256 réponses à ce sujet

[MonkeyLungs]

leggywillow wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...
It's marketing PR streamlining cover up double speak that uninformed drone brain youth can't see through because they have been trained to listen and accept not question and resist.

People always find the strangest ways to play the "EVERYONE IS A STUPID SHEEP BUT ME, I BE INTELLIGENT REBEL" card.

My claim is founded in reality. Bioware comes out and say that the characters don't change armors because they are more individuals and they wear what they want. This also helps them to have an iconic look they say. People gobble it up. The reality is this: it DOES help them have an iconic look, however the whole excuse that they are individuals who do what they want is nullified by the actual logic the game employs, ie. I can take utter and complete control of them. The reason is simple, Bioware wants to maintain an iconic look without having to make unique armor models for each type of armor for each companion. I never said everyone was a sheep ... but the sheep are and there a whole funky town disco tech lot of you.

[Il Divo]

I fully support unique appearances for party members. Jade Empire and Mass Effect 2 are amongst my favorite Bioware games, one reason being that each companion was designed with a specific outfit in mind, which they retain throughout the game. I am my PC, not my companions, and prefer having less control over them.

One of my largest pet peeves in KotOR was equipping Bastila in Jedi robes, which (statistically-speaking) were superior to her normal outfit in every way, but felt far more generic.

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 août 2011 - 11:32 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Firky wrote...

@icecream Hahaha. Cool example.

Maybe it also highlights something about technology these days, though. If 16x16 is all you've got to work with, people can hardly get worried if they don't like the way a character looks. Fenris needs black feet pixels instead of orange?

It's probably too off-topic, so I wont dwell on it but, to my old school brain, cinematics/visual storytelling still really add very little to an RPG. (Part of the reason Leliana in a leather bikini irked me is that I could see her. In BG2, everyone was so tiny, who cares if you're in Ankheg green armour or some other colour?)

(Which is not to detract from the good job cinematic designers are doing. 90% of it goes over my head, sadly. But, I think it's an evolving part of gaming, and maybe it'll impact me more in the future, who knows?)

It isn't just about small pixel ranges to work with, though. The main thing is how distinctive visuals help trigger memories. Here are a few other examples.

You've probably never seen this person before. But you probably recognize the fictional character she's portraying, right?



Who's this guy? I bet you recognize what character he's playing.



This is the power of iconic looks. 

Who is this guy supposed to be?
 

Want a hint?
click or other image

I can't find pictures of anyone cosplaying Sten, Wynne or Oghren. But I can find plenty of pics of Varric, Bethany and Aveline. The reason it's hard to cosplay as Sten, Wynne and Oghren is that it's hard to find unique features to them. 

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 17 août 2011 - 12:25 .

[Zanallen]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

My claim is founded in reality. Bioware comes out and say that the characters don't change armors because they are more individuals and they wear what they want. This also helps them to have an iconic look they say. People gobble it up. The reality is this: it DOES help them have an iconic look, however the whole excuse that they are individuals who do what they want is nullified by the actual logic the game employs, ie. I can take utter and complete control of them. The reason is simple, Bioware wants to maintain an iconic look without having to make unique armor models for each type of armor for each companion. I never said everyone was a sheep ... but the sheep are and there a whole funky town disco tech lot of you.

Yeah, 'cause that wouldn't be retardedly time consuming and expensive and, to my knowledge, has never been done before. At best, I could see Bioware making five or so unique armors per companion that the PC can choose from, along with the various runes and accessories.

Modifié par Zanallen, 16 août 2011 - 11:35 .

[ipgd]

bEVEsthda wrote...

If I had said "yes", I'd still have to add: but you still have no point. It is YOU who use words like "entitled" and "not obliged" (with obliged in italics even ).

But I'm not going to say "yes". I'm going to say this instead:
Artists can do whatever they want if they play with only their own money. In this case they don't.
Do you really think we would have got DA2 if the developers had been left to their own visions?
No, you just have to look at what EA have invested in Bioware and realise what sort of return they must expect, to understand that there was a strong motive to do something about DA:O's business model.
So they obviously sat down and came up with a lot of ideas of how to move DA. I can recognize many of them and I can sort of reluctantly agree with a lot. What I don't agree with is the change in style to appeal to (supposedly) a different demographic group. This is where I believe they stepped very wrong.
(Recycled areas was just an accident. It was never intended. M.L. decided to make the game longer by adding cheap content, and I previously held that decision for correct. However, I have changed my mind on that, it simply risks becoming a precedent too much. And it draws too much flak ofc.)

The bigger the audience, the more resources can be spent on the franchise, eventually maybe reaching CoD's production values. This is clearly what M.L. want and it's a worthwhile goal. But I suspect the task he got was: "DA gets one more chance. You get 18 months and this much money. See what you can do".
And as much as I dislike DA2, I'm quite impressed by how much he accomplished. Pity they launched it as "DA2".
But I do believe DA:O's more serious flavor ultimately has a much larger potential audience than DA2's, including the one they specifically set out to target.
Of course the developers have their jobs because of their judgement, creativity and taste. Those are the tools they have to work with. So it is somewhat important that they somewhat get to do what they want, and trust their own judgement. But why do you think Bioware always stress "learning from mistakes" and "listening" so much? Creating a game is a very calculated procedure. And inside Bioware and EA, it very much considers market research. This is very obvious from what information has leaked through. Problem with market research is that you have to read it right. It's an art in itself (and an art EA doesn't have). So how 'polluted' are the designers opinions? From false data? This is where an experience like DA2 comes in as a sort of reality check.

As I said:

While money is a factor and they have to make some concessions in order
to ensure a consumer base, they are entitled to their own vision and
artistic intent; judging by the direction they took both ME2 and DA2,
one could assume enhanced visual characterization is part of that
intent.

Unique companion armor isn't really something that is a giant deal in the end. It's unlikely that they are going to lose or gain large swathes of consumers solely due to its inclusion or lack thereof. It's a small enough issue that they can get away with doing what they want to do if that is what they want to do, statistical approval ignored.

MonkeyLungs wrote...

It's marketing PR streamlining cover up double speak that uninformed drone brain youth can't see through because they have been trained to listen and accept not question and resist.

TELL IT LIKE IT IS BROTHER *bong hit* yeah we're gonna show The Man who's boss DOWN WITH THE SHEEPLE

Modifié par ipgd, 16 août 2011 - 11:39 .

[Nerdage]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

You've probably never seen this person before. But you probably recognize the fictional character she's portraying, right?

Proof you don't need unique outfits to make characters recognizable?

[ipgd]

nerdage wrote...

Proof you don't need unique outfits to make characters recognizable?

The point was that visuals are important for iconic character recognition. Hair is one aspect that works towards accomplishing that.

[Zanallen]

nerdage wrote...

Proof you don't need unique outfits to make characters recognizable?

She is wearing Leia's signature outfit there. Of course, the real unique look is the hair, which is something that only Morrigan had in DA:O and is part of having a unique image.

Modifié par Zanallen, 16 août 2011 - 11:47 .

[Nerdage]

ipgd wrote...

nerdage wrote...

Proof you don't need unique outfits to make characters recognizable?

The point was that visuals are important for iconic character recognition. Hair is one aspect that works towards accomplishing that.

If it's enough on its own then is it necessary or even good to have their entire outfit be so radically different from everyone else's, too? I wonder if the same realities even apply to some companions as apply to the rest of the world.

Zanallen wrote...

She is wearing Leia's signature outfit there. Of course, the real unique look is the hair, which is something that only Morrigan had in DA:O and is part of having a unique image.

Even if you cover the bottom half of the image it's still pretty obvious who she's meant to be.

Modifié par nerdage, 16 août 2011 - 11:52 .

[nitefyre410]

nerdage wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

You've probably never seen this person before. But you probably recognize the fictional character she's portraying, right?

Proof you don't need unique outfits to make characters recognizable?

 

more so proof that it does - see anyone cosplaying  with the double wrap bun hairstyle and you think  Princess Liea  and  Star Wars.   The hair style is iconic and unique for that character and has been since the movie has came out  back in '77

Modifié par nitefyre410, 16 août 2011 - 11:53 .

[devSin]

nerdage wrote...

Proof you don't need unique outfits to make characters recognizable?

If the choice is "We can let you change companion armor, but then they have to have cranial pouches where they can store loose change", I say screw changing the armor.

I'd much rather Fenris' skin-tight jumpsuit than having boobie-mitts on the sides of his head the whole game.

Modifié par devSin, 16 août 2011 - 11:53 .

[bEVEsthda]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

From what I understand, the goal of the development team has been to focus more on the role-playing aspects (specifically, the choices and story) and less on the internal nuts and bolts of the systems. As such, cinematics and storytelling elements (camerawork, facial expressions, characterization) are emphasized more than they used to be, and overall system complexity is decreased to help smooth the process. 

But that's not "role playing". In fact it's not about gaming at all. It's about watching a movie.

Iconic looks really help players remember a character, even if you can't consciously recall what a character looks like. One of the best franchises that does this is Street Fighter. Here's an example:

....

Each of these is nothing more than a 16x16 block of pixels, but people who are at all familiar with Street Fighter can start picking out characters easily, because they remember them. If we reduce the characters of DA2 to 16x16 pixel blocks, I bet I could pick out who's who too. You can't do that with DAO, and I find that it suffers for it.

Yes you can, if you want. But I feel that you mix in concepts where they don't belong. Unless you think that all games should basically be the same paradigm (we seem to be moving into that direction).
You're removing something that used to be very integral to party-tactical crpgs. And that is something DA was supposed to be. The only argument for not being able to change companions armour that I will ever respect is that it costs too much.
("respect" doesn't mean I will necessarily accept it though. I can play Baldur's Gate instead, sure was a long time.)

[Gibb_Shepard]

Wusword77 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
No, I'm complaining that I can't make her wear a jacket.  I found the tattoos unsightly, and since I couldn't modify her model I had to modify her texture.

But what if she doesn't want to wear armor?  Why are all companions supposed to be nothing but puppets for the player, when the player is only supposed to be a single character?

Lol? Of course they're puppets of the player, they're video game characters, we're people. We have authority over them. They do not share equality, we are their god. Who cares what she wants and doesn't want, the player trumps all, and if the player wants some god damn armour on that clothless body, the player should damn well get it.

[hoorayforicecream]

nerdage wrote...

ipgd wrote...

nerdage wrote...

Proof you don't need unique outfits to make characters recognizable?

The point was that visuals are important for iconic character recognition. Hair is one aspect that works towards accomplishing that.

If it's enough on its own then is it necessary or even good to have their entire outfit be so radically different from everyone else's, too? I wonder if the same realities even apply to some companions as apply to the rest of the world.

Zanallen wrote...

She is wearing Leia's signature outfit there. Of course, the real unique look is the hair, which is something that only Morrigan had in DA:O and is part of having a unique image.

Even if you cover the bottom half of the image it's still pretty obvious who she's meant to be.

Can you tell whose costume this is?



How about this one?

[Il Divo]

nerdage wrote...

If it's enough on its own then is it necessary or even good to have their entire outfit be so radically different from everyone else's, too? I wonder if the same realities even apply to some companions as apply to the rest of the world.

Because hair is only one factor, amongst many, in a character's appearance and not all are quite as recognizable as the Princess Leia style bun. Han Solo/Captain Malcolm Reynolds would be great examples where outfit plays a key role in identifying the respective characters.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 août 2011 - 12:00 .

[Nerdage]

nitefyre410 wrote...

more so proof that it does - see anyone cosplaying  with the double wrap bun hairstyle and you think  Princess Liea  and  Star Wars.   The hair style is iconic and unique for that character and has been since the movie has came back in '77

Hairstyle isn't part of the outfit, which is what I'm getting at. 

If you put Aveline in a line up with other city guards you could pick her out quite easily, but she still looks like she belongs. Her armour isn't wildly different from what everyone else uses, but there's enough unique about her to make her recognizable, even if it's just the head band and the hair. If you put Isabel in a lineup with other rogues it'll look like she's wondered into the wrong room, there's either no good reason for *her* to dress like that or there's no good reason for *them* to dress like that, which is what bothers me.

hoorayforicecream wrote...

*pictures*

But if you could only see their (the characters') heads, would they still be as recognizable? I say yes.

Modifié par nerdage, 17 août 2011 - 12:03 .

[leggywillow]

Il Divo wrote...

nerdage wrote...

If it's enough on its own then is it necessary or even good to have their entire outfit be so radically different from everyone else's, too? I wonder if the same realities even apply to some companions as apply to the rest of the world.

Because hair is only one factor, amongst many, in a character's appearance and not all are quite as recognizable as the Princess Leia style bun. Han Solo/Captain Malcolm Reynolds would be great examples where outfit plays a key role in identifying a character.

This.  In fact, Leia and the Bride of Frankenstein are the only characters I can think of off the top of my head that can be immediately identified by hair alone.  (I'm sure there are a few more but not many.)  Hair alone as an identifier does not work for the vast majority of characters, and it's very unlikely to ever be enough in Dragon Age.

[leggywillow]

nerdage wrote...
If you put Isabel in a lineup with other rogues it'll look like she's wondered into the wrong room, there's either no good reason for *her* to dress like that or there's no good reason for *them* to dress like that, which is what bothers me.

Huh?  That makes no sense.  Dressing differently from someone else in a similar line of work doesn't mean that either one is doing something wrong.  Okay, there are examples of that, like a construction worker not in a hardhat vs. one who is, but it doesn't apply here.

Edit: Double posting like a boss, aww yeah.

Modifié par leggywillow, 17 août 2011 - 12:11 .

[hoorayforicecream]

nerdage wrote...

nitefyre410 wrote...

more so proof that it does - see anyone cosplaying  with the double wrap bun hairstyle and you think  Princess Liea  and  Star Wars.   The hair style is iconic and unique for that character and has been since the movie has came back in '77

Hairstyle isn't part of the outfit, which is what I'm getting at. 

If you put Aveline in a line up with other city guards you could pick her out quite easily, but she still looks like she belongs. Her armour isn't wildly different from what everyone else uses, but there's enough unique about her to make her recognizable, even if it's just the head band and the hair. If you put Isabel in a lineup with other rogues it'll look like she's wondered into the wrong room, there's either no good reason for *her* to dress like that or there's no good reason for *them* to dress like that, which is what bothers me.

hoorayforicecream wrote...

*pictures*

But if you could only see their (the characters') heads, would they still be as recognizable? I say yes.

Suppose they are both wearing the same helmets that obscure their faces and hair. You know, the kind that are everywhere in Dragon Age.

Isabela isn't supposed to look like a generic rogue, because she's not a generic rogue. She's a pirate, a swashbuckler, and a duelist, and her outfit helps show that. Quickness and speed, some armor for defensive fighting, just like she says. Isabela is supposed to look like Isabela. That's why I want her to look recognizable.

[Zanallen]

nerdage wrote...

Hairstyle isn't part of the outfit, which is what I'm getting at. 

If you put Aveline in a line up with other city guards you could pick her out quite easily, but she still looks like she belongs. Her armour isn't wildly different from what everyone else uses, but there's enough unique about her to make her recognizable, even if it's just the head band and the hair. If you put Isabel in a lineup with other rogues it'll look like she's wondered into the wrong room, there's either no good reason for *her* to dress like that or there's no good reason for *them* to dress like that, which is what bothers me.

I'd say the latter. The rogue NPCs aren't really dressed like rogues. They are dressed like lightly armored soldiers. Should they all really have full leather armor? The game definately needs more variety in its NPC models, but I don't think the companions because of that. Why make all of the characters bland and look the same? Why not attempt to make everyone more varied? They obviously can't design each NPC to look unique, but they should at least have a few, 3-5, different models per race/class and maybe organization. Though, really, I would like to see a random armor generator, though I don't know how viable such a system would be.

[LadyJaneGrey]

nerdage wrote...

If you put Isabel in a lineup with other rogues it'll look like she's wondered into the wrong room, there's either no good reason for *her* to dress like that or there's no good reason for *them* to dress like that, which is what bothers me.

Hmmm...do you prefer they look similar based on "all rogues should dress about the same" or based on "this is what's practical in battle"?  In Origins the female rogue armor with the low-cut tops look just as impractical to me.

[bEVEsthda]

ipgd wrote...
Unique companion armor isn't really something that is a giant deal in the end. It's unlikely that they are going to lose or gain large swathes of consumers solely due to its inclusion or lack thereof. It's a small enough issue that they can get away with doing what they want to do if that is what they want to do, statistical approval ignored.

Says you.
Another pointless, dismissive statement. Just like the one that started us off:

That is, shockingly, a subjective measure. What you personally value is not the same as what all other people personally value, and judging by the direction taken regarding unique follower models in ME2 and DA2, it's not what the developers personally value, either.

You are of course entitled to not give a **** about visual characterization, but that does not erase its existence or importance to people who may not be Sylvius the Mad.

We don't need you to tell us that our opinions are only our opinions. We don't need you to tell us that the developers may have different ideas than what we would like. These things you have this incessant need to drop all the time have no value.

[Zanallen]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Isabela isn't supposed to look like a generic rogue, because she's not a generic rogue. She's a pirate, a swashbuckler, and a duelist, and her outfit helps show that. Quickness and speed, some armor for defensive fighting, just like she says. Isabela is supposed to look like Isabela. That's why I want her to look recognizable.

This ^. Isabella is all about dodging and parrying. Her fighting style is based on speed and precision. Too much armor would be restrictive, slow her down and be a detriment to her combat capabilities. That is why she wears what she wears, adding in a bit of sexiness to show her willingness to flaunt what she's got and her casual nature.

[grregg]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

grregg wrote...

(...)

I don't think it's people being selfish as much as it is people recognizing the inherent trade-offs. If a companion is supposed to have a unique look, as in unique body model, animation rig, etc, that means that every armor they are able to equip has to have "their" version. So if Aveline, Varric, Fenris and Isabela are supposed to be able to equip a set of armor, BioWare has to create Aveline's version, Varric's version, etc. Doesn't seem likely that they would want to spent all the effort required.

And why should we, as customers, defend Bioware's laziness. I don't give a flying forklift if the poor little Bioware artists think it's too hard. Do it or lose sales.

You don't have to defend anything, nor give any flight-capable heavy machinery for that matter. You know where the exit is, right?

It seems to me however that "I want everything dammit!" type of attitude, while being fun, rarely achieves everything. There ARE inherent trade-offs between unique character look and customization and demanding both is akin to asking for a dump truck that's fun to drive and accelerates well. No doubt it could be built but the cost of it would likely assure that it is nothing but an impractical curiosity. Same for the armors, sure you can make 10 versions of every armor, but the cost will be taken out of something else. No project has an unlimited budget.

[Nerdage]

leggywillow wrote...

Huh?  That makes no sense.  Dressing differently from someone else in a similar line of work doesn't mean that either one is doing something wrong.  Okay, there are examples of that, like a construction worker not in a hardhat vs. one who is, but it doesn't apply here.

Edit: Double posting like a boss, aww yeah.

Construcion worker metaphor works quite nicely, actually. If the appropriate means of protection is a hard hat, then a worker without one is a fatality waiting to happen, and if the appropriate protection for a rogue is light armour (as is more often than not the case with NPCs), why won't my rogues wear it?

I'm getting around to the other replys. Be patient.