256 réponses à ce sujet

[Nerdage]

Harid wrote...

I don't personally think that costume changes should be tied to romances when we are dealing with a 7 year period, people should change their gear as time passes naturally.  If these people are their own people, you can't on the other hand, take the fact that these people change their gear in respect to your relationship, without to me, coming across as a gigantic hypocrite.

Fenris should be wearing more kirkwall armor (though that would rely on Bioware actually differentiating between Marcher and Tevinter gear), he has no interest nor love of Tevinter, it makes no sense for him to keep wearing those clothes.

Isabela doesn't own a ship, and can possibly, never own a ship again, so her wearing her pirate clothes, the same she was wearing when she robbed the Qunari, only to end up in a town with Qunari, and not try to change her appearance is stupid, and Isabela doesn't show her self to be stupid.

Merrill is no longer dalish and should not be wearing the clothing of the dalish in the alienage, especially given how the dalish treat city elves, her stupidity aside.

And a bunch of other reasons.

Well small things like armbands could be completely independant of actual armour (in theory), just keepsakes worn along side armour.

[Harid]

nerdage wrote...

Harid wrote...

I don't personally think that costume changes should be tied to romances when we are dealing with a 7 year period, people should change their gear as time passes naturally.  If these people are their own people, you can't on the other hand, take the fact that these people change their gear in respect to your relationship, without to me, coming across as a gigantic hypocrite.

Fenris should be wearing more kirkwall armor (though that would rely on Bioware actually differentiating between Marcher and Tevinter gear), he has no interest nor love of Tevinter, it makes no sense for him to keep wearing those clothes.

Isabela doesn't own a ship, and can possibly, never own a ship again, so her wearing her pirate clothes, the same she was wearing when she robbed the Qunari, only to end up in a town with Qunari, and not try to change her appearance is stupid, and Isabela doesn't show her self to be stupid.

Merrill is no longer dalish and should not be wearing the clothing of the dalish in the alienage, especially given how the dalish treat city elves, her stupidity aside.

And a bunch of other reasons.

Well small things like armbands could be completely independant of actual armour (in theory), just keepsakes worn along side armour.

I don't mine things like armbands.  It's the principle of armor changes like Isabela's and Merrill's.

[dreadpiratesnugglecakes]

You know where 'iconic' appearances are real popular? Where people wear the same thing no matter what? Cartoons. Remember Scooby Doo? Daphne's blue dress; Shaggy's green shirt? Yes, Isabella looks oh so hot in her outfit but it's not practical for combat; and I got sick of looking at it. I like being able to change character and npc outfits. I don't need the RPG equivalent of Velma's sweater to identify Isabella. The writing of the character should be strong enough to imprint them on you without giving them never changing clothing. I enjoyed Leilana's character no matter what I put her in; same for Morrigan. They were two very different women but I liked them both for different reasons. Conversely, Anders will always be a terrorist church bombing piece of **** no matter what frilly mage dress you wrap him in.
You want to let your characters wear the same boring dog**** for 7 years, go ahead. Be iconic. Let your character's be the same as the furnishings in Fenris' house. But at least give the option to the rest of us to customize the party.

[Il Divo]

dreadpiratesnugglecakes wrote...

You know where 'iconic' appearances are real popular? Where people wear the same thing no matter what? Cartoons. Remember Scooby Doo? Daphne's blue dress; Shaggy's green shirt? Yes, Isabella looks oh so hot in her outfit but it's not practical for combat; and I got sick of looking at it. I like being able to change character and npc outfits. I don't need the RPG equivalent of Velma's sweater to identify Isabella. The writing of the character should be strong enough to imprint them on you without giving them never changing clothing. I enjoyed Leilana's character no matter what I put her in; same for Morrigan. They were two very different women but I liked them both for different reasons. Conversely, Anders will always be a terrorist church bombing piece of **** no matter what frilly mage dress you wrap him in.

And you know what armor customization is like? Playing dress up with dolls. See how easy that was?

Personality may have differentiated the characters, but it would be nice if visuals could do the same.

You want to let your characters wear the same boring dog**** for 7 years, go ahead. Be iconic. Let your character's be the same as the furnishings in Fenris' house. But at least give the option to the rest of us to customize the party.

Why though? If I'd rather have my squadmates in unique attire, I'd rather Bioware design their game around that. I'm not going to change my party member's appearance, so they may as well remove squad customization.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 août 2011 - 04:07 .

[Greed1914]

Practicality of certain outfits aside, I don't have a problem with letting the devs make the characters as they see fit. Ultimately, they are making the game, so what options they choose to leave to players are up to them. I might not like how a character looks, but I also didn't make that character either. A lot of what we're supposed to know about these characters comes from their appearance, and I'd rather have character designs that I don't like but are distinct, than be able to customize them and end up with more generic looks. The more customizable they are, the more generic they have to be to accommodate the options.

[Masako52]

dreadpiratesnugglecakes wrote...

You know where 'iconic' appearances are real popular? Where people wear the same thing no matter what? Cartoons. Remember Scooby Doo? Daphne's blue dress; Shaggy's green shirt?

Um... or 99% of video game characters. Pretty much any iconic video game character is going to be wearing the same thing all the time. Your argument is just... bad.

Too bad you didn't like the costumes in DA2 and are so angry about it. I thought they were baller. I like playing dress up, too, though, so I've suggested having the characters always wear their default costumes at their "homes" and letting the player customize them during quests.

[hoorayforicecream]

dreadpiratesnugglecakes wrote...

You know where 'iconic' appearances are real popular? Where people wear the same thing no matter what? Cartoons. Remember Scooby Doo? Daphne's blue dress; Shaggy's green shirt? Yes, Isabella looks oh so hot in her outfit but it's not practical for combat; and I got sick of looking at it. I like being able to change character and npc outfits. I don't need the RPG equivalent of Velma's sweater to identify Isabella. The writing of the character should be strong enough to imprint them on you without giving them never changing clothing. I enjoyed Leilana's character no matter what I put her in; same for Morrigan. They were two very different women but I liked them both for different reasons. Conversely, Anders will always be a terrorist church bombing piece of **** no matter what frilly mage dress you wrap him in.
You want to let your characters wear the same boring dog**** for 7 years, go ahead. Be iconic. Let your character's be the same as the furnishings in Fenris' house. But at least give the option to the rest of us to customize the party.

Here are a few examples of characters who aren't cartoons and have very distinct, iconic looks. Part of what makes them iconic is the striking visuals that are associated so strongly with their characters.





http://latimesblogs....8ab78970c-500wi







Personally, I don't want to see Darth Vader changing helmets and armor to look like a regular storm trooper. He should look unique and special, because that's a large part of who he is.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wusword77 wrote...

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?

The player is NOT a character.  The player is the player.

I'm not saying the Shepard should be able to make Jack wear armour.  I'm saying that the PLAYER should be able to make Jack wear a shirt.

The characters are fictional.  They are just puppets for the player.  They're only complete and compelling characters from the PC's point of view, and having the player be able to change their armour doesn't affect that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ipgd wrote...

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.

I dispute that allowing the player to equip armour of the companions harms visual characterisation at all.  It changes visual characterisation, but it only harms it if you don't change their armour for in-character reasons.

And you can invent those reasons, because the characters in a single-player game are your toys to do with as you see fit.

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

As John Epler said, it's ambient storytelling. It helps the developers tell the story they want to tell. I'm sorry if that isn't the story you wish to be told.

I don't wish to be TOLD a story at all.  I want to create a story - an emergent narrative - through gameplay.

The characters and the setting and the events created by the writers are merely a backdrop the the story I create.  But this rigid storytelling BioWare seems now to favour leaves the player with fewer and fewer tools with which to create his own.

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

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.

You absolutely could do that with DAO.  But the difference is that what each character looked like would differ from player to player.

Why does my Isabela need to look like your Isabela?  If you find your Isabela compelling, and I find my Isabela compelling, does it matter if they're not the same Isabela?

[Sylvius the Mad]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

Then they need to auto level up and never be controllable by the player character for your logic to make any sense. Alos when you issue a command in battle it would need to just be a suggestion and maybe they listen and maybe they don't.

Agreed.

And that can work.  That's how NWN's companions worked, and I very much enjoyd that game.  I never bothered me that I couldn't tell Grimgnaw what to wear because I wasn't controlling Grimgnaw.  He made his own decisions; he was his own character.

Anders isn't his own character.  Anders learns spells as directed by me.  Anders casts spells as directed by me.  Anders even moves from place to place as directed by me.  Anders is my character as soon as he joins my party.  So I should be able to change his clothes.

[Sylvius the Mad]

willholt 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.

Sorry... but no, not really. I don't know if you've used the 'Equip Your Companions' mod, but it basically allows you to equip your companions with pretty much any armour found in game.

Yes, when you do that your companion's body shape turns into the standard generic male or female mesh (shapewise)... but that is my whole point. Those who prefer their companions looking unique can keep them unique by using their custom armours. Those of us who don't mind trading their unique look for the option to have them wear whatever we like can also have that option.

Every companion being able to use every armour in game does not mean that every armour in game has to have a unique companion version.

I hope I've explained that well enough so that it makes sense? ... Apologies if I haven't

Yes, I use Diversified Follower Armours and that's exactly how it works.  It's not perfect - I can't equip helmets on Fenris or Merrill, and I can't put anything on Varric at all (except for retints of his regular clothes), but I can give Isabela armour, or Fenris boots, or make Act ! Carver wear something heavier than that silly burlap tunic.

I mean, look at Fenris's outfit.  He's wearing lycra stirrup pants.  Seriously.  Stirrup pants.  No one in DAO looks that silly. No one could, because all of the models were vastly more sensible.

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

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.

That's no reason to require that Isabela look exactly that way for every player.

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Who is this guy supposed to be?

How could anyone who has played through the start of DAO a few times not immediately recognise Alistair there?  That's an excellent representation of DAO's Splint Armour, and Alistair is wearing that when you first meet him.

I don't even accept BioWare's design in terms of weapon assignments.  I'll happily make Alistair go DW, or make Sten an archer, or make Carver use a shield.  Particularly if I've already played through the game once.  If I've already played through once using Aveline as a S&S warrior, making her a 2-hander changes things up a bit.

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Here are a few examples of characters who aren't cartoons and have very distinct, iconic looks. Part of what makes them iconic is the striking visuals that are associated so strongly with their characters.

And I'm not controlling those characters.  Those characters have their own stories.

Me playing through those stories myself without any ability to change them would be dull.  Why would I bother
playing through those stories when my participation makes no difference?  I'd rather just watch the story be told rather than constantly be asked for input that doesn't matter.

Personally, I don't want to see Darth Vader changing helmets and armor to look like a regular storm trooper. He should look unique and special, because that's a large part of who he is.

That's a large part of who he is as defined by George Lucas.  But if you're playing him, why should you not be allowed to define him differently?

At the beginning of Star Wars, there's that big text crawl that explicitly describes Darth Vader as evil.  I find the movie much more interesting though if I ignore that and instead try to look at those events from Vader's perspective.  If I take him at his word that what he wants to do is "bring order to the galaxy", then he's suddenly the protagonist of the original trilogy.  And it's a tragedy, because his conviction fails him at the end.

Isn't that more interesting than just watching the same movie over again?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 17 août 2011 - 06:46 .

[Wusword77]

bEVEsthda wrote...

nerdage wrote...

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?

How many more controls would you have to remove before the player was really only controlling their one character? It's a party-based game, taking control of the party away is a dangerous precedent.

Exactly. We bought into this idea of DA precisely because it was supposed to be a party-control game, like BG. Not a squad game or whatever you'd call it.

How would a squad control game be different from a party control game? Your still controling a group of people 

Anyway, I'm not sure I understand where people are coming from about the removal of controls when it comes to fixed character image.  I personally feel that being able to change a companions look by equipping different armors takes away from their character and it was one of the things I had a problem with in DA:O.  Equipping companions in armor sets that all look the same takes away from their individuality and cheapens my interaction with them.  If you can tell them what to wear, what weapons to use, and what skills to learn (from any discipline) whats the point of them even having a back story or a story within the game?  There is no point.

Now in some games it works, like Mass Effect 1.  All your human characters in ME1 are military so they all should wear military issue armor, Wrex (Merc)/Garrus (Officer)/Tali (will die without it)are introduced to you in armor so they should wear armor as well.  You have an excuse for them all wearing armor so you have no expectation of them wearing anything else.  Even in DA:O your fighting as part of a large war effort so all your companions have an excuse to be armored.

Dragon Age 2 gives no such excuse to be armored like that, except in a few instances like the deep roads.  Most of the time you are moving in and around Kirkwall.  You are never expected to face an army nor get into any conflict beyond fighting a few gang members.  In that instance it's foolish to expect a group of people to be walking around a major city armed to the teeth in heavy plate mail to talk to an elf in the Alienage, because it's just out of place with the story.  I don't even like that Warrior Hawke gets heavy/massive plate armor, his armor should be a medium type at maximum (Think Sebastions armor set).

Now I'm not saying that companions shouldn't have additional looks available to them, but the looks should still be reflecting their character.  For instance we know Anders is a Grey Warden so he should have an alternate costume that looks like a Grey Warden set, or  Fenris worked with the military so maybe a heavier form of armor, or Isabella having a heavier set of clothing for those cold nights at sea.  These types of things could still give a visual characterization and give a different look for the companions, however, being able to equip armors that alter the look of companions with no regard to their backgrounds kills that.

[Wusword77]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Wusword77 wrote...

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?

The player is NOT a character.  The player is the player.

I'm not saying the Shepard should be able to make Jack wear armour.  I'm saying that the PLAYER should be able to make Jack wear a shirt.

The characters are fictional.  They are just puppets for the player.  They're only complete and compelling characters from the PC's point of view, and having the player be able to change their armour doesn't affect that.

I'm all for Jack wearing a shirt, I would just rather it be part of a set design for the character, as opposed to some thrown together items that are there only for min/maxing.

I would have loved it in DA2 if all the companions had a wardrobe change after the conclusion of every act.  I think it would have been awsome to have 3-5 different outfits I could put each companion in, but I'd rather not try and peice them together from random armor bits.

[bEVEsthda]

Wusword77 wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

nerdage wrote...

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?

How many more controls would you have to remove before the player was really only controlling their one character? It's a party-based game, taking control of the party away is a dangerous precedent.

Exactly. We bought into this idea of DA precisely because it was supposed to be a party-control game, like BG. Not a squad game or whatever you'd call it.

How would a squad control game be different from a party control game? Your still controling a group of people 

I said "squad" not "squad control". And I assumed a familiarity with the term. CoD is a squad game. A squad game is a single char game. But with companions. Your companions follow you around (or not, as the script see fit), but the player has no control over any char but the one and only he plays.
(The big annoying flaw of squad games (single player mode) is that your companions tend to commit suicide asap. This forces the player to adopt tactics that centers around avoiding this. CoD solves the problem by having new squad members spawn.)

Since a decade ago, DA was promised us to be a party control game, in the style of BG or IWD, where the player controls the entire party.
They could go back on that of course, and do whatever. But there are reasons for a party control game. One is that this precise property was very emphatically wanted by the forumites. All kinds of alternatives where discussed, against the backdrop of NWN and KoTOR, but the verdict came down pretty conclusive: No, - exactly like BG, that's what we want.
Another reason is that it adds a dimension of gameplay. Dimensions of gameplay is something BG had a lot of. Those have been gradually removed in Biowares games, as they take step after step backwards, towards the ideals of the arcaic console platformer from the 80'ies.

They've added movies. In other ways they've just steadily been diminishing their games.

Anyway, I'm not sure I understand where people are coming from about the removal of controls when it comes to fixed character image.  I personally feel that being able to change a companions look by equipping different armors takes away from their character and it was one of the things I had a problem with in DA:O. 

Strange? Really? You had a problem with this? But not with having to give instructions in combat?
No problem with that the player char always keep all loot and income for self? Party members getting nothing?
And no problem with never knowing what your character was going to say?
And no problem with...  - Oh Myyy God!...
This is a game, right?

But in terms of realism, it's more realistic than not. Your companions would want better equipment. You'd stop at a merchant and go, "look, we should really invest in better protection for X, see here's this nice one for 200gp, expensive but worth it." X: "Ooh, can I really? Oh yes thankyou!" 
"And Y need a sword with better bite, look at this."  Y: "Oh, that is really, really nice. I've always wanted one of those. But are you really going to pay for that?"
"Yes, yes. It's worth it. Need to have my companions as effective as possible."

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 17 août 2011 - 11:16 .

[Gespenst]

Nonuple posting? Really, Sylvius? Really?

[FieryDove]

If I am going to use a squad member/companion/party member/next popular term on my team to fight...they best wear armor and use weapons for the given situation or they can sit out. Half-nekkid and high heels and exposed skin do not cut it when fighting on and off hazardous planets.

Same goes for more down to earth fighting, Armor when fighting is good as well as being able to say…heh HD fight let’s all go range for this…but alas…no can do. BOO.

Have the iconic look at home/taverns etc. But out and about questing please use sense. Since the AI is not developed for this yet we must fill in the blanks.

[bEVEsthda]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

dreadpiratesnugglecakes wrote...

You know where 'iconic' appearances are real popular? Where people wear the same thing no matter what? Cartoons. Remember Scooby Doo? Daphne's blue dress; Shaggy's green shirt? Yes, Isabella looks oh so hot in her outfit but it's not practical for combat; and I got sick of looking at it. I like being able to change character and npc outfits. I don't need the RPG equivalent of Velma's sweater to identify Isabella. The writing of the character should be strong enough to imprint them on you without giving them never changing clothing. I enjoyed Leilana's character no matter what I put her in; same for Morrigan. They were two very different women but I liked them both for different reasons. Conversely, Anders will always be a terrorist church bombing piece of **** no matter what frilly mage dress you wrap him in.
You want to let your characters wear the same boring dog**** for 7 years, go ahead. Be iconic. Let your character's be the same as the furnishings in Fenris' house. But at least give the option to the rest of us to customize the party.

Here are a few examples of characters who aren't cartoons and have very distinct, iconic looks. Part of what makes them iconic is the striking visuals that are associated so strongly with their characters.





http://latimesblogs....8ab78970c-500wi







Personally, I don't want to see Darth Vader changing helmets and armor to look like a regular storm trooper. He should look unique and special, because that's a large part of who he is.

But many of us want DA to be a game, rather than just a movie.

[nitefyre410]

dreadpiratesnugglecakes wrote...

You know where 'iconic' appearances are real popular? Where people wear the same thing no matter what? Cartoons.

 

Orly




Uncle Sam  would disagree.

[Gunderic]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

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?)

 

Eh? It's pretty obvious that this is Alistair. Or did I miss the point?

[nitefyre410]

Gunderic wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

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?)

*snip*

Eh? It's pretty obvious that this is Alistair. Or did I miss the point?

 

Yes   someone who played the game would  know  that  to someone that does not know anything about  Bioware or its games it look  "Genric" Fantasy  warrior  #15  at lucnh on tuesday

Modifié par nitefyre410, 17 août 2011 - 12:26 .