365 réponses à ce sujet

[bloodstalker1973]

I'd like to see companion armor and equipment change. Given the choice, I prefered DA:O because i had more control, but to be honest, most RPG armor treatment doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I mean, you have dwarves, elves, Qunari, and humans in parties, and yet in Origins Sten and Ohgren could wear the same armor. That makes no sense to me, there is just no way Sten could fit into any kind of dwarven battle armor.

What I'd like to see is each subset of armor having it's own distinct style. Human armor shouldn't look like Elven armor and so on. Each race should have it's own look and feel, and each races armor would make more sense if only that race could wear it.

I know BW wants to maintain the individual style of party members looks. That's fine, but I think rather than simply designating an armor as only wearable by a certain character, which feels awkward and contrived, armor should be race restrictive due to natural considerations like body mass and size.

Given the fact that you generally only have a couple of any given race as a party option in any game, BW could then detail dwarvish armor in step with the look they have in mind for the dwarven character in the party. Origins had several armor sets labeled Dwarven, for example,and if the ability to let other races wear that armor was gone then it would have went a long way towards eleminating the bland look of parties BW was complaining about in youtube videos.

The biggest problem with this I would think would comewith human armors. There tend to be more human characters available to recruit in these games. I think gender restrictions would work well to help balance this out a bit. I wouldn;t advocate going to a completely arbitrary class restriction system. But honestly, I think  most of the problems comes from just allowing every character to wear every set of armor in Origins regardless of size, mass, or body shape that comes with different races and genders. I got seriously annoyed when I came across and armor set in DA2 that I couldn't give to a party member because it didn;t have her name on it. I would not have been annoyed at all had I found an armor that my dwarf couldn't wear because it was elven armor. No matter how good the stats might have been, it would have just made sense that the armor flat out wouldn't fit.

Also too many times it seems like  mages only have the basic chantry robes to choose from with only the stats changing from robe to robe. I never even used those robes in Origins because, honestly, Morrigan looked totally out of character walking ouround in Chantry clothing. I think this could have been offset from a story standpoint though. There could have been a unique Morrigan outfit available at a certain point when the player had to take care of her personal quest. I mean, if Morrigan's quest revolved around someone elses plans for her, then it would make sense that perhaps that someone had prepared a powerful outfit once that plan had come to fruition. I'm trying to be a little vauge because I don;t want to spoil anyone who hasn't played Origins yet, but you can see where I'm going with this.

There are ways to accomplish what BW wants to do without arbitrarily stating Character A can only wear armor B and no one else can.  I think race restrictions would allow BW to design armors for certain characters with a certain look in mind. Gender restrictions where it makes sense would also help to further refine individual party members looks. If the situation warrants it, personal questitems could also help here and there. I think these types of restrictions make much more sense than simply assigning a character's nameto an armor and stating flatly that no one else can wear it. When you do that, people want to know why. If you implement a racial/gender/other reasonable explanation  why certain armor is unwearable to certain characters, people don't have to ask why and they feel less like they are having the control over their characters taken away from them.

Anyway,those are just my thouts on the matter.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

RosaAquafire wrote...

There needs to be some sort of compromise system. I don't know, personally, I'd be more than okay with being able to equip anything on the followers and not have their outfits visually change at all. Yeah, it's a little silly, but that way you get the flexibility of armour and the benefit of customization with relatively little suspension of disbelief -- a lot of games do this, after all.

Ultima 7 did this, and I agree it was always easy to tell who/where your companions were. You got the benefits of the armour but could still tell Shamino was Shamino.

Anyway, the devs have already shown us a Helmet toggle, so would it be possible to introduce an Armour toggle (full armour, not piece by piece)? The 'base' armour would be the companion's regular costume ('naked', if you will) and turning armour on would show whatever you have equipped them with.

Of course, this would need work. Making all the armour fit on various character models. What happens if you have equipped Varric with some leather pants but nothing else, do you get to see his dwarfly chest then? Would this mean having to do actual 'naked' models for characters if they are only partially armed? I don't know if that's practical to put all that work in, but it'd be cool.

[FieryDove]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Of course, this would need work. Making all the armour fit on various character models. What happens if you have equipped Varric with some leather pants but nothing else, do you get to see his dwarfly chest then?

I wouldn't change Varric at all. But Isabela...yeah give her da pants.

Oh and no matter what Merrill must keep scarf.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
She talks about using these to manipulate men. That tactics isn't going to serve her very well when she runs into a Meredith equivalent. Or a man who is into other men.

Or she seduces a Cullen/Thrask/Karass, who stabs Meredith square through the skull. Or she shapeshifts into a man, because she suddenly "gains" something. 

Since the game doesn't provide actual option to point it out to her, the player is free to RP that such conversation did, in fact, happen at some point, and Morrigan drew certain conclusions from it.

No. If the game doesn't provide the option to point it out, then the game doesn't provide the option to point it out, it doesn't happen, and Morrigain is who Morrigain is. 

This kind of rationale justifies an ending where Duncan rises up from the dead and defeats the archdemon himself, then uses his divine powers to trick everyone into thinking someone else did the deed.

In fact, we can just RP that the Warden is an escaped mental patient and the discussions with the hospital wait staff that interject the scenes in DA:O are just things you have to imagine. It even explains features of the game - like "seeing" Loghain call assasins - far better than any restricted PoV design would. 

Anything that makes it impossible to distinguish between a hallucination and reality isn't a good standard. 

That is very much part of my point -- there's bound to be different interpretations and ideas of what decisions Morrigan could make. Accommodating them makes for a game which can appeal to more players.

No. This is the thing you need to understand: ambiguity is not fun for everyone. 

Ambiguity activley makes the game worse for me. The more things are left ambigious, the worse the game is, to the point where it might not appeal to me at all.

So this kind of ambiguity will make it not appeal to some players. 

Modifié par In Exile, 07 août 2011 - 04:22 .

[Absafraginlootly]

Morroian wrote...

Anarya wrote...

What I'd like to see in DA3 is a compromise. Make companions' armor unique, but give us a selection of unique armors for each character and let us choose which one to equip. 

I choose this option as well.

I agree with this also, a choice between a few different armours for the companion. You still get the unique design, but without the weird element of companions always wearing the same thing, also it means you do get to control what your companions look like a bit.

Preferable these diffrent armours should not only look different, but also have differing armour bonuses (this armour focusing on strength bonus, this on defense etc.) That way it has a practical element too.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

This kind of rationale justifies an ending where Duncan rises up from the dead and defeats the archdemon himself, then uses his divine powers to trick everyone into thinking someone else did the deed.

In fact, we can just RP that the Warden is an escaped mental patient and the discussions with the hospital wait staff that interject the scenes in DA:O are just things you have to imagine. It even explains features of the game - like "seeing" Loghain call assasins - far better than any restricted PoV design would.

If that's what floats your boat, why not play it that way?

Anything that makes it impossible to distinguish between a hallucination and reality isn't a good standard.

This is a value judgment on your part.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Morrigain uses sex appeal and perceived vulnerability. She even has a talk about it with you in DA:O.

Morrigan says she uses sex appeal and perceived vulnerability.  Why do you believe her?

Alternately, why do you believe she always behaves as she says, and isn't describing occasional rather than regular behaviour?

You're jumping to conclusions.

[Valthier]

I have to say I did prefer DA2's system for the visual flare and different body types. I liked Anders being weedy and Aveline having big arms. So I'd like the companions to keep their own armour, though I think there is room for there to be a few sets - maybe some unlocked with quests, maybe a different outfit each act if the next game goes the act route again, etc.

Though to compromise with customization, they could always improve the rune system for companion armour. There could be special companion runes that offer larger bonuses, and a few unique to each companion from quests and such. That would mean that if you did want Isabella to tank, for example, it would technically be possible to stack armour bonus runes until she's effectively wearing plate. It would in essense be the same as just equipping them with different armours, but would allow each companion to keep their distinct visual style. Admittedly Isabella deflecting attacks with her bare chest might seem a little odd, but if there were a few unlockable armour sets I'm sure one of them would have more clothes/armour patches/something.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

Or she seduces a Cullen/Thrask/Karass, who stabs Meredith square through the skull. Or she shapeshifts into a man, because she suddenly "gains" something.

Oh hai, it's almost as if two people have two different ideas of what Morrigan could do. Who would've thought?

No. If the game doesn't provide the option to point it out, then the game doesn't provide the option to point it out, it doesn't happen, and Morrigain is who Morrigain is.

There's lot of things the game doesn't show explitictly, do you use the same logic to decide that means they never take place?

This kind of rationale justifies an ending where Duncan rises up from the dead and defeats the archdemon himself, then uses his divine powers to trick everyone into thinking someone else did the deed.

Yes; that's what we usually call "fan-fiction".

In fact, we can just RP that the Warden is an escaped mental patient and the discussions with the hospital wait staff that interject the scenes in DA:O are just things you have to imagine. It even explains features of the game - like "seeing" Loghain call assasins - far better than any restricted PoV design would.

Yes, you can do that. And guess what, there's nothing really in the game that would disprove such approach.

Anything that makes it impossible to distinguish between a hallucination and reality isn't a good standard.

What "standard"? We are talking about deriving enjoyment from a computer game. I'm supposed to only enjoy things in manner certified by some official committe? That's outrageous, no one told me.

No. This is the thing you need to understand: ambiguity is not fun for everyone. 

Ambiguity activley makes the game worse for me. The more things are left ambigious, the worse the game is, to the point where it might not appeal to me at all.

Well i suppose you are out of luck then, because at no point the game comes out and says "no, the Warden isn't an escaped mental patient". It's left dreadfully ambiguous. But did it negatively affect your fun before you thought of that possibility?

What you need to understand is, the "ambiguity" is always bound to be there. Your interpretation that there's none is just that, one way to resolve that "ambiguity" in the way you prefer. What happens in your game is what you decide to happen. And that act of interpreting things the preferred way goes for everyone, just to different results.

[Firky]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
Ultima 7 did this, and I agree it was always easy to tell who/where your companions were. You got the benefits of the armour but could still tell Shamino was Shamino.

I'd totally forgotten about that. Shamino was still wearing his little green duds, even when you had him dressed in glowing blue, magic armour. And his paper doll was still wearing green duds even though you could see other stuff equipped in the armour slots.

That's an interesting one. I think that worked because the characters were so, freaking small. But that doesn't explain why the paper dolls weren't annoying. (I guess I didn't find this annoying because I didn't notice it at the time. How odd.)

Reading this thread makes me think I have an irrational armour fetish, though. For me it's all about micromanaging armour, through stats and resistances etc, and appreciating seeing it equipped on the body, regardless of what it looks like. Searching around for upgrades in DAII wasn't overly fun for me, because there was no switching things in and out, just finding and then using.

In Origins, I thought it worked out OK for Leliana, say, because I  built her traditionally and she could only really equip roguey looking armour, not plate or anything. I'd happily have armours that you could only equip on human males too, for example. Lots of complexity. But in DAII there obviously weren't enough companions overall for this to work, and you'd just end up finding Fenris armour or Varric armour, anyway, much like DAII's upgrades. It seems, with armour, everything affects everything else.  

That doesn't explain why warriors can no longer equip ranged weapons, though. I really, really missed that in DAII. I had Aveline holding position pointlessly a fair bit, especially when trying to get AoE things happening. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Ultima 7 did this, and I agree it was always easy to tell who/where your companions were. You got the benefits of the armour but could still tell Shamino was Shamino.

This is actually the system I thought DA2 had.  This is the system Mike described to us in the press (each companion would have a unique appearance, but we'd still have control over their armour statistics "like in DAO").

So I didn't expect DA2's system to work as it does at all, and that was a very unpleasant surprise.

[Firky]

^ I don't remember any precise quote about follower armour, apart from that they "wanted followers to look unique and distinctive." (not a direct quote) But would the U7 approach have worked better in DAII? Could you put unique rogue armour that you find on Isabela, not have her change out of her dress-type thing and still feel like you're managing armour? I dunno.

(Like I said, the U7 characters were tiny. Like, in those days, the character sprites were kind of symbolic, whereas today they're all realistic and expressive and cinematic. Maybe it would be inconsistent in DAII, where it worked in U7?)

Modifié par Firky, 07 août 2011 - 09:38 .

[Eudaemonium]

I much prefer the iconic looks of DA2. I like companions to look different and distinct (same reason I always wear the Champion armor on Hawke once I can and will probably never take it off, DLC improvements be damned). However, I do get the desire for customisation and would like some variety in appearance - and I was pretty annoyed when Merrill got a whole new armor (even if it did make her look like a giraffe) and Fenris got an armband and the Hawke crest on his belt.

I have two different, and not necessarily compatible, ideas (which have probably been suggested 3000 times).

The first is to have companion upgrades actually show physically on the armor. Thing is, even with only four upgrades that can be quite substantial, since you'd have to account for people missing the upgrades. This means you couldn;t just design 5 outfits (base - max) in linear progression, since you'd have to account for someone getting upgrade 4 but missing upgrade 3, or 2-3, or, heck 1-3. This is my favourite option, but I am unsure how costly it would be. You could probably get around this by actually having the party member's armor in segments, like Hawke's (even if it didn't appear that way on the paper doll inventory screen). So, for example, when you give Anders X upgrade, in reality you're just giving him a new set of gauntlets or boots. To be honest, I'm not sure how much I'd like that. It lacks the visual power of a main outfit change. Even if the change is as small as Fenris' belt-crest.

The alternative would be a system similarly to how rune slots worked in Origins and/or DA2. Basically, each companion has 1-3 unique outfits with say, 4-5 upgrade slots on them. Throughout the game you buy various interchangeable upgrades for these slots (which presumably level up ala DA2 runes) - these upgrades only affect stats, not visual appearance. At any point you can take upgrades out of one companion's armor and give them to another - yes it is quite gamey, but dressing all your companions up is already pretty gamey anyway. You could also layer the same types of bonuses for certain builds you were going for, or mix-and-match with variety as you saw fit. I don't actually like this system very much, but it would keep iconic followers while also allowing player customisation to a more significant degree.

Or just have armor not actually change companion appearance, but I'm not sure how much I'd actually like that. Like I said, I actually liked the DA2 system with the upgrades, since I felt it kept the characters unique. Although my one complaint would be: having upgrades on quests you might only get with certain import data (Murder of Crows, Finding Nathaniel), and having them as missable. I think having them show up in stores if you accidentally passed them by (even if it was a DLC store like the Black Emporium, which does this for crafting ingredients) would ahve been a better choice.

[Xewaka]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
Ultima 7 did this, and I agree it was always easy to tell who/where your companions were. You got the benefits of the armour but could still tell Shamino was Shamino.

This is actually the system I thought DA2 had.  This is the system Mike described to us in the press (each companion would have a unique appearance, but we'd still have control over their armour statistics "like in DAO").
So I didn't expect DA2's system to work as it does at all, and that was a very unpleasant surprise.

That was the system I've expected as well, and it would be a marked improvement on what we got.

[Sabariel]

I liked DAO's system better, because I could put Alistair in a dress (mage robes) for my amusement.



.... What?


I also got really tired of seeing my companions in the same outfit for... what? Seven years? The only one I managed to convince to change their must-be-smelly outfit without sleeping with them first was, amazingly, Anders. But even then he just put on a darker version of his previous outfit. Sigh.

Modifié par Sabariel, 07 août 2011 - 11:12 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If that's what floats your boat, why not play it that way?

No, Sylvius. That being possible is what makes the game unplayable.

This is a value judgment on your part.

Yes. That's what it was meant as. 

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Morrigan says she uses sex appeal and perceived vulnerability.  Why do you believe her?

Let's take this paralyzing existentialist view. Whether I do or don't believe her is irrelevant to whatever she wants - there is some state of affairs that is simply true on this basis, and whether I - the player  - know what that is has nothing to do with whether or not it exists.

The fact that it exists means there is a single ''right answer'' to what it is that Morrigain would do, beyond and independent of the player. 

Alternately, why do you believe she always behaves as she says, and isn't describing occasional rather than regular behaviour?
You're jumping to conclusions.

No, I'm not. Like always, you're looking at cases in isolation without seeing how the parts fit.

It is the conjuction of 1) DA:O is a videogame, 2) Morrigain is a written character and not a person and 3) Ambiguity makes RP impossible that leads to this conclusion. 

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Oh hai, it's almost as if two people have two different ideas of what Morrigan could do. Who would've thought?

Yes. Also, totally irrelevant. The point is whether this Morrigain is actually like this. And in that case, the only opinion that matters is Morrigain's. If she's a person instead of a puppet, that is.

There's lot of things the game doesn't show explitictly, do you use the same logic to decide that means they never take place?

Yes, unless they're referenced. Why do you think I think it's somehow a living world and not a game?

Yes; that's what we usually call "fan-fiction".

Which is great, but has nothing to do with what should be in a game. An RPG shouldn't be structured to feed into fan-fiction. 

Yes, you can do that. And guess what, there's nothing really in the game that would disprove such approach.

There's a lot wrong with it. The biggest of which meaning that there is literally nothing that happens on screen that the player doesn't want to happen.

Let's say we agree with this. You then say ''VO wrecks RP because it forces me into playign a fixed character''. Well, with this standard I can come back and say ''That's silly. Just imagine the VO isn't there, and that the PC is saying something else entirely, and the NPC responded in a different way.'' 

That's the problem with this approach. It's less than useless. It's something actively at odds with a coherent game. 

What "standard"? We are talking about deriving enjoyment from a computer game. I'm supposed to only enjoy things in manner certified by some official committe? That's outrageous, no one told me.

A standard of knowledge. If we're talking about what we should reasonably infer, then what can be reasonably infered is the issue. 

If you enjoy this way of thinking about a game, that's great. But it also means you should be able to enjoy every game as every sort of thing, because what it really means is that you can actively invent and reject anything that happens on-screen. 

Well i suppose you are out of luck then, because at no point the game comes out and says "no, the Warden isn't an escaped mental patient". It's left dreadfully ambiguous. But did it negatively affect your fun before you thought of that possibility?

It isn't left ambiguous. Because I start from the premise - the only reasonable premise, I might add - that this is impossible. But if it was somehow possible, that would make the game worse. Why is that hard for you to understand?

What you need to understand is, the "ambiguity" is always bound to be there. Your interpretation that there's none is just that, one way to resolve that "ambiguity" in the way you prefer. What happens in your game is what you decide to happen. And that act of interpreting things the preferred way goes for everyone, just to different results.

That's wrong. Ambiguity can be removed. VO removes ambiguity in dialogue. Fixed outfits do the same. 

Saying you can't remove all ambiguity is useless, because it's not as if there is only one way things can be ambiguous. You can remove most ambiguity. 

You're dodging the issue. You want to say that having more ambiguity is a win, because you get to invent whatever content you like, and I get to invent whatever content I like. I'm telling you this very thing is what reduces the enjoyment of the game. 

Modifié par In Exile, 07 août 2011 - 02:39 .

[Hurbster]

I'd like weapons, armour, trinkets - the works basically. All fully customisable, all stat-based, plenty of choice - plenty of armour in the game already, make a few more sets for each class and job done. Probably lose the leather neck collar things though.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This is a value judgment on your part.

Yes. That's what it was meant as.

Value judgments cannot be persuasive, as they have no relevance beyond the speaker's own mind.

Let's take this paralyzing existentialist view. Whether I do or don't believe her is irrelevant to whatever she wants - there is some state of affairs that is simply true on this basis, and whether I - the player  - know what that is has nothing to do with whether or not it exists.

The fact that it exists means there is a single ''right answer'' to what it is that Morrigain would do, beyond and independent of the player.

Almost right.  The "right answer" is independent of the PC.  Since the player doesn't exist within the game's reality, describing the details of that reality relative to the player is nonsensical.

Things that don't exist can't exhibit characteristics.

No, I'm not. Like always, you're looking at cases in isolation without seeing how the parts fit.

It is the conjuction of 1) DA:O is a videogame, 2) Morrigain is a written character and not a person and 3) Ambiguity makes RP impossible that leads to this conclusion.

1) Not relevant.
2) Not relevant.
3) Patently false.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 07 août 2011 - 06:06 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Firky wrote...

^ I don't remember any precise quote about follower armour, apart from that they "wanted followers to look unique and distinctive." (not a direct quote) But would the U7 approach have worked better in DAII? Could you put unique rogue armour that you find on Isabela, not have her change out of her dress-type thing and still feel like you're managing armour? I dunno.

It shouldn't be limited to just Rogue armour.  In DAO I could put whatever armour I wanted on any character as long as he met the stat requirements.

Then, yes, I would be managing armour.

[Xaenn]

I enjoyed the unique armor looks of Dragon Age 2, but it was impractical, Varric for instance was wearing what resembled a casual unbutton t-shirt, which never changed over 10 years. Not only would that not protect you, the upgrades weren't even noticeable, on-top of that it really leaves you unable to customize your character through armor except the rune slots.

Preferably I would rather go back to customization like BG I&II, where you had cloaks, wands, several rings, countless ways to improve and customize your character through gear choices. I don't see this happening with the direction of the genre seems to be going, but it is what *I* would like to see regardless.

A compromising idea for me would have an appearance option. Such as have a tab or selection in the menu that will list all the slots that actually give different visual references. Using this, you can use old pieces of gear you may of looted you liked to put into one of the slots. To expand on that, having maybe many unique styles to purchase from a vendor, or simply default options. To expand on that to truly make them unique you could add a dying feature with some realistic colors they would use at the time. Keeping this stuff cheap, as it shouldn't be a serious investment in the game as it would be just visual pleasure not practicality.

Edit: To add on this as well, DLC is kinda cheapining the value of loot in the game, Mage, Rogue, Warrior DLC levels up with you and is better then most gear, making loot in the game natural pointless to do anything with but sale.  If we're going to have pre-order bonus's and DLC, this would fit perfectly.  You can give people "Blood Dragon Armor" apperance while keeping meaningful loot in the game.

Edit2: I can see t his working very good, because the apperance system, you wouldn't think hey my character is wearing two sets of gear, it is merely a mechanic, letting you change the appear of the gear your wearing to what you want it to be. You would merely assume they are one peice of gear.  You can dye your gear in realiity too, so it allows for some fun to be had with it.

Modifié par Xaenn, 07 août 2011 - 07:01 .

[Luke Barrett]

Xaenn wrote...

I enjoyed the unique armor looks of Dragon Age 2, but it was impractical, Varric for instance was wearing what resembled a casual unbutton t-shirt, which never changed over 10 years.

If you looked that good would you change? You can only go down when you're on the top.

[Xaenn]

Luke Barrett wrote...

Xaenn wrote...

I enjoyed the unique armor looks of Dragon Age 2, but it was impractical, Varric for instance was wearing what resembled a casual unbutton t-shirt, which never changed over 10 years.

If you looked that good would you change? You can only go down when you're on the top.

Touché good sir.  But can you stay ontop without changing?

Modifié par Xaenn, 07 août 2011 - 06:54 .

[Serpieri Nei]

Luke Barrett wrote...

Xaenn wrote...

I enjoyed the unique armor looks of Dragon Age 2, but it was impractical, Varric for instance was wearing what resembled a casual unbutton t-shirt, which never changed over 10 years.

If you looked that good would you change? You can only go down when you're on the top.

Disco died in 1979.

[kazuya246]

My vote is for it to be like in jrpgs. You can customize the armor, but the looks stay the same. I also would like to have the ability to upgrade character outfits. For example, Merril in DA2 changes from a mage-like robe to a warrior-like platemail suit of armor. There are two problems I have with this.
1) The change is tied to romancing her
2) She is a mage and it looks like warrior armor

I want to be able to upgrade her armor and I want it to look cooler as I upgrade it. I also want it to stay somewhat true to the character's class. So hypothetically if I equip Merril with Champion armor, she should have the best possible looking outfit that has been designed specifically for her character since champion armor is the highest rank armor.

Basically what I am saying is that I want the looks to be tied to the rank of the armor that is equipped. So if Act 1 has rank 1 armor and Act 3 has rank 3 armor, your characters would look different in each act.

EDIT: I would like to add that there should be customizable options for the characters' looks. For example, if Merril was an arcane warrior, she would be able to equip warrior armor. If I equip warrior armor on her, then her look can change from her traditional mage robes to the steel platemail and different versions of it.

Modifié par kazuya246, 07 août 2011 - 07:40 .