338 réponses à ce sujet

[John Epler]

Akka le Vil wrote...

So gameplay = lore is stopped by a change of screen ?

Man, that's one of the most garbled and twisted reasoning I ever seen.

I don't think that's really all that absurd a statement, honestly.

Each time you introduce a different 'mode', for example, you're forcefully separating two aspects of a game. Combat uses different rules and interfaces than conversations, for example, and so there's a disconnect. What the_one is saying is that by making that disconnect even -clearer-, you make an even more apparent distinction between the two. The rules that apply in one don't apply in the other, but it's acceptable because, well, you're creating the expectation with the player that this is the case.

I think, though, that the solution is to push things the other way. Rather than further segregating the elements of gameplay, I believe that bringing them closer together is the answer. Of course, this is never going to be perfect - even something as simple as player skill can make something possible in cutscene that is, in most ways, impossible to that player in the game as a whole. And sometimes, the rules have to be broken a little bit - permanent companion death, while certainly interesting, is something that's fraught with its own problems if you allow it in combat as well as cutscenes. But it's definitely a goal to work towards. Each part of the experience should fit together, with less of an abrupt shift from one to the other. Wherever a player says 'okay, that doesn't make sense', it's our job as a developer to look at it and ask ourselves 'why?'

Making the transition into conversation less jarring, for example, is something I'm pretty interested in. Rather than clearly telling the player 'THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE MODES', I'd rather exploration and conversation transition organically into each other. It's a greater challenge in a 3D space than a 2D one, but I don't think it's insurmountable. LA Noire is an example of a game where something as innocuous as having the character walk a few steps forward at the end of a conversation already helps smooth that transition, and I think there's a lot more that can be done.

[the_one_54321]

JohnEpler wrote...
Making the transition into conversation less jarring, for example, is something I'm pretty interested in. Rather than clearly telling the player 'THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE MODES', I'd rather exploration and conversation transition organically into each other. It's a greater challenge in a 3D space than a 2D one, but I don't think it's insurmountable. LA Noire is an example of a game where something as innocuous as having the character walk a few steps forward at the end of a conversation already helps smooth that transition, and I think there's a lot more that can be done.

But I feel the more important implication is in the environmental reaction to battle. When you had two different modes for combat and exploration, all environmental concerns in the exploration mode were eliminated in the battle mode, like in the example I talked about. Specifically in that example, the guards react to you in exploration mode based on the exploration game interactions, and they were no longer part of the interactions in the battle mode unless they are the ones that attacked you.

When you switch to a single mode system, as in DA:O, DAII, FFXII, BG, BGII, and so on, then you have to make the environment react to combat based on the same exploration interactions as in the games with a separate exploration mode. In this system you must have mechanics that cover both exploration and combat simultaneously in order to maintain internal consistency.

[RPGamer13]

Drachasor wrote...

So I guess guy armor isn't right unless it has a large cod piece and other "manly" accessories?  I mean, it is just like female armor unless it is sexualized, right?  Surely the main reason people play male characters is because of their sexual organs.

That's not what I meant, and I am sure Amanda Jo Dragon didn't mean that either.

But I will try to make it clearer: the armor in DAII makes Miss Hawke look like the male Hawke and I do find a problem with that.


I found a quote that illustrates the same point:

Chaos Lord Malek wrote...

And warriors - the armor that Saskia carries in Witcher 2 exactly resemble how the armors for females should look like. The model used in many of the armors are practically the same as the ones for males, which is totally wrong.

[John Epler]

the_one_54321 wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...
Making the transition into conversation less jarring, for example, is something I'm pretty interested in. Rather than clearly telling the player 'THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE MODES', I'd rather exploration and conversation transition organically into each other. It's a greater challenge in a 3D space than a 2D one, but I don't think it's insurmountable. LA Noire is an example of a game where something as innocuous as having the character walk a few steps forward at the end of a conversation already helps smooth that transition, and I think there's a lot more that can be done.

But I feel the more important implication is in the environmental reaction to battle. When you had two different modes for combat and exploration, all environmental concerns in the exploration mode were eliminated in the battle mode, like in the example I talked about. Specifically in that example, the guards react to you in exploration mode based on the exploration game interactions, and they were no longer part of the interactions in the battle mode unless they are the ones that attacked you.

When you switch to a single mode system, as in DA:O, DAII, FFXII, BG, BGII, and so on, then you have to make the environment react to combat based on the same exploration interactions as in the games with a separate exploration mode. In this system you must have mechanics that cover both exploration and combat simultaneously in order to maintain internal consistency.

And I think that's an entirely fair point to make. When you try to bring all the elements of a game together (exploration, combat and conversation), it becomes rather more important that the logic remain consistent from one to the next. Certainly, the easiest way for us to get around this would be to add an even greater distance between the various 'modes' of gameplay by putting a load screen between them. I'd rather try and bring everything together, however. It's an approach that works for some games - at this point, it's less of a 'limitation' for them than it's part and parcel of the whole experience. Which doesn't make it a worse choice - just one that has been shown time and time again to work for that particular genre/type of game.

There are certainly tricks and ways to skirt the issue - make sure combats don't happen where the two could possibly conflict, for example, and limit conversations in the same way. However, those are even more constraints and I think that, while it may work from a 'okay, this makes more sense as part of the game world' way, it doesn't address the core problem.

[the_one_54321]

JohnEpler wrote...
I'd rather try and bring everything together, however. It's an approach that works for some games - at this point, it's less of a 'limitation' for them than it's part and parcel of the whole experience.

This is part of why FFXII and DA:O are two of my very favorite games, mechanically. Though they achieved a lot of their mode separation by managing it through location and preventing interaction, they still manged to keep environment and combat in the same gameplay screen and in the case of FFXII even kept conversation in the same gameplay screen.

The core problem, as you mentioned is getting all of these elements to interact with each other simultaneously in the same location, but these two examples show that the only mechanical hurdle to that point is the creation of functional logic, that is to say the code language/flow charts that will control each element's behavior in a way that is believable and consistent.

[Vice-Admiral von Titsling]

Blue Face Beast wrote...
Oh right... I think there were like 1 or 2 women ever known to have openly carried weapons and weared armour? Like Joan of Arc?

You are so ignorant it physically hurts. No wonder you want your character to prance around in her underpants. Is math just too hard?

Books are good for you, mmkay?

Modifié par Vice-Admiral von Titsling, 26 mai 2011 - 11:09 .

[Akka le Vil]

JohnEpler wrote...

I don't think that's really all that absurd a statement, honestly.

Each time you introduce a different 'mode', for example, you're forcefully separating two aspects of a game.

Oh, I understand and, even if I think it's a lazy method, I perfectly understand (for the said example, I found it very egregious to have my character in Final Fantasy able to smash mountains in fighting, and unable to lift a 50 Kg iron panel in game, but I understood there was "the fighting mode" and "the normal mode").

What I'm mocking is that The One argue that Final Fantasy has no internal consistency problem because there is difference between lore and gameplay, and then use the fact of changing screen and switching to a different mode as an explication of why there is no difference between lore and gameplay... while this is PRECISELY a difference between lore and gameplay.

THAT is the completely bogus and broken reasoning. Using something that proves you wrong as something that prove you right...

I think, though, that the solution is to push things the other way. Rather than further segregating the elements of gameplay, I believe that bringing them closer together is the answer. Of course, this is never going to be perfect - even something as simple as player skill can make something possible in cutscene that is, in most ways, impossible to that player in the game as a whole. And sometimes, the rules have to be broken a little bit - permanent companion death, while certainly interesting, is something that's fraught with its own problems if you allow it in combat as well as cutscenes. But it's definitely a goal to work towards. Each part of the experience should fit together, with less of an abrupt shift from one to the other. Wherever a player says 'okay, that doesn't make sense', it's our job as a developer to look at it and ask ourselves 'why?'

I agree with this, and I would like it to be true.
Too bad that Bioware has taken the exact opposite road, segregating more and more between game mechanics and in-game lore :-/
Try to convince your co-workers about this !

[druidtek]

Drachasor wrote...

[Really, it is just the hats that are awful.  I don't know who in the art department thought that was the way to go with headgear.  Well, I admit I'd like to wear a decent set of pants now and then too (one of the great things about being an Arcane Warrior in DA:O).

The hats are just Bioware's way of trolling min/max players. If you want awesome hat stats you have to wear silly hats. Even DA:O had that same problem.

[Vovea]

I loved the hats. I put one on each of my companions, Sten looked good in Apprentice blue, and I almost cried when I found out you couldn't change companion armor in DA2. It would make everything better if Anders had feathers coming out the back of his head again.

[LiquidGrape]

The DA2 armour is fantastic for the exact same reasons the OP takes issue with it.

Modifié par LiquidGrape, 27 mai 2011 - 11:03 .

[Blue Face Beast]

Vice-Admiral von Titsling wrote...

Blue Face Beast wrote...
Oh right... I think there were like 1 or 2 women ever known to have openly carried weapons and weared armour? Like Joan of Arc?

You are so ignorant it physically hurts. No wonder you want your character to prance around in her underpants. Is math just too hard?

Books are good for you, mmkay?

Ok sir, you who seem to be so knowledgeable, please by all means point me toward these books and historical facts who are proving that multiple women were ever officially admitted into knighthood, roman legions, spartans, samurais or what not.

I am sorry but facts are that medieval warfare wether in asia or europe was not very woman-friendly. There was no equality of gender during that time. Red Sonya is super cool but she remains a myth like most women in arms.

Of course, prove me that i am wrong.

[Akka le Vil]

Blue Face Beast wrote...

Ok sir, you who seem to be so knowledgeable, please by all means point me toward these books and historical facts who are proving that multiple women were ever officially admitted into knighthood, roman legions, spartans, samurais or what not.

Scythians.
Dahomean amazons.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 27 mai 2011 - 04:24 .

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Blue Face Beast wrote...

Ok sir, you who seem to be so knowledgeable, please by all means point me toward these books and historical facts who are proving that multiple women were ever officially admitted into knighthood, roman legions, spartans, samurais or what not.

Scythians.
Dahomean amazons.

Legends and wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

[abnocte]

the_one_54321 wrote...

abnocte wrote...
Just because it is fantasy it doesn't mean it doesn't have to make sense.

It doesn't not make sense. You just don't like it and your attempt at a justification is to claim that it doesn't make sense. Specifically in Aribeth's case we are looking at a D&D 3.0 ruleset. Wherein magical protections do specifically work without armor actually covering the body. It's called a shield bonus in that ruleset. In the Witcher we have alchemy.

armor bonus

A bonus to Armor class granted by armor or by a spell or magical effect that mimics armor. Armor bonuses stack with all other bonuses to Armor class (even with natural armor bonuses) except other armor bonuses. Magic armor typically grants an enhancement bonus to the armor's armor bonus, which has the effect of increasing the armor's overall bonus. An armor bonus granted by a spell or magic item typically takes the form of an invisible, tangible field of force around the recipient. An armor bonus doesn't apply against touch attacks, except for armor bonuses granted by force effects (such as the mage armor spell) which apply against incorporeal touch attacks, such as that of a shadow.

Source

My fault.
You stand correct, as long as the bonus is granted by a spell or magic item, as stated above.

Too bad that according to Nwn - Toolset Aribeth's armor doesn't have any bonus.

Nwn - Prelude 



It isn't until you confront her in the final Chapter that her armor has bonuses.



Feel free to check the toolset yourself.

I haven't played much farther into the Witcher and I have only read the two first novels, but according to this Alchemy isn't used to enhance armor and I can't seem to find any info about magic items. So I won't argue this anymore besides commenting that the first two novels don't ever refer to magic items other than those made of silver, and those only affect some monsters...

Modifié par abnocte, 27 mai 2011 - 06:00 .

[Akka le Vil]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

Legends and wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

Educate yourself first, throw canned answers later.
Especially considering the Dahomean Amazons were recorded, observed and fought by the colonial powers  in the 1890 years, and the last one died in the late XXth century, which make the "legend" claim downright stupid.

[the_one_54321]

abnocte wrote...
armor bonus
....

Touche. Well then it is an inconsistency. But arguably a minor one. At least in my opinion it is a minor one. In  your opinion it's not.

[Blue Face Beast]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

Legends and wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

Educate yourself first, throw canned answers later.
Especially considering the Dahomean Amazons were recorded, observed and fought by the colonial powers  in the 1890 years, and the last one died in the late XXth century, which make the "legend" claim downright stupid.

Is that the only exemple you got to throw here? Even IF that was true and that is a big IF, you are coming here with an obsucre exemple of one matriarchal society who seem to have been forgotten by the time...

Now tell me about women in medieval europe and asia. Tell me about women in France, England, Germany, Italia, Spain , Japan, Russia and etc... Tell me of ONE major nation who ever had women commonly carrying weapons and armors during middle-age.

It wont happen. Face it. Middle-Age was a sexist era and whenever you see women in vidgames with swords and shields, it has nothing to do with reality. It is pure fantasy fiction.

[Fishy]

Amanda Jo Dragon wrote...

Let me go on the record and say that i love Dragon Age 2, it is really great. After buying it on the PS3 i played and finished it three times in a row once as a warrior, then a rogue and finally a mage, but the one thing that disappoints me is when i play a female character all the armor is so bulky and covers every inch of her, I wish there was sexyier armor, the type that uncovers her long legs and flat stomach, low cut to show of a little clevage.

You know the type of armor that you could imagine would cause the male warriors and yes even some female ones to hesitate and underestimate her, just long enough for her to turn them into bloody pools of goo, the only armor in the entire game that comes close is Isabellas custom armor.

Is it just me or does anyone eles out there wish the female characters could look sexy in battle?

To be honest i'm on my fouth play through now and i've resorted to wearing only gloves, boots and a helmet, so she does look sexyier getting splattered in blood in her underwear, and i swear some times the enermy does seem like it hesitates that split second it takes her to appear behind them to stab them in the back.:happy:

I agree . Seriously i have nothing to conbritute to this thread but i discovered this and that sum up what i think a lot of ppl think.

[SixAgileFingers]

I still say armour needs to be armour first and foremost. There's no point showing cleavage because it exposes the heart and lungs to stabbing. You want to protect the head including the C1/C2 joint, protect the entire torso, the brachial artery down to the elbow (including armpit mail) and the femoral artery down to the knee. You want stout boots that support the ankles and gloves or cestae that pad the knuckles and protect the palms adequately.

Here, Hawke is doing it right:

******? You can keep 'em!

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

SixAgileFingers wrote...

I still say armour needs to be armour first and foremost.

Ha! You're crazy.

[SixAgileFingers]

mrcrusty wrote...

SixAgileFingers wrote...

I still say armour needs to be armour first and foremost.

Ha! You're crazy.

Oh?  You think a knife in the chest is conducive to maintaining one's capacity for battle?  If so then I respectfully disagree.  

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

SixAgileFingers wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

SixAgileFingers wrote...

I still say armour needs to be armour first and foremost.

Ha! You're crazy.

Oh?  You think a knife in the chest is conducive to maintaining one's capacity for battle?  If so then I respectfully disagree.  

I'm joking...

Guess I'll put a smilie in next time.

[SixAgileFingers]

 Oh okay.  Sorry, I'm always the last one to know when someone's joking 

[Ladybright]

Blue Face Beast wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

Legends and wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

Educate yourself first, throw canned answers later.
Especially considering the Dahomean Amazons were recorded, observed and fought by the colonial powers  in the 1890 years, and the last one died in the late XXth century, which make the "legend" claim downright stupid.

Is that the only exemple you got to throw here? Even IF that was true and that is a big IF, you are coming here with an obsucre exemple of one matriarchal society who seem to have been forgotten by the time...

Did you completely miss the link posted earlier in the thread that had multiple examples from history of armed female warriors?

Additionally -- assuming their existence, as I am not knowledgeable in this area -- how would a lack of common memory refute or diminish the existence of Dahomean Amazons? The vast majority of history exists outside of everyday public memory. Why even include "who seem to have been forgotten by the time"? It's not even relevant.

Now tell me about women in medieval europe and asia. Tell me about women in France, England, Germany, Italia, Spain , Japan, Russia and etc... Tell me of ONE major nation who ever had women commonly carrying weapons and armors during middle-age.

It wont happen. Face it. Middle-Age was a sexist era and whenever you see women in vidgames with swords and shields, it has nothing to do with reality. It is pure fantasy fiction.

There is no need for anyone here to "face it."

No one in this thread has argued that women in the Medieval Era were regularly knights or trained "warriors" as  thought of in video games. No one in this thread has argued that the Medieval Era was not sexist, particularly not
Akka le Vil, who seems fairly history-minded. Those arguments are full of straw.

The amount of female warriors in history also depends on the definition of "warrior." Are we talking officially  trained and recognized with an "I Am A Warrior" sticker? Are talking people who fight, usually with some skill? Most women in those times probably knew how to use their common tools as weapons,  or had access to cheaper, easy-to-make weapons. The majority of people (regardless of gender) in the Medieval Era were not officially trained and recognized warriors, but most of them could probably make an alright show of protecting themselves. Self-defence was not only of concern to knights.

If you are looking for women in Medieval warfare, you could always try the wikipedia article on women in Medieval warfare, which contains a good selection of many female warriors. Not all of the listed are warriors, but a good many of them are.

[Blue Face Beast]

Ok.. To make it very simple. Let's just say that there are no major nations in medieval era were women were commonly hired as city guards, mercenaries, soldiers and pretty much any professions that involved fighting with weapons and armors in the fields.

So my point is that in history, not so much attention ever got given by craftmen to devise armor specifically made for women because there simply was no market for it.

Now in a fictional game like DA2 were women are equally represented in the "carrying weapons and armors" community, especially in Kirkwall were women can be city guards ( Aveline ), Mercs ( like the leader of Nevara mercs ) or even Templars like Meredith, it is clear that DA2 is going to be a fictional world with its own rules.

In such a world were armors seem to be common for women, i would really expect craftmen to come up with lot fo different styles for different tastes and different level of protection. And with the help of magic or the Maker, some armors certainly could end looking like just garments but ending being very effective in combat.

Like i said in my very first post in that thread, in a fictional world, anything goes and magic can help explain anything like why a simple sexy chain-shirt can protect just fine

That is all.