dispute, but I did not say that all players feel them the same way nor that they should. I did not say anything about combat effectiveness when making my point about companion armors. For me it is a matter of plausibility in presentation and using different styles to cater to different tastes if generic armor is to be avoided - and I specifically agreed that more individual outfits are in principle desirable. So I'm not really sure what you are disagreeing with in your posts - but my OP it is not.

[dfstone]

abaris wrote...

dfstone wrote...

I found having to maintain your companions' armor to be tedious. I was glad they got rid of it in ME2 and even more glad its gone in DA2. Besides it made no sense. You want your companions to be more developed as a character while at the same time they can't even change their own clothes without your approval. Seemed stupid to me.

That's where tastes differ. Mind you, I had less of a problem with not being able to change companions armor in ME2. But in a fantasy game, I'm always fond of the looting and of eqipping my fellows with new shiny things.

It may hurt the aesthetic feelings of the developers, but for me its an integral part of fantasy games. I would have hated it, if Leiliana for example would have been stuck in her chantry robes throughout DAO. And it was rather fun to equip Alistair and Sten with the heaviest stuff I could find.

It would probably be  good compromise if they got rid of companion armor, but made their upgrades more visible.  You do get a lot of upgrades for your companion's armor in DA2 scattered about but they don't seem to make any kind of visible changes to their appearence.

[the_one_54321]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I'm wondering what triggered you going on and on about objectivity and subjectivity.

Because of this:

the_one_54321 wrote...

randName wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
I found the OPs post to be mostly driven by bias and lacking in objectivity. Though the initial observations were mostly accurate, the conclusions reached were clearly based on personal preference. Which is fine, except that it seemed an attempt at objectivity was being made.

Although I mostly agree with how the OP feels I cannot support the OP in the purpose of this thread.

It's a bit of a predicament, trying to be objective when it comes to subjective matters of taste, and then being accused for trying ~

That said I approve of this post.

A genuine attempt was made and I suppose that deserves some credit. The problem is that when an attempt at objectivity is made and then failed at, it tends to lend the argument the appearance of being flawed or incorrect.

As I believe there are some points made in the OP that are worth supporting, I find it unfortunate that they are thus marred by the flaws in the rest of the post. Thus, I cannot support the post.

[Ieldra]

@the_one_54321:
I object to your leaving out parts of my post that are significant to the argument when quoting it. If you find my conclusions "marred by personal preference", well, I did say in the parts of my answer you omitted that I make no claim to objectivity for the way I feel. Other than that, it would be nice if you would support *your* claim by arguments referring to what I actually said instead of making a blanket assertion.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 05 avril 2011 - 09:03 .

[the_one_54321]

Ieldra2 wrote...
@the_one_54321:
I object to your leaving out parts of my post that are significant to the argument when quoting it. If you find my conclusions "marred by personal preference", well, I did say in the parts of my answer you omitted that I make no claim to objectivity for the way I feel. Other than that, it would be nice if you would support *your* claim by arguments referring to what I actually said instead of making a blanket assertion.

You asked what triggered me, and that is where I talked about the trigger.

Your innitial post appeared to be an attempt at objectivity, and furthermore a number of posteres congratulated you on the objective nature of your post. If there was a mistake in that, then it should go without saying that my criticism is inaccurate.

[Mantaal]

My Problem with an "fixed" outfit for the Charakters is different.
I, also like it sometimes to give my Charakters Armor with lesser stats just for the look. But at least there are stats on the armor i choose for them.

I think its just stupid if you find a Mages Robe and you have to sell it to a Vendor because your Mages cant Change thier Outfit.

Thats part of the (i call it) Diablo Effect. If you find an armor its better then yours or just looks better. It makes you Happy. And if i have 5 Group members i got the multible effect of that.

And it just makes sence.
Hawke:"oh i got the Magical Shadow Armor of the Pirate Queen in that Dragon Corpse!"
Isabella: "No i dont like Pants and i love to Fight in underwear and boots!"

I really enjoyed the classic style of Charakter Costumisation in RPGs. I like Armor with stats and change the look of my entire Party.
In my Opinion there is no logical reason for deleting that option. It justs makes the game pure and make the Developers look lazy.

(English is not my native language so be polite pls.)

[twaninator]

I have to agree wholeheartedly with the OP. I absolutely despised ME 2's "missions" that had you transported to an off-site location, in which you kill enemies from point A to point B, and never return again.

Yes, I realize that you often didn't return to certain locations in ME 1 and even DA:O, but at least the areas were connected, which contributed to the feeling of a location rather than a "level". The "mission complete" screen magnified this feeling tenfold.

The conversations being forced on the player are also an aspect that I can't regard as an improvement. In older releases you actually had to uncover many dialogue options through continued interaction with your party. You were rewarded (often with side quests) for investing in your companions. Now, conversations are practically shoved down your throat.

I understand that there are people that prefer this approach, and that's valid. But its simply that: a different approach, serving a different purpose. Nothing more. When BioWare calls this innovation, then we have a problem.

Modifié par twaninator, 05 avril 2011 - 09:30 .

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Good post OP, I agree with quite a few of your points. It makes me want to play ME 1 again and perhaps give up my current DA:O playthrough for some Baldur's Gate.

[geekeffect]

Interesting topic and thread. I'd like to add a few personal thoughts. I haven't played DA2 yet, but will purchase it in the near future and I'm eager to play, although I have to confess I got some mixed feelings from all the things I've read when it was launched.
I think I understand the concept behind DA2. It is a departure from DAO's structure and it seems more focused on storyline progression. One of my worries, though, is that this direction BioWare is taking may be revealing some actual technical limitations. I mean, many new games are showing a tendency to evolve into open world approaches, with a more "organic" flow, more freedom, and a greater sense of continuity and permanence. BioWare, however, seems to be moving into these constricted gaming experiences. You can feel that going from ME1 to ME2. ME1 had no levels, no ending screen, and kept a sense of continuity, going in and out of the ship, or riding elevators (which were fine by me).
ME2 had more complex and detailed locations, but they also felt tighter, separate, segmented areas. Now, I think ME2 was a better game, with incredible qualities. But this choice of segmentation didn't really seem necessary.
With Dragon Age I think it may be worst. DAO allowed exploration and offered diversity. From what I'm reading, DA2 seems to disregard this aspect a great deal. And this feels strange considering it's an RPG, and that sense of awe, of discovery, of permanence, is traditionally very important.
Now, my fear is that although BioWare is the most refined gaming developer regarding storytelling, they may be lagging back in the technological aspect of it, when it cames to the creation of more open and continuous worlds. Am I wrong? Because I trully feel that BioWare needs to take a step forward, creating physical worlds that match the wonderful lore that they're able to create as a background.

[Mantaal]

geekeffect wrote...

Interesting topic and thread. I'd like to add a few personal thoughts. I haven't played DA2 yet, but will purchase it in the near future and I'm eager to play, although I have to confess I got some mixed feelings from all the things I've read when it was launched.
I think I understand the concept behind DA2. It is a departure from DAO's structure and it seems more focused on storyline progression. One of my worries, though, is that this direction BioWare is taking may be revealing some actual technical limitations. I mean, many new games are showing a tendency to evolve into open world approaches, with a more "organic" flow, more freedom, and a greater sense of continuity and permanence. BioWare, however, seems to be moving into these constricted gaming experiences. You can feel that going from ME1 to ME2. ME1 had no levels, no ending screen, and kept a sense of continuity, going in and out of the ship, or riding elevators (which were fine by me).
ME2 had more complex and detailed locations, but they also felt tighter, separate, segmented areas. Now, I think ME2 was a better game, with incredible qualities. But this choice of segmentation didn't really seem necessary.
With Dragon Age I think it may be worst. DAO allowed exploration and offered diversity. From what I'm reading, DA2 seems to disregard this aspect a great deal. And this feels strange considering it's an RPG, and that sense of awe, of discovery, of permanence, is traditionally very important.
Now, my fear is that although BioWare is the most refined gaming developer regarding storytelling, they may be lagging back in the technological aspect of it, when it cames to the creation of more open and continuous worlds. Am I wrong? Because I trully feel that BioWare needs to take a step forward, creating physical worlds that match the wonderful lore that they're able to create as a background.

I really did like ME2. It was steamined but still a good game. Maybe its because its part of a Shooter the changes didnt "hurt" at all.
But in Da2 i just always have the feeling there is less of everything. Less story, less maps, less Items, less costumisation and so on.. just doesnt feel good for me. Even if it might be a good game after all it just feels wrong because it makes me feel i got an half Game. An half game could never reach the score over 50% in my opinion.

[cncivanova]

geekeffect wrote...

Interesting topic and thread. I'd like to add a few personal thoughts. I haven't played DA2 yet, but will purchase it in the near future and I'm eager to play, although I have to confess I got some mixed feelings from all the things I've read when it was launched.
I think I understand the concept behind DA2. It is a departure from DAO's structure and it seems more focused on storyline progression. One of my worries, though, is that this direction BioWare is taking may be revealing some actual technical limitations. I mean, many new games are showing a tendency to evolve into open world approaches, with a more "organic" flow, more freedom, and a greater sense of continuity and permanence. BioWare, however, seems to be moving into these constricted gaming experiences. You can feel that going from ME1 to ME2. ME1 had no levels, no ending screen, and kept a sense of continuity, going in and out of the ship, or riding elevators (which were fine by me).
ME2 had more complex and detailed locations, but they also felt tighter, separate, segmented areas. Now, I think ME2 was a better game, with incredible qualities. But this choice of segmentation didn't really seem necessary.
With Dragon Age I think it may be worst. DAO allowed exploration and offered diversity. From what I'm reading, DA2 seems to disregard this aspect a great deal. And this feels strange considering it's an RPG, and that sense of awe, of discovery, of permanence, is traditionally very important.
Now, my fear is that although BioWare is the most refined gaming developer regarding storytelling, they may be lagging back in the technological aspect of it, when it cames to the creation of more open and continuous worlds. Am I wrong? Because I trully feel that BioWare needs to take a step forward, creating physical worlds that match the wonderful lore that they're able to create as a background.

I think you've touched on a core problem.  There is a disconnect in Bioware's storytelling vs. its technical implementation thereof.  It's also a core difference between open-world games like those Bethesda puts out and ME1.

One example would be the green/blue/red concept.  Meaning that you have allies, neutral NPCs, and hostiles.  Neutrals can be problematic in terms of immersion and storytelling, because you can't attack them!  You can have a conversation with someone, find out (or suspect) that they are truly your enemy, but you have no option of acting against them.

Another example would be branching dialogue choices.  DA2 doesn't have them at all.  No matter how much of an ***hole you are to someone, or what kind of reputation you've established, NPCs react the same way to you.  They still give you (or reward you) quests in exactly the same way.  There is a pre-ordained destiny for everything and your choices ultimately can (at best) only change the scheduling of events.

In general, though, I agree with most of the OP's points, though not about Miranda's outfit in ME2.  She always struck me as a woman who would make full-use of her abilities, physical appearance among them.  But that's not really important.

More customization options and a more open, interconnected feel would be very much a good thing in the future.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

twaninator wrote...

I have to agree wholeheartedly with the OP. I absolutely despised ME 2's "missions" that had you transported to an off-site location, in which you kill enemies from point A to point B, and never return again.

Yes, I realize that you often didn't return to certain locations in ME 1 and even DA:O, but at least the areas were connected, which contributed to the feeling of a location rather than a "level". The "mission complete" screen magnified this feeling tenfold.

 

I loved that change in ME2.  The idea that I would drop in a land rover on the opposite side of a mountain range from my objective was teeth-grindingly inexplicable to me.  It made more sense to me, and it didn't really seem any worse than restricting me from a square kilometer or so on an entire planet.

Even the Mission Complete screen didn't bother me, considering just how mission-based the whole game was.  I would, however, have liked to see the story play out a little more organically than the recruitment/loyalty mission thing.

In a fantasy game, it does more to break verisimilitude, though.

[Gatt9]

cncivanova wrote...

geekeffect wrote...

Interesting topic and thread. I'd like to add a few personal thoughts. I haven't played DA2 yet, but will purchase it in the near future and I'm eager to play, although I have to confess I got some mixed feelings from all the things I've read when it was launched.
I think I understand the concept behind DA2. It is a departure from DAO's structure and it seems more focused on storyline progression. One of my worries, though, is that this direction BioWare is taking may be revealing some actual technical limitations. I mean, many new games are showing a tendency to evolve into open world approaches, with a more "organic" flow, more freedom, and a greater sense of continuity and permanence. BioWare, however, seems to be moving into these constricted gaming experiences. You can feel that going from ME1 to ME2. ME1 had no levels, no ending screen, and kept a sense of continuity, going in and out of the ship, or riding elevators (which were fine by me).
ME2 had more complex and detailed locations, but they also felt tighter, separate, segmented areas. Now, I think ME2 was a better game, with incredible qualities. But this choice of segmentation didn't really seem necessary.
With Dragon Age I think it may be worst. DAO allowed exploration and offered diversity. From what I'm reading, DA2 seems to disregard this aspect a great deal. And this feels strange considering it's an RPG, and that sense of awe, of discovery, of permanence, is traditionally very important.
Now, my fear is that although BioWare is the most refined gaming developer regarding storytelling, they may be lagging back in the technological aspect of it, when it cames to the creation of more open and continuous worlds. Am I wrong? Because I trully feel that BioWare needs to take a step forward, creating physical worlds that match the wonderful lore that they're able to create as a background.

I think you've touched on a core problem.  There is a disconnect in Bioware's storytelling vs. its technical implementation thereof.  It's also a core difference between open-world games like those Bethesda puts out and ME1.

One example would be the green/blue/red concept.  Meaning that you have allies, neutral NPCs, and hostiles.  Neutrals can be problematic in terms of immersion and storytelling, because you can't attack them!  You can have a conversation with someone, find out (or suspect) that they are truly your enemy, but you have no option of acting against them.

Another example would be branching dialogue choices.  DA2 doesn't have them at all.  No matter how much of an ***hole you are to someone, or what kind of reputation you've established, NPCs react the same way to you.  They still give you (or reward you) quests in exactly the same way.  There is a pre-ordained destiny for everything and your choices ultimately can (at best) only change the scheduling of events.

In general, though, I agree with most of the OP's points, though not about Miranda's outfit in ME2.  She always struck me as a woman who would make full-use of her abilities, physical appearance among them.  But that's not really important.

More customization options and a more open, interconnected feel would be very much a good thing in the future.

Sandbox worlds have the massive problem of a lack of anything worth doing in RPGs,  even going all the way back to Daggerfall,  in an RPG they end up generic.

Without some driving story to keep the player moving forward,  it just becomes an endless game of "Do the generic quest and grind out levels". 

It could be otherwise,  Might & Magic showed how to design a semi-open world without sacrificing story.  Any given MMO does a good job of implementing semi-open world where there's a great deal of content to participate in.

Sadly,  Bethseda's the only one who tries it,  and they make Action-Adventure games these days because of level scaling and their constant instance on removing anything that even remotely resembels an RPG mechanic.

The key is in having a solid non-emergent main quest,  and loads of quests,  dungeons,  and RPG development.  Pretty much everything the Industry is running away from right now.

[HolyWarrior21]

alan614 wrote...

Zalocx wrote...

TeamVR wrote...

randName wrote...

& Yeah Bioware should do what Bioware wants, and I guess I just felt that they were getting back to games I like to play with DA:O, and its sad to see them change directions so fast, despite how successful DA:O turned out to be.

Ditto. I always assumed that with DA and ME, bioware was aiming at two groups. One for the RPG purist, one for the more casual. Both great games. But they seem to be two different flavors of the same product now. 

bioware has spoken

I'm still confused as how people bemoan the "dumbing down" of DA2 yet seem to insist that DA:O was some throwback to the golden age of BG/NWN. When in reality I thought the level of "dumbing down" Between say BGII:ToB or NWN:HotU and DA:O was VASTLY more prominant. What with the loss of racial stat moddifiers, a mana based cooldown spell system instead of a slots per day vancian one, regenerating health after each combat sequence and 4-tier talents replacing point buy skill systems. I know a lot of people think of Origins as an "old school RPG" and I really like it, but when I look at PS:T, both BGs, NWN + both expansions, and the first two Fallouts sitting on my shelf Origins REALLY seems closer to DA2/ME than any of them.

One dumbing down of DA2 is the loss of stat based mechanics outside of combat. In the older games you mentioned and DAO, your stats had a way of influencing your interactions with the world. In the BG series, you had your Charisma which can affect merchant prices and overall interactions, Strength in bashing locks if your weren't a theif, magic resistance and saving throws on trapped areas which didn't necessarily lead to combat, heck they don't even have trapped chests in DA2. If you were a warrior class, you get an opportunity to acquire a stronghold.

NWN had diplomacy and intimidation in conversation, wisdom and intelligence could also open up more conversation options, your heal skill can would allow you to get more information from an NPC. In Fallout, you had your science skill to interact with computer, probably to attempt to hack them, speech skill to try and convince the NPC you're someone you're not.

In DA:O, there was the coecion + cunning for persuasion, Dexterity or Cunning for when trying to catch isabella from cheating. There was even a whole set of quests which only activate if you were a rogue.

Basically, character building has become devoid in DA2 and ME2, all you really had to think about was combat skills, which to be honest, is NOT what a roleplaying game is entirely about, and neither is plain simple storytelling. While a more focused storytelling is nice, it could get into the pitfall of failing to recognize your character. I've seen repeated threads on why do the templars not react on your being a mage, even moreso if you were a bloodmage. Whereas in BG, if you cast an spell in public in Athkala cowled wizard will teleport in and try to arrest you.

The world in DA2 will only react to the Hawke Bioware has pre-defined for you. The story doesn't bend to the uniqueness of your Hawke, you're just there for the ride, which doesn't make it far from being an Adventure game. It's dumb down game in the sense that it doesn't concern you with thinking about anything beyond combat, it doesn't make you reconsider the social repercussions of building your character.

Amen Brother! I too miss the stat based stuff, mainly the conversations, but I can see why bioware didn't include these in DA2.  The biggest pain i had playing NWN2 was i became confused on how to build my character, and tried to make an "all rounder" and completry gimped my paladin.  Ahh, good times 

Modifié par HolyWarrior21, 06 avril 2011 - 11:32 .

[randName]

& with the armours, there is a special feeling about having a uniform look, you are no longer this rag tag army, but have managed to get all your soldiers/companions into a sleek cold black that glistens and shines as you pave your way in blood, guts and lost opportunities.

Instead of a companion group that looks like they just came from a fancy masquerade ball.

[HolyWarrior21]

randName wrote...

& with the armours, there is a special feeling about having a uniform look, you are no longer this rag tag army, but have managed to get all your soldiers/companions into a sleek cold black that glistens and shines as you pave your way in blood, guts and lost opportunities.

Instead of a companion group that looks like they just came from a fancy masquerade ball.

Yeah, but how dumb did u look when u had lelianna who had some tier4 leather armour, tier 1 metal gauntlets and god knows what else on her as u couldn't find anything else to equip? I will never miss that