365 réponses à ce sujet

[Cutlass Jack]

happy_daiz wrote...

but when I get Isabela her Supportive Corselet, show me the corselet.

Don't get me started about giving her the Rigid Boning. At the very least I should have been shown a fade to black...

[happy_daiz]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

happy_daiz wrote...

but when I get Isabela her Supportive Corselet, show me the corselet.

Don't get me started about giving her the Rigid Boning. At the very least I should have been shown a fade to black...

With that, sir, you have just made my day.

Modifié par happy_daiz, 04 août 2011 - 07:41 .

[Zjarcal]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

happy_daiz wrote...

but when I get Isabela her Supportive Corselet, show me the corselet.

Don't get me started about giving her the Rigid Boning. At the very least I should have been shown a fade to black...

That is by FAR the game's biggest flaw. 

[syllogi]

Junk loot that serves no purpose but to be sold is one thing, but it was rage inducing to get all kinds of armor pieces throughout the game that would have been great for my companions, but due to "style" concerns, they were not allowed to equip. If I'm going to have an inventory at all (ohlorddonottakeawaytheinventory), I want to be able to make use of items I pick up. It also is just ridiculous that my companions were with me for ten years and never changed their clothes. I'm pretty sure Isabela wasn't just being paranoid about that whole needing a bath thing by Act 3.

[craigdolphin]

For myself, I want to have the ability to equip found items on my companions if the stats are better.

That said, there's no law that says the appearance of the found armor has to override the style for the specific companion. Tweaking the appearance of the default look slightly each time would work best though.

Or, better yet, make this a new feature.

If you equip an item that is visually incompatible for a companion's style, then have them start complaining about it, or dropping hints that they feel like they look ridiculous, or whatever. Have non-companions NPC's scoff at the rag-tag outfit. Maybe this ties into companion approval if left too long for some of the companions. Maybe it could impinge combat/ability stats if completely inappropriate e.g., vibrant bright colors for a rogue reduces stealth etc.

Provide options at an armorer(s) to tweak the aesthetic of the equipped item to something more pleasing to the companion, but without changing the stats. Maybe it costs in-game money. Maybe it requires particular items, or a quest to motivate the armorer. And nothing says you can't provide some special sets of items with desirable stats that happen to match the style of specific companions: either in stores or in loot.

In short: I prefer substance over style every time and I'd prefer the DAO system by far over the DA2 system. But if style is such an important factor, then make it matter in-game, and provide mechanisms in-game to solve the 'problem' it creates if the player so chooses. But just don't force players to have no effective choice: if players want to have a mismatched aesthetic, then let them do so. Just let there be repercussions either way.

[Rahelron]

I like the fact that your companions have a specific armor, I think that makes them unique and gives them more personality. Dressing your DAO companions with dropped armor pieces made them look quite anonymous... they were just like all the foes you encountered during your battles, especially mages and thieves.

Conversely if your companion wears always the same dress he grows more and more boring to watch as the game progresses.

So here's my proposal: give to each companion a standard suit, but make its appearence improve every time you upgrade it. This would mean that each companion's look would change 4 times during the game.

Modifié par Rahelron, 04 août 2011 - 08:29 .

[fightright2]

Cutlass Jack wrote...


Don't get me started about giving her the Rigid Boning. At the very least I should have been shown a fade to black...

My husband gave me one of those!


Oh, and a corselette as well.

[grregg]

TeenZombie wrote...

Junk loot that serves no purpose but to be sold is one thing, but it was rage inducing to get all kinds of armor pieces throughout the game that would have been great for my companions, but due to "style" concerns, they were not allowed to equip.

(...)

This.

If you have to strip the companion customization, that's fine, I can live with it (or without it as the case might be), but please don't bash me over the head repeatedly with it.

What was the point of dropping loot that would work perfectly well on, say, Aveline, except that she can't equip it...

[Brockololly]

I'd prefer a more Origins style system with maybe giving everyone a unique look too. I actually like it when companions don't all have super unique outfits- as it generally makes it too obvious when you meet them that they're Super Important Companion who can Afford Custom Made Clothing. So like in Origins, I liked it how when you meet Sten, he's in a cage and in some drab rags. You wouldn't expect him locked up in massive Qunari armor. Same with Leliana- she's dressed like yet another Chantry sister, not in some skimpy Sacred Ashes outfit.

Now maybe as you go along it would be possible for the companions to receive more specialized outfits via quests or getting XP- so that when you level up, you can modify/specialize a companion's armor in some way, not only statistically but visually. So maybe as you level up Leliana, she assembles her more rogue-like Sacred Ashes armor.


In a party based RPG I want to be actively involved in managing the party, not be forced to passively sit back and collect meaningless upgrades. The party should be one of the defining features of the game and something which lets it stand apart from other games and customization of the party is important.

Modifié par Brockololly, 04 août 2011 - 08:35 .

[Sylvianus]

 Anyway, I do not really see the problem with Morrigan / mage wearing armor. The stats would play against her and that's all. And it doesn't affect your game, if other players decide to choose that for her.

I never put armor to Morrigan, but it doesn't bother me that she wears armor in the playthought of others who have fun. A rpg, that is also to have fun.

What laws in Thedas tell that a mage can not wear armor ?

Modifié par Sylvianus, 04 août 2011 - 08:42 .

[Rahelron]

Brockololly wrote...

I'd prefer a more Origins style system with maybe giving everyone a unique look too. I actually like it when companions don't all have super unique outfits- as it generally makes it too obvious when you meet them that they're Super Important Companion who can Afford Custom Made Clothing. So like in Origins, I liked it how when you meet Sten, he's in a cage and in some drab rags. You wouldn't expect him locked up in massive Qunari armor. Same with Leliana- she's dressed like yet another Chantry sister, not in some skimpy Sacred Ashes outfit.

Now maybe as you go along it would be possible for the companions to receive more specialized outfits via quests or getting XP- so that when you level up, you can modify/specialize a companion's armor in some way, not only statistically but visually. So maybe as you level up Leliana, she assembles her more rogue-like Sacred Ashes armor.


In a party based RPG I want to be actively involved in managing the party, not be forced to passively sit back and collect meaningless upgrades. The party should be one of the defining features of the game and something which lets it stand apart from other games and customization of the party is important.

Remember that you can still costumize your party even if you can't change the armor of its members. You have still to manage rings, necklaces, belts, waepons.

But you are right about the fact that if you see a random NPC with a unique dress you immediately know that he will end up joining your party and this is spoilerific.

Maybe your Idea is good: let the players give different armors and robes to their companions but include in the game character-specific dropped dresses with a unique look (at least 2 for every character).

Modifié par Rahelron, 04 août 2011 - 08:52 .

[Dave of Canada]

Sylvianus wrote...

What laws in Thedas tell that a mage can not wear armor ?

My Blood Mage / Spirit Healer Hawke used to wear heav yarmor.

[Fleapants]

Sylvianus wrote...
What laws in Thedas tell that a mage can not wear armor ?

It's a fantasy trope that metal armor interferes with magic and that it restricts the wearer so he can't perform the necessary tapdancing (or whatever is required) to cast the spells. Dunno if that's also the reason for it in DA.

I'd like the looks of my companions to improve throughout the game, and I also like to be able to use the tons of armor and stuff I find.
So, suppose that each companion has three suits, Basic, Cool and Awesome and there's 7 tiers of armor available. If I stick a tier 1-3 armor on him, he'll wear SuitBasic. If I stick a tier 4-6 armor on him, he'll switch to SuitCool, and finally, if I stick a tier 7 armor on him, he'll go Awesome.

[tmp7704]

ipgd wrote...

No? Things are still held to a higher standard by people who are knowledgable in that field.

And as long as these people aren't the target, and the target in question doesn't attach the same value to said factors, this still does mean effective free pass. And less practical importance.

If we only held things to the standards of laymen who don't know or care about how good something is even more of our media would be garbage than it already is. That is what I am saying.

http://xkcd.com/915/

You could say this about literally anything. Most consumers are not knowledgable enough in individual aspects of media to notice when anything is bad unless it is so startlingly bad that it distracts from the rest of the work entirely.

Yes, and the point is since lack of this particular factor doesn't appear to trigger in the consumers sense that anything is bad, let alone distract them from the rest of the work, what causes you to say that this specific aspect is of such incredible importance? After all, there's many other factors to character design, lack of which will trigger such reaction. This means these other factors are far more important, in comparison. But since you've already attached "incredible importance" to something that matters relatively less, what value will we attach to these... double plus important?

And, again, I am specifically speaking within the context of character design. Within the context of character design, this is important. If you think character design as a whole isn't important for whatever reason, okay, but that is an entirely separate issue.

Please, don't create strawmans -- i'm not saying character design as a whole isn't important. I'm saying that this particular aspect of character design doesn't show in practice to have anywhere near the level of importance you're attaching to it.

To put it in different terms -- it's like you're saying "this piece of cloth here, it's worth eleventy billion dollars" but then the most anyone is actually willing to pay for it, is ten bucks. Such contrast puts into question what basis were used for initial evaluation, and if it wasn't simply detached from reality.
 

Yes. You are talking about something that has absolutely nothing to do with character design.

...

from just a page or so earlier:

ipgd wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

people obsess over omg characters must be physically different so extensively i can tell immediately ... way too much.

That's... pretty much basic character design. It is incredibly important. As an art****, I sort of have to obsess over it.

i think i can only offer a what- at this point. Having variation between builds of individual characters is incredibly important, basic part of character design, except has absolutely nothing to do with it, too.

Can you please make some sense out of this? I gather what you're getting at is along the lines of "it's important in character design but less so in "real life design" because the latter has other cues to rely on". Is that correct?

If so, i believe you're quite mistaken in trying to draw a clear line between these two, because the increased fidelity of virtual characters in games has gotten to the point where they should be treated more like "real" characters. Which means less need of reliance on shape difference to discern between them, amongst other things.

Modifié par tmp7704, 04 août 2011 - 08:53 .

[Sylvianus]

Fleapants wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...
What laws in Thedas tell that a mage can not wear armor ?

It's a fantasy trope that metal armor interferes with magic and that it restricts the wearer so he can't perform the necessary tapdancing (or whatever is required) to cast the spells. Dunno if that's also the reason for it in DA.

Well, I do not think that dragon age is concerned but maybe.

The only thing we know is that the mages of the circle wear skirts, because it is the rule imposed by the Templars.

Apostates ( those who aren't slaves to the will of the chantry, we do not know really how they dress, and how they fight )

For me it is likely that they can wear armor. ( well not massive armor however xD )

Modifié par Sylvianus, 04 août 2011 - 08:56 .

[highcastle]

As far as companion armor goes, I was initially opposed to the single-looks each NPC had back when this was revealed. And then I actually played the game and found I really liked the unique armors because it also allowed for some unique body models (Anders' thinner build is my go-to example; he should and does look like an underfed refugee camping out in the sewers). The characters felt more individualized because of their looks.

That being said, I missed some of the customization. I second the OP in suggesting that recolors or tweaks to the armor be made available. They don't need to wear every piece of armor that drops, but allowing us to change their look from time to time will keep the companions looking fresh and also allowing a bit of agency back into the player's hands without compromising the "feel" of the NPC. I know I personally would be satisfied with basic recolors, which (theoretically, as my knowledge of modeling and such is very limited) wouldn't be too much extra work. Most of the companions had some kind of second look anyway. Would it be a terrible pain to add in a few more, especially if the models stayed the same?

[Sylvianus]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

What laws in Thedas tell that a mage can not wear armor ?

My Blood Mage / Spirit Healer Hawke used to wear heav yarmor.

Well, I would want to see that !

[tmp7704]

highcastle wrote...

And then I actually played the game and found I really liked the unique armors because it also allowed for some unique body models (Anders' thinner build is my go-to example; he should and does look like an underfed refugee camping out in the sewers).

Just to set the record straight: Anders has build that is no different from any other mage outfit, including the ones which can be worn by Hawke. You put any two mage robes into a 3d program, and they will match.

It perhaps reinforces the point how the individual body differences for the characters aren't as crucial as some think... simply because it's easy enough for people to convince themselves they see some subtle differences even where they aren't any

[AngryFrozenWater]

Brockololly wrote...

I'd prefer a more Origins style system with maybe giving everyone a unique look too. I actually like it when companions don't all have super unique outfits- as it generally makes it too obvious when you meet them that they're Super Important Companion who can Afford Custom Made Clothing. So like in Origins, I liked it how when you meet Sten, he's in a cage and in some drab rags. You wouldn't expect him locked up in massive Qunari armor. Same with Leliana- she's dressed like yet another Chantry sister, not in some skimpy Sacred Ashes outfit.

Now maybe as you go along it would be possible for the companions to receive more specialized outfits via quests or getting XP- so that when you level up, you can modify/specialize a companion's armor in some way, not only statistically but visually. So maybe as you level up Leliana, she assembles her more rogue-like Sacred Ashes armor.

In a party based RPG I want to be actively involved in managing the party, not be forced to passively sit back and collect meaningless upgrades. The party should be one of the defining features of the game and something which lets it stand apart from other games and customization of the party is important.

I agree with your last paragraph. I rather prefer to equip the companions the armor I find much like in DA:O. I was perfectly happy with that. You mention a concession which I like as well, but as a very last resort. I have enough of all the silly restrictions and hand holding in DA2. Customization is also about freedom of choice. Your alternative still has the restriction of a conventional companion armor with maybe a visual/stats upgrade. In ME2 you were able to have more variations, but that was just cosmetic and these were mostly just re-textured variations of the standard ones. If anything, I want to stay away from ME as far as possible. ME2 was just as "streamlined" as DA2 is now, so I don't want DA to become a ME with swords. DA2 already has too many ME-2 style features - from dialogue wheel to mails to the Normandy... erm... Hawke Estate.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 04 août 2011 - 09:37 .

[thegoldfinch]

I think I might cry then vomit and then cry some more if the companion armor was lost. I have been wanting that for so long. As another said, in a game where the companions shine the brightest, it seems like such a waste not to devote more love towards what they wear.

That being said, I didn't love how the companion armor was implemented. I was along with the few who thought their armor would change as they aged. Not drastically - a rip here, a layer of leather armor there, and maybe a slightly darker color scheme progression or vice versa (nerd moment: Like how Luke Skywalkers's outfit progressed from an innocent white to solid black to reflect his coming of age throughout the original trilogy). But the fact that it didn't change gave me an icky feeling that their emotional state did not change either, even when I knew that was simply not true due to my gameplay experience with them.

You wouldn't wear the same black studded chokers, rainbow gelly bracelets, skull barrettes, and fish net tank tops today like you did in your rebellious middle school years, would you? Not that I ever did this exact thing, or anything.

Dave of Canada wrote...
Isabela is wearing light armor? Have her in her casual armor.
Isabela is wearing medium armor? Maybe add some pieces of leather here or there different from her "default" outfit.
Isabela is wearing heavy armor? Expand the above, add some plating to her clothes. Something similar to what Fenris has on his clothes. Nothing drastic that makes it not "look" like Isabela.

This. So much this.

I know that asking for thirty different unique companion outfits is demanding time that you simply do not have. Resources are better spent on story than anything else. But with this solution, you could have the best of both worlds: the ability to tailor each character to your play style while maintaining the unqiue silhouette and style suited to the character's personality. Runes would also help to customize a character. Well, natch.

A minor suggestion for runes, though. I didn't like using them because they were permanent. It made me feel as though I had to wait for the absolute best runes or else I'd permanently screw up armor or weapons that I was attached to. I ended up waiting until the end of the entire game to utilize this feature, if I had any patience at all by then to do it for some characters. If that turns out to be a problem that reaches beyond myself, I would suggest making them more flexible in that normal runes will not bind to a piece of equiptment to encourage experimentation and actual use of the feature. On top of that, you could have special, powerful, rare runes that you earn through fights or rewards or what have you, and those will bind permanently.

I will also say that I love that Hawke got his or her own unique armor, but I think there might be a better way to put it into the game. Looking back on my KotOR experience, it felt so dang good to get those special robes on the Star Forge at the very last minute. They were the best in the game, and the best looking. Made me feel like I had really achieved something.

Perhaps you could have certain unique outfits given to Hawke for certain decisions he/she makes to string that feeling of achievement along for the entire game. You side more with the templars in Act II? An armor set that mimics the power and sharp edges of Meredith's armor. Favor the mages? A set of armor that feels more regal with rounded edges. Totally neutral? A combination of both aesthetics - or conversely, a set of armor that mimics the calmness of Grand Cleric Ethina. It doesn't need to be super special. Like the companion armor changes, the new armor could be add-ons and detail changes to existing armor already found in game. The stats would reflect whatever class you already are.

Just the same, the way Hawke constructs or recieves the champion armor would ideally have a reason or a story to it. I didn't like how I randomly found bits and pieces of her armor. It felt as though I were collecting pieces to create a toy, when it seemed like it could be less tedious and more engaging to just buy or build the entire toy at once. It also made me feel a bit stressed because I was worried I would miss a piece somewhere. The armor is probably the coolest looking and most iconic armor I have ever seen but I want to know how Hawke came to wear it because it is so unique. Leaving an armor so cool without a story behind when everything else is story driven feels like a let down.

And just for the record, since the devs are reading this thread, I will vomit and cry if the mage combat style and unique idle animations for companions are removed. I have pined for those in my dreams. You don't even know.

Modifié par pixieface, 05 août 2011 - 12:29 .

[Anarya]

Xewaka wrote...

Anarya wrote...
I just want to thank ipgd here for taking up the "character design is important!" flag for me so I don't have to go off on my standard character design rant again. Thanks for taking one for the team, buddy!

My follow up question is: How important is character design compared to gameplay? The fixed attire (coupled with the removal of access to skill trees to mantain the integrity of said fixed aspects) reduced a lot of possibilities in party composition and customization, thus destroying many chances of replay for trying off the box party buildings and non-traditidional builds. In my book, destroying this basic part of gameplay is not worth the looks, not when the characters are much better defined by their copious amount of dialogue. I know, "videogames are a visual medium". You know what else they are? Interactive. Do not keep us from interacting in the name of so called "characterization".

I don't really think this has to be some sort of zero-sum game. Like I said in my OP, what I want is a compromise, not to destroy other people's gameplay. We'll probably never agree on the relative importance of visuals in a game because if I remember correctly you are one of those people who does not care at all about visuals while I have an art background, however you won't hear me saying gameplay isn't also important, because it is. But good character design is an aspect of gaming that I enjoy, while min-maxing is something I have very little interest in, and that's a completely valid point of view. Just as valid as someone who is all about stat fiddling and does not care for visuals. Like I said though, I don't think it has to be one or the other and I don't think I've seen a single post campaigning to keep DA2's system unchanged. There are plenty of good suggestions in this thread on how to keep individual appearance while also allowing for a higher level of customization statwise so I don't really understand where your martyr stance is coming from.

Modifié par Anarya, 04 août 2011 - 10:32 .

[ipgd]

tmp7704 wrote...

And as long as these people aren't the target, and the target in question doesn't attach the same value to said factors, this still does mean effective free pass. And less practical importance.

Most things are not important to everyone, but everyone has a few things that are important to them. Should we design each aspect of our media only with the people to whom it is not important to in mind, or design things as if everything is important? Which will lead to a higher quality whole?

You are entitled to value character armor customization more than character design. I have never made any statements that exceptional or unique character design is universally a critically important aspect of a whole work to everyone, just that it is important to me -- and that these are the things that are important to people who especially value character design. This is what is taught, this is what is accepted in the industry, and this is the rubric we use to decide whether or not we're going to be snickering about how bad it is. If visual character design is not especially important to you, I cannot convince you that some individual aspect of it is important if you view the entirety of it of relatively lesser import to the issue in contention.

I'm not really sure what this argument is about at this point. Is this really a semantical squibble about a superlative?

http://xkcd.com/915/

Sigh.

I am going to assume you knew what I meant.

i think i can only offer a what- at this point. Having variation between builds of individual characters is incredibly important, basic part of character design, except has absolutely nothing to do with it, too.

Can you please make some sense out of this? I gather what you're getting at is along the lines of "it's important in character design but less so in "real life design" because the latter has other cues to rely on". Is that correct?

If so, i believe you're quite mistaken in trying to draw a clear line between these two, because the increased fidelity of virtual characters in games has gotten to the point where they should be treated more like "real" characters. Which means less need of reliance on shape difference to discern between them, amongst other things.

Yes. In character design. Actor casting is not character design.

That, and also that live action is subject to contraints that character design is not. While it's immediately obvious why shows like Star Trek are filled with bizarrely humanoid rubber forehead aliens, the same excuses do not apply to, say, comic books, which do have the freedom to go beyond bipedalism without incurring significant special effects costs. Actor casting is pretty much the same; there are so many other factors to consider in choosing an actor that visual propriety can not always be optimal. You can't always find an actor who acts well, is within the budget limit of the film, has a big a name as necessary and exactly visually fits a character.

With art, you do have complete creative control, and what benefit is there in not exercising it just because other media can do without? Why would you design characters with completely uniform body types when you have the tools and resources to specifically craft them in congruence with the written character and parallely describe them through the visual language?

Video games are also subject to constraints that neither comics nor live action is, namely in the case of Dragon Age being reused rigs and animations that enforce uniform postures (which is also a large part of silhouetting). This can place an added importance on a differentiated silhouette.

Modifié par ipgd, 04 août 2011 - 10:21 .

[ipgd]

tmp7704 wrote...

Just to set the record straight: Anders has build that is no different from any other mage outfit, including the ones which can be worn by Hawke. You put any two mage robes into a 3d program, and they will match.

It perhaps reinforces the point how the individual body differences for the characters aren't as crucial as some think... simply because it's easy enough for people to convince themselves they see some subtle differences even where they aren't any

He does. The mesh size is essentially the same, but filled in with the thickness of the fabric and bandages so that his actual arms occupy less space in the mesh. It's basically cheating, but he does in effect have a different body type.



You can see how the forearms fit the same general "cone", but are filled up with the bandages. His feather coat also extends out to take up the space left by the default model's larger bicep.

Modifié par ipgd, 04 août 2011 - 11:16 .

[AtreiyaN7]

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. This could be done by keeping the same upgrade system that DA2 had, but having each upgrade alter the armor's appearance, or we could have sets of lootable armor that display differently on each character but have the same name and stats. I'd be willing to suspend disbelief for magical changing armor, I mean in Origins armor already magically adjusted to fit all 4 races and both genders, it isn't too much of a stretch. That way you could fiddle with armor all you wanted, but each character would still have a distinct design language. There might be a better way to implement this kind of compromise but I've only given it a few minutes of thought at this point.

I agree - I like the idea of a compromise allowing the companions to have unique appearances while allowing us to tinker with things and swap armor pieces in and out, etc.