256 réponses à ce sujet

[filetemo]

I think DA2 could have been much better with simple adjustments like let's keep the base appearance but let us add layers to the armour, for example, keep the base isabela costume but let us equip (and visually see) gauntlets, boots and shoulderpads. That way we see visual improvement over the time with the gear but at the same time we don't need a new model for the body, since the layers of armor only add above the base model.

The clipping issues would be a problem but long hair and big shoulderpads are understandable to clip somewhere sometimes

[Wusword77]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Wusword77 wrote...

Steadily diminishing their games is a matter of opinion.  I personally feel that equipping companions with different armor isn't a dimension, it's something to satisfy the min/maxers.  If you can tell me how you consider choosing full equipment for a companion adds a "dimension" beyond "hey Fenris lives longer now" (meaning beyond just min/maxing companions) please let me know.

You're assuming that armour is chosen solely for its effectiveness.  There could be any number of RP reasons to choose armour, or even just to satisfy the player's aesthetic preferences.

But, let's say you're right, and it's all about min/maxing.  That still allows the player to make important statistical decisions about the characters' equipment.  If Leliana is an archer, she would want to wear Medium armour for most of the game   But if she's the only melee fighter in a party filled with mages, she'd probably be better served by wearing Massive armour.  There are benefits and drawbacks to both, and each suits different character builds differently.

Because Isabela can't wear decent armour, she can't stand and fight nearly as well as Carver can, even if she has the stats and abilities to do so.

Why give an inconic look to a character then take it away for the whole game unless you do an optional quest?  It's stupid.

The distinctive look (the term iconic look is itself a value judgment) introduces her.  Her background is different from the other characters, and you can see it in her clothing.  Just as we first meet Leliana wearing chantry robes, but once she's adventuring those are no longer appropriate.  And they're no longer approrpiate as determined by us.  We're free to decide that she insists on wearing the chantry robes forever, perhaps believing that the Maker will protect her and she doesn't need armour.

Letting the player select clothing gives us far more roleplaying control over the characters.  And it's a roleplaying game, isn't it?

Except you aren't role playing the companions in DA2, you are only role playing as Hawke.  At no point in the game can you decide how Aveline/Fenris/Anders/Merril/Varric/Isabella react to any dialog situtation.  They have distinct personalities that make them respond to situtations differently.  The only time you have any real control is in combat, and players tend to approach combat in RPG's much differently then they apporach non combat situtations.

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Can you decide Fenris likes mages?

Sure.  That would make him quite interesting, as he's constantly talking about how much he dislikes mages.  What would make someone routinely espouse views he doesn't hold?

Can you decide that Fenris wants to go back to Tevinter?

Yes.  He'd make an excellent Freedom Fighter.

Can you decide that your character isn't named Hawke, but Bobbie Jo Flamerider?

Absolutely.  Ish was right, my answer to all three was "yes".

It seems like what you want is actually an RPG-setting sandbox, which Dragon Age is decidedly not.

To some degree, though, it is.  We can already decide that Fenris likes mages, but doesn't say so because he's ashamed of his preferences.

The only content in the game is the stuff we see on the screen.  Nothing else is real unless we, the players, decide to make it real.  We don't see Fenris's preferences on screen.  We see his behaviour, but we can't read his mind to know why he acts as he does.  If we'd like to resolve that ambiguity ourselves, we can do that.

If you're ok with accepting what is presented on the screen in terms of what the characters say, what's wrong with accepting what they wear? Can't you just decide that the companion clothing is different, but they're just ashamed to show Bobbie Jo Flamerider? Surely someone with an imagination as strong as yours can come up with a plausible reason for them to do this. Problem solved.

Edit: Bobbie Jo Flamerider has apparently garnered some fans.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 18 août 2011 - 01:50 .

[Kileyan]

simfamSP wrote...

I am really torn in between the two arguments here. Great points by both. But I see myself heading towards the 'unique' appearance side.

I detest the idea of 'dressing up' my companions, but then I would see the sense in it in as a leader. I want my party to be efficient and ready for battle. The thing is, Dragon age 2 has a totally different situation and feel to Dragon age: Origins.

In DA:O you are preparing for battle, you know you will go to war eventually and need to be ready.

In DA2 your in a more friendly environment. Hell, for the whole 10 years your in Kirkwall you probably only ever spend a year or two fighting. Most of the time your probably with friends and family. Your not heading into some epic battle, you just a group of close friends who happen to be very good at fighting.

One last try, as a leader you are not demeaning your buddies, ordering them around and demanding they do all sorts of aweful terrible things............like wear better protection.

You are choosing to see it as a bad thing. If roleplayed, quite the opposite is true. When you offer a character an awesome set of armor with tons of protection, better stats, and the lore behind it, that the armor was an ancient relic with no equal........they would appreciate the gift, wear it with pride and for the protection.

I don't know what world of realism you come from, where it is much more reasonable for a party member to snub your gift, and proclaim they'd rather stick with their inferior stuff because it doesn't match thier shoes!

[Big I]

I'm not a huge fan of unique outfits for companions. To me they do little to characterise them, that's the job of VAs and game writers. To use the example of Jack that's been brought up, while I liked her tattoos I don't think they contributed greatly to her character - all else being equal she would have remained the same person sans tattoos. I also took the first opportuninty I could to change her apppearance because I disliked it (a belt should not stand in for a shirt).


If Isabella or Varric changed their outfits, they don't change who and what they are. Nor do I think that Isabella's lack of pants enhanced my understanding of her character. In a perfect world I'd prefer to move back to a fully cutomisable companion armor, but I think the ME1 system (armor outside, unique inside) is a good compromise.

[hoorayforicecream]

Kileyan wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

I am really torn in between the two arguments here. Great points by both. But I see myself heading towards the 'unique' appearance side.

I detest the idea of 'dressing up' my companions, but then I would see the sense in it in as a leader. I want my party to be efficient and ready for battle. The thing is, Dragon age 2 has a totally different situation and feel to Dragon age: Origins.

In DA:O you are preparing for battle, you know you will go to war eventually and need to be ready.

In DA2 your in a more friendly environment. Hell, for the whole 10 years your in Kirkwall you probably only ever spend a year or two fighting. Most of the time your probably with friends and family. Your not heading into some epic battle, you just a group of close friends who happen to be very good at fighting.

One last try, as a leader you are not demeaning your buddies, ordering them around and demanding they do all sorts of aweful terrible things............like wear better protection.

You are choosing to see it as a bad thing. If roleplayed, quite the opposite is true. When you offer a character an awesome set of armor with tons of protection, better stats, and the lore behind it, that the armor was an ancient relic with no equal........they would appreciate the gift, wear it with pride and for the protection.

I don't know what world of realism you come from, where it is much more reasonable for a party member to snub your gift, and proclaim they'd rather stick with their inferior stuff because it doesn't match thier shoes!

Allow me to retort:

Mary Kirby wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Guise. I have news. Terrible, terrible, awful news.

DO NOT CLICK THE LINK IF YOU ARE NURSING, PREGNANT, OR MAY BECOME PREGNANT.

You made me cry, ishmaeltheforsaken. I hope you're proud of yourself.

Source

[Il Divo]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Allow me to retort:

Nah man, you got it wrong. You're supposed to ask, "What does Marcellus Wallace look like?"

[Kileyan]

hoorayforicecream wrote...



Allow me to retort:

Mary Kirby wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Guise. I have news. Terrible, terrible, awful news.

DO NOT CLICK THE LINK IF YOU ARE NURSING, PREGNANT, OR MAY BECOME PREGNANT.

You made me cry, ishmaeltheforsaken. I hope you're proud of yourself.

Source

I don't expect you to read entire thread, I surely don't. But I was talking from the standpoint of being fine with iconic looking unique characters, but let me equip them with whatever armor I want, that won't change their looks..........a compromise.

Others were arguing that being able to equip an npc at all was insulting and wrong to the npcs:)

[axl99]

Would there be a point beyond aesthetics if follower armor is just as strong as what you're wearing?

[Big I]

axl99 wrote...

Would there be a point beyond aesthetics if follower armor is just as strong as what you're wearing?

Rune slots and unique armor abilities I imagine.

[Xewaka]

axl99 wrote...
Would there be a point beyond aesthetics if follower armor is just as strong as what you're wearing?

Customizability from a mechanical standpoint. I'm not going to argue the artistic merit of character design on its own, but when art design actively opposes gameplay, art should stand aside and let the game do its thing. A strong lore starts with a characterful, setting-appropriate base mechanics. Examine the Roll and Keep mechanics of the Legend of the Five Rings, or Sanity mechanics in Call of Cthulhu. The character sheet, the most basic mechanical representation of a roleplaying game, should be the main workhorse of the setting.

[Gunderic]

axl99 wrote...

Would there be a point beyond aesthetics if follower armor is just as strong as what you're wearing?

Complexity/Challenge + a sense of progression? It's easier for casuals to not have to constantly change character equipment after leveling up and 'just follow the story', I imagine.

Modifié par Gunderic, 18 août 2011 - 11:49 .

[dielveio]

Hawke-"Look! A magical suit of armor! Aveline you should try use it, see if it fits you!"
Aveline- "Nah! I'll NEVER use another armor, even if it's magical and better than mine!"

There's your unique appearance.

Modifié par dielveio, 18 août 2011 - 12:14 .

[PinkShoes]

Thats basically like going to your friend and saying "I hate the way you look so im going to change how you look" These are unique chacreters with their own personal style. For example would you put Merril in something Isabela would wear? No because their styles are different. Having their own styles makes them more alive, more real.

im not syaing i loved all the styles, but what i loved was that what they wore was a reflection of themselves.

[Cutlass Jack]

Also, Aveline is the captain of the City Guard. Next time you run into a police officer, try giving fashion tips and see how well it works out.

[esper]

@Cutlass Jack. Senechal Bran tried that - It didn't go over well.

[PinkShoes]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Kileyan wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

I am really torn in between the two arguments here. Great points by both. But I see myself heading towards the 'unique' appearance side.

I detest the idea of 'dressing up' my companions, but then I would see the sense in it in as a leader. I want my party to be efficient and ready for battle. The thing is, Dragon age 2 has a totally different situation and feel to Dragon age: Origins.

In DA:O you are preparing for battle, you know you will go to war eventually and need to be ready.

In DA2 your in a more friendly environment. Hell, for the whole 10 years your in Kirkwall you probably only ever spend a year or two fighting. Most of the time your probably with friends and family. Your not heading into some epic battle, you just a group of close friends who happen to be very good at fighting.

One last try, as a leader you are not demeaning your buddies, ordering them around and demanding they do all sorts of aweful terrible things............like wear better protection.

You are choosing to see it as a bad thing. If roleplayed, quite the opposite is true. When you offer a character an awesome set of armor with tons of protection, better stats, and the lore behind it, that the armor was an ancient relic with no equal........they would appreciate the gift, wear it with pride and for the protection.

I don't know what world of realism you come from, where it is much more reasonable for a party member to snub your gift, and proclaim they'd rather stick with their inferior stuff because it doesn't match thier shoes!

Allow me to retort:

Mary Kirby wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Guise. I have news. Terrible, terrible, awful news.

DO NOT CLICK THE LINK IF YOU ARE NURSING, PREGNANT, OR MAY BECOME PREGNANT.

You made me cry, ishmaeltheforsaken. I hope you're proud of yourself.

Source

/cry

VARRIC NOOOOO!!!

[Xewaka]

PinkShoes wrote...
Thats basically like going to your friend and saying "I hate the way you look so im going to change how you look" These are unique chacreters with their own personal style. For example would you put Merril in something Isabela would wear? No because their styles are different. Having their own styles makes them more alive, more real.
im not syaing i loved all the styles, but what i loved was that what they wore was a reflection of themselves.

Again, you're mixing up. It is not the character of Hawke making his companions wear whatever Hawke wants. It's the player using all the in game resources under his command.

Modifié par Xewaka, 18 août 2011 - 02:03 .

[Elhanan]

I would not mind seeing optional design choices on companions, if such is possible. Same item effects, but an assortment of looks.

Or allow different outfits altogether, as if one misses upgrades, the Companion suffers; then the party. Varric was my main source of potions in the game, and it became worse if I missed an upgrade somewhere.

[GreyWardenNathan]

I did like the idea of set appearances, but it did make the inventory slightly redundant. Maybe equipping the powers of the armour you find might be better than actually changing the appearance as well. What did irritate me a bit though was they said the city and the characters looks would change over time, if you got all their armour type things, but they rarely change the outfit. All they had to do was every time you found one just to modify the appearance slightly but it didnt seem to happen except anders or merrill romanced.

[Sad Dragon]

Personally I like the unique looks for the characters, take a look at what icecream has posted and you would get a good explained of why.

That said, i did miss the customization part in Dragon Age 2 -- though not the customization of how the companions looked rather the optimization part of it (aka. min maxing part of it). Luckily for me and others who feel that it was the optimization part, rather then the looks part, that was the problem I think this one can quite easily be solved.

I mentioned something like this in my feedback to Bioware but I want to put the idea out there in this thread as well so here goes!

In Dragon Age 2 we have the armor upgrade slots. While I feel that this feature could have been implemented better I believe this could also be used to solve the problem. If instead of making them static upgrade slots, how about making them companion specific armor slots that could update the characters in the same vain as the romance armor does.

Take Isabella for instance, how about we find the "nimble dualist armband" (just roll with it) which gives a bonus to dexterity and we want to equip her with it. A problem arises as we also had a pair of "cunning pirate gloves" (again, just roll with it) equipped on her which gave her a bonus to cunning. We would now have to choose how we would want her specced and we might even get a small visual cue for our choice -- maybe she gets a slightly different looking pair of gloves with some embroidery from the pirate gloves and an embroidered armband if we equip the armband.

This will let us keep the characters at least mostly visually unique and also gives us a small visual token for our optimization choices.

I could go on but I think that covers the basics.


-The Sad Dragon

[Sylvius the Mad]

Atakuma wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This is actually what we were told DA2 would be (Mike Laidlaw said in a chat that the appearances would be fixed, but we'd be able to equip items and affect their statistics "like in DAO").  

I'm confused, isn't this what we got? The items being rings, belts etc.

Not quite. From what I remember, Laidlaw's comments indicated that we would still be able to customize party member stats to the same extent, however appearance would remain unchanged.

Ex: I could equip Aveline with plate armor or with leather armor, which would affect her stats but she would still have the same appearance seen in-game. At least, that was the theory.

He said nothing like that. He made it clear that you could change accessories and equip runes, but nothing about armor.

He didn't say we could equip armour, but he said the stuff we could equip would allow us to customise statistics "like in DAO", so that would require that we could modify or upgrade Isabela's armour to make it equivalent to Massive armour.

And that's just not true.  We can't give Isabela or Merrill armour statistics equivalent to Aveline, no matter what we do.

[Dormiglione]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Change companion armor all you want, so long as they don't end up looking like clones of each other. What I have a problem with is someone demanding the right to changing something fundamental to a character like Jack's tattoos, which I honestly believe are an important part of who she is as a person.

And why should that be wrong? If someone likes that all party member have the same look than let it be. Its his/her own decision.
Plus, the only ones who have this restriction are console player like me. While PC Player have their mods to customize the appearance, the console player has to deal with the restriction.

I'm going to use bullet points now because I evidently have to write in excruciating detail or people will misinterpret what I'm saying:

• The main issue I was arguing with Sylvius over this whole time is the fact that he didn't like Jack's tattoos and feels that he should have some sort of option to screw around with them in all kinds of ways, like removing Jack's tattoos (as he did by modding them out), when the tattoos are a fundamental part of her history and her nature. Things like the character's design should be sacrosanct if you ask me, not subject to the player's whims by default in the game just because he someone has a personal bias against tattoos.
  
• So, you highlighted what I said? Well, here's what I meant: I was effectively endorsing that companions SHOULD be able to wear any armor (within class restrictions), e.g., that they should be able to swap different pieces in and out at the player's discretion. I think the whole "Change companion armor all you want" thing was clear.
  
• At the same time, I was ALSO expressing my personal distate for seeing multiple characters dressed exactly the same and looking like they belong in Attack of the Clones instead of being individuals - as far as armor goes.
  
• To expand on the previous bullet point: multiple kinds of armor in DA:O looked exactly the same despite having different names and were NOT unique. Therefore, I had my rogue, Leliana & bloody Zevran looking exactly the same.
  
• Expressing my personal preference for NOT looking like a clone does not translate to me saying that it's wrong for other people to do so. If people want to look like they jumped out of the same growth vat, I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm saying that for me, personally, I just don't enjoy it, OKAY?

It wasnt my intention to attack you, i apologize if you felt like that. I understand your side view and i agree with many points that you wrote.
Its just like other on this forum said, there should be the choice to customize every companion within the class restrictions.
Anyway, thank you for the response and for clarifying your view about this discussion.

[Wusword77]

Gunderic wrote...

axl99 wrote...

Would there be a point beyond aesthetics if follower armor is just as strong as what you're wearing?

Complexity/Challenge + a sense of progression? It's easier for casuals to not have to constantly change character equipment after leveling up and 'just follow the story', I imagine.

It's not hard to compare stats in for Armor in a Bioware game.  Especially because Bioware usually only puts one good endgame armor in their games.  It's also not hard to follow a JRPG equipment progression (New Town the gear is automaticlly better).

If Bioware put in a varity of endgame armors that had were designed with specific builds in mind then you might have a case of the min/maxing aspect of the game being to "hard" for casuals.

It would also help if Bioware did more with their character stats beyond using 2 of them and making the others pointless for each class.

Please don't make it out like it takes an indepth analysis to make the most out of armor in RPGs.  It does not.