Ce sujet est fermé
Filament wrote...
willholt wrote...
The decision has been made
No it hasn't.
No, I'm replying to your implication that DAO had more than six actual armor models. Which it didn't.Serpieri Nei wrote...
You have me mistaken for someone that is bothered by this.
Guest_Fandango_*
ipgd wrote...
It's less important than some things and more important than others. I was not aware that I had to ascribe an issue the utmost level of importance over all other things in order to defend it.Fandango9641 wrote...
A lot of work? All that posturing about iconic characters and customisation being mutually exclusive, all the disingenuous pretence over tattoos, bosoms and the rest and you eventually settle for ‘it’s not that important’?
But in this case, unique follower armors is actually significantly less work than any other alternative (consequentially less taxing on the resources that could be spent in other areas I may arbitrarily deem as "more important"), which is why I advocate for that specifically over "highly unique body models with each armor set individually fitted" which may be a nice option but so resource intensive that it is not realistic.
Gunderic wrote...
And what does that mean for people who support the currently proposed, purely aesthetical alternative outfit unlockables/trinket inventory system?
willholt wrote...
Never mind, there's always the modding community eh?
Guest_Puddi III_*
It does if you were mostly happy with DA2's system and the benefits it had for iconic appearances. What I proposed preserved all the benefits of that system while bringing back what people liked about Origins re: customizability. At least that's what I thought at the time, before I was reminded about the matter of tattoos. But that's a small loss.In Exile wrote...
Filament wrote...
...Then I guess it's not a good compromise for you, then. My line of thinking was between "people who like DA2's system" and "people who like DAO's system."
But that doesn't work either. Depending on what the question is, I might have say either thing. In fact, I did like things about both systems.
If we're talking about statistical customization, I liked DA:O and hated DA2. If we're talking about visual customization, I liked iconic armour in DA2 but disliked that we were forced into 1 look, and I liked getting to change looks in DA:O but hated being forced into generic armour.
It's always more complex than this, and my whole point is that a reduction doesn't catch that. Which is what makes it a little insulting, that a positive reaction towards this topic tells you very much of anything about anyone's taste.
Really? Those are some damn good retextures then. I wouldn't have thought Blood Dragon and Legion of the Dead and Juggernaut and Dryden's armor were all identical (the only one I could tell was obviously a retexture was Cailan's, being a retexture of the Juggernaut set).There were no unique armour sets in DA:O. We had about 6 or so models. Retextures don't mean a new model. We had 1 model of massive, 2 models of heavy, 1 of medium, 2 of light if I recall.
56 is a hell of a lot more than that.
It does, but I don't find it that important. Merrill had an iconic look, yet she didn't have any body tattoos and she had a generic elf female body type. Isabela does have a more curvaceous figure, but considering that it doesn't bother me putting Isabela into Hawke's armor and having her conform to the generic human female model, and considering I don't think the devs should let that bother them enough to homogenize their companions either (like they already showed it didn't with Morrigan), the only thing I feel they truly lose the capacity to do is those body tattoos. Which I don't find to be a huge loss.
I get that you don't care. But you don't care about an iconic look at all. I'm telling you why that matters to people who do care about iconic looks.
So where you do propose they take away resources from in order to do this?rak72 wrote...
I didn't say it wasn't time consuming, I said it was important enough to do. And I'm sure it can be done without spending half their budget and less than a billion armor models.
But, again, vacuum, not in it. If the ability to swap companions into generic body models exist, they will not design companions with body models that significantly diverge from the default. Jack would never have had tattoos at all, Anderps would just have Manhawke's giant buff arms, etc., just like they don't design any characters with capes or very long hair because of how weird the clipping would look. They will design characters that match the default body model (like that did with Morrigan). And I don't want the artists to be constrained in this manner in the character designs.If they are going to have different races as the protagonist, they are going to need to make the armor models for the different races anyway (not that I'm saying there WILL be different races, just speculating). If you have Isabella take off her iconic armor, she can just use the body model of the generic armor she puts on. I think most people that want customisation would be more than happy with this. If you don't want to see her in a normal body type, just keep the iconic armor on.
ipgd wrote...
No, I'm replying to your implication that DAO had more than six actual armor models. Which it didn't.Serpieri Nei wrote...
You have me mistaken for someone that is bothered by this.
ipgd wrote...
But, again, vacuum, not in it. If the ability to swap companions into generic body models exist, they will not design companions with body models that significantly diverge from the default. Jack would never have had tattoos at all, Anderps would just have Manhawke's giant buff arms, etc., just like they don't design any characters with capes or very long hair because of how weird the clipping would look. They will design characters that match the default body model (like that did with Morrigan). And I don't want the artists to be constrained in this manner in the character designs.
Modifié par suzaku77, 30 août 2011 - 01:34 .
Considering you haven't had a single reply to me that wasn't some sort of bizarre, snide personal insult that completely circumvented any of my arguments, I doubt that was even a problem in the first place.Fandango9641 wrote...
Nope, that wont do at all (I just can’t take you seriously anymore). x
Just wanted to chime in here and say that I really appreciate it. You make trying to play DA2 a better experience for me.ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
WHICH IS WHY I HAVEN'T UPDATED MY ELF CONVERSIONS IN A WHILE.ipgd wrote...
Just because it can be done by modders does not mean it is not still a lot of work. It would still demand extra time and resources out a finite pool of time and resources that would inevitably be acquired by diverting time and resources away from more important things.rak72 wrote...
I don't think so. Again, if modders were able to make a fix for this on Nexus, it shouldn't be a big deal for the professionals.
I'm not too cool for school, unlike ipgd, who always manages to find time to write her amazingly sexy, ridiculously long essays about post-modernism in video gaming.
[EDIT] And, not to pat myself on the back too hard, but as far as making armors fit other races, "modders" aren't doing anything. I am. And it's hella time-consuming.
Your reply appeared to be a retort to In Exile, whose post was regarding actual armor models. I assumed you understood what he meant.Serpieri Nei wrote...
Where did I say models.
In Exile wrote...
It has to be, because otherwise I assume you would have stopped doing it at some point.
In Exile wrote...
Why not make the iconic armours the best gear in the game and then make every other item you find (that can change the apperance) significantly inferior? This is basically what you're suggesting for people who like unique apperances.
No.
My first post in your direction was to say that it was a really bad alternative, because it entirely misses the point of what someone who doesn't share your view might want. So bad, in fact, that it essentially forces players to compromise gameplay for apperance.
You then decided to resort to personal attacks.
It's disrespectful to say you're speaking about 'compromises' without even bothering to legitimately consider a PoV that isn't yours.
Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 30 août 2011 - 01:42 .
Agreed. Although I have carefully edited out your last paragraph. I am not sure how it ends up overall. So whether I buy it or not is still uncertain.rak72 wrote...
A lot of people think it is important, they can put some intern on it, pay him a couple of bucks & it will be taken care of. Honestly, I don't think it is a question of resources for Bioware. They have their vision of what the story should be and they want to make sure everyone adhers to it. Mike Laidlaw himself said that it bugged him to see screen shots of Morrigan in plate.ipgd wrote...
Just because it can be done by modders does not mean it is not still a lot of work. It would still demand extra time and resources out a finite pool of time and resources that would inevitably be acquired by diverting time and resources away from more important things.rak72 wrote...
I don't think so. Again, if modders were able to make a fix for this on Nexus, it shouldn't be a big deal for the professionals.
Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 30 août 2011 - 01:40 .
ipgd wrote...
GIRLS, YOU'RE BOTH PRETTY.So where you do propose they take away resources from in order to do this?rak72 wrote...
I didn't say it wasn't time consuming, I said it was important enough to do. And I'm sure it can be done without spending half their budget and less than a billion armor models.But, again, vacuum, not in it. If the ability to swap companions into generic body models exist, they will not design companions with body models that significantly diverge from the default. Jack would never have had tattoos at all, Anderps would just have Manhawke's giant buff arms, etc., just like they don't design any characters with capes or very long hair because of how weird the clipping would look. They will design characters that match the default body model (like that did with Morrigan). And I don't want the artists to be constrained in this manner in the character designs.If they are going to have different races as the protagonist, they are going to need to make the armor models for the different races anyway (not that I'm saying there WILL be different races, just speculating). If you have Isabella take off her iconic armor, she can just use the body model of the generic armor she puts on. I think most people that want customisation would be more than happy with this. If you don't want to see her in a normal body type, just keep the iconic armor on.
ipgd wrote...
Your reply appeared to be a retort to In Exile, whose post was regarding actual armor models. I assumed you understood what he meant.Serpieri Nei wrote...
Where did I say models.
rak72 wrote...
ipgd wrote...
GIRLS, YOU'RE BOTH PRETTY.So where you do propose they take away resources from in order to do this?rak72 wrote...
I didn't say it wasn't time consuming, I said it was important enough to do. And I'm sure it can be done without spending half their budget and less than a billion armor models.But, again, vacuum, not in it. If the ability to swap companions into generic body models exist, they will not design companions with body models that significantly diverge from the default. Jack would never have had tattoos at all, Anderps would just have Manhawke's giant buff arms, etc., just like they don't design any characters with capes or very long hair because of how weird the clipping would look. They will design characters that match the default body model (like that did with Morrigan). And I don't want the artists to be constrained in this manner in the character designs.If they are going to have different races as the protagonist, they are going to need to make the armor models for the different races anyway (not that I'm saying there WILL be different races, just speculating). If you have Isabella take off her iconic armor, she can just use the body model of the generic armor she puts on. I think most people that want customisation would be more than happy with this. If you don't want to see her in a normal body type, just keep the iconic armor on.
If the Iconic model is so popular and important, then why not still design the tatoos & big boobs & let the people that don't care about it equip what already exists. If they are so great, people won't switch to the generic & everyone will still see the tatoos. And like I said, they need to make the generic models anyway, so they don't need to pump tons of extra resources into making it happen.
rak72 wrote...
If the Iconic model is so popular and important, then why not still design the tatoos & big boobs & let the people that don't care about it equip what already exists. If they are so great people won't switch to the generic & everyone will still see the tatoos. And like I said, they need to make the generic models anyway, so they don't need to pump tons of extra resources into making it happen.
I'm sure he also assumed that because you were responding to his post about actual armor models, you were talking about actual armor models.Serpieri Nei wrote...
Did you miss the part where he replied to my statement which had nothing to do with models. So yours and his understanding needs to run a self-check.
Modifié par ipgd, 30 août 2011 - 01:52 .
hoorayforicecream wrote...
rak72 wrote...
If the Iconic model is so popular and important, then why not still design the tatoos & big boobs & let the people that don't care about it equip what already exists. If they are so great people won't switch to the generic & everyone will still see the tatoos. And like I said, they need to make the generic models anyway, so they don't need to pump tons of extra resources into making it happen.
Because it doesn't work past a certain point. Suppose they want to make a one-armed swordsman who's maimed status is integral to his own story. Now what? He magically grows an arm when putting on armor?
It doesn't always work. It isn't just about tattoos, it's about limiting what the developers can do because they have to design around generic bodies.
TheBlackBaron wrote...
I quote:
After which you mostly proceeded to whine about being told to go **** yourself.
I don't think I've seen you actually respond to any of these ideas except to post something along the lines of the above, then claim we're demeaning you or whatever.
Actually, no, I resorted to personal attacks shortly after you decided to start whining that calling you out for being self-righteous and claiming that other people just wanted to play dress-up was insulting.
Given that you've said you're perfectly fine with telling people that to want visually customize they can't,
I fail to see why I should give a **** about your viewpoint when you clearly don't give a **** about mine.
I attempted to make allowances for those that want the iconic outfits in my proposal.
Thus far, the most on-topical post you've made is to say that Mike's proposal gives you exactly what you want, and you're fine with telling those that want gear to have visual effects that they can't have that.
The irony here is absolutely suffocating.
Modifié par In Exile, 30 août 2011 - 02:06 .
Mike Laidlaw wrote...
Additionally, we are experimenting with armor equipped to the followers having some additional visual impact on the follower's iconic appearance, but we'll dig deeper on that as we get closer to a final implementation. As a general rule, you should expect that any deviation from the ideas outlined above would be towards more visual customization, rather than less.
- Followers will continue to have iconic appearances. Similar to DAII, their outfits will be more "full body" rather than parts-based (like Hawke or the DAO followers), and these armors will be unique to the followers. This decision allows us to give the followers appearances that "break the rules," such as isabela's boots coming over the knee, or Merril's gloves coming seamlessly up her arms. Ultimately, we believe that the strong visual identity given to characters by iconic appearances is an important part of their identity.
- Followers will have more than one appearance. Whether they be unlocked by advancing the core story, plot reward, some crazy ass crafting quest, romance or completing a personal plot, we would like the followers to have more than one appearance over the course of the game. To do show allows them to progress, grow and react to changing circumstances, all of which help us tell a visual story with the followers.
- The player should be given control over the follower's appearance once more than one appearance becomes available. Did you prefer Merril in green over white? Fair enough. We want to treat additional appearances more as unlocks, than as mandatory changes, so that you, as the player, maintain control over how your team looks, within each character's iconic style. Functionally, imagine going to the camp in Origins or your follower's base in DAII and clicking on a pack or wardrobe, and opening an interface that lets you pick which of their outfits you want them to wear.
- Followers will have their equipment slots restored and armor you equip in those slots will have the expected statistical impact on the follower, including enchantments, bonuses and base armor stats, along with requirements to wear the armor applying. As per above, adding armor pieces to these slots will not impact the follower's appearance directly, only their statistics.
- Followers who have no armor equipped by the player will be automatically equipped with a "basic" suit of armor that progresses automatically with them as they level, similar to the "basic" weapons that equip if you remove your real weapons in DAII. For those players uninterested in fiddling with their follower armors, these basic suits will be serviceable, and loosely equivalent to an run-of-the-mill suit of armor with no bonuses or enchantments for their current level. Hardly optimal, but serviceable enough for the lower difficulties.
rak72 wrote...
hoorayforicecream wrote...
rak72 wrote...
If the Iconic model is so popular and important, then why not still design the tatoos & big boobs & let the people that don't care about it equip what already exists. If they are so great people won't switch to the generic & everyone will still see the tatoos. And like I said, they need to make the generic models anyway, so they don't need to pump tons of extra resources into making it happen.
Because it doesn't work past a certain point. Suppose they want to make a one-armed swordsman who's maimed status is integral to his own story. Now what? He magically grows an arm when putting on armor?
It doesn't always work. It isn't just about tattoos, it's about limiting what the developers can do because they have to design around generic bodies.
If they make a one armed swordsman, then I will conceed that he can stay in his iconic armor for perpetuity (or until they make a mod to change it).
rotflmao
Retour en haut
