1027 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Filament wrote...
It does if you were mostly happy with DA2's system and the benefits it had for iconic appearances.

Certainly. But wanting an iconic apperance != being happy with DA2. 

In the same way that wanting "armour customization" doesn't mean you have to be happy with what Mr. Laidlaw offered in his OP.

What I proposed preserved all the benefits of that system while bringing back what people liked about Origins re: customizability.

It does. But, again, the issue is reducing people's views to just being perfectly satisfied by DA2.

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.

Okay, you keep doing that. It's only a small loss because you don't care about it. And you don't have to care about it. But it would be nice that you at least acknowledge that it is important to some people (not me though, who cares about tattoos?).

Really? Those are some damn good retextures then.

What, seriously? They were so blindingly obvious the same they almost hurt my eyes. 

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).

Dryden's armour? You mean the Warden Commander armour? That's not the same armour. It's a reskin of the Juggernaut set. Legion of the Dead and Blood Dragon are reskins, though.

But regardless. It's an amount of work they can do. I want them to do it.

To retexture? Sure. But then you'll still complain that Isabella is always not wearing armour, even if you have 10 retextures of it, because the base model is not armour. 

Oh really. I don't care about iconic looks at all. Nevermind that I explained that the reason I don't find those points very important is because those points don't diminish the devs' capacity to retain those iconic looks, except re: the issue of body tattoos. Not because I don't care about iconic looks.

No, what I am saying is this: an iconic look is not very important to you. You don't think that visually, you can have something that's perfectly evocative of a character.

Case in point being Isabella's proportions compared to other female characters. You don't really think that was important to the character, in that it could have just been illustrated another way.

When I say you don't care, I mean that the issue doesn't resonate with you. I don't mean to say it in a dismissive tone. 

[hoorayforicecream]

willholt wrote...

I couldn't let this pass without comment.

So basically the argument for the 'iconic' system has now been reduced to ' We need it in case we create a one-armed swordsman' ?

Wow...... rotflmao

Or someone with other uniquely identifying physical characteristics of the type that seem common among heroes. A physically transformed abomination. An awakened darkspawn. A golem.  A centaur. A man who is perpetually burning and on fire. A succubus with wings. A woman with a tail. A sentient suit of armor. A talking, floating skull. There's a lot of potential out there, but you shut the door on some of that if the designers are constrained to generic bodies.

[ipgd]

rak72 wrote...

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).

So where do you draw the line? I'd say Fenris's tattoos are just as integral to his story and combat abilities, and I would find it just as jarring to see them disappear into a generic body model as I would to see a one-armed swordsman magically regrow his arm.

They could have designed Fenris without tattoos, sure -- which is exactly why I don't want them to have equipable armor. Given the choice between having a unique body model and a wildly mismatched body model for the generic armors, and designing characters so that there is no incongruency to begin with, they're going to do the latter (lest they invent an entirely new group of disgruntled people complaining about their immersion being ruined by unexplained shapeshifters). And that is effectively an entire dimension of character design and visual narrative removed from the table that I would find very unfortunate.

They could go so much further than what they've already done with the unique body models (and I will say they haven't very done much with it yet, beyond characters like Jack and Fenris, but they could). They could do something like a one-armed swordsman. I'd personally be disappointed if they let the technological constraints of equipable armor stop them from really pushing their visual character designs.

Modifié par ipgd, 30 août 2011 - 02:15 .

[Willybot]

andraip wrote...

Sounds, cool.
but what happens if I equip massive plate armor on a mage? will it disapear magickly? or will it only be possible for a mage to equip robes? well I guess I'll have to wait and see how it will work.

As written it would seem so. The appearance would be independant of whatever gear they are actually equipping. To me, it's kind of immersion-breaking to have a companion look like they're wearing a skimpy loincloth while 'really' wearing fullplate, but it's not too much worse than not changing a set of clothes over 10 years.

How about this idea: assuming that there are 3 different 'levels' of armor (light, medium, and heavy) each companion has a generic appearance for each of the off-sets. i.e. plate and cloth for rogues, cloth and leather for warriors, etc. Extra work I concede, but MOAR is MOAR.

[In Exile]

ipgd wrote...
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.

No, that post was before mine. I knew that the post I was quoting was talking about textures (or rather, had a feeling).

But here is the issue:

When someone says "8 armours per character." I don't think they really mean "8 reskins of the same iconic armour" but rather "8 models."

Because although DA:O had something like 6 models, in theory, any character could wear all 6. 

[In Exile]

Willybot wrote...
How about this idea: assuming that there are 3 different 'levels' of armor (light, medium, and heavy) each companion has a generic appearance for each of the off-sets. i.e. plate and cloth for rogues, cloth and leather for warriors, etc. Extra work I concede, but MOAR is MOAR.

I like this idea. 3 models/character isn't a lot, consider Hawke gets at least 3 models. 

[rak72]

ipgd wrote...

rak72 wrote...

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).

So where do you draw the line? I'd say Fenris's tattoos are just as integral to his story and combat abilities, and I would find it just as jarring to see them disappear into a generic body model as I would to see a one-armed swordsman magically regrow his arm.

They could have designed Fenris without tattoos, sure -- which is exactly why I don't want them to have equipable armor. Given the choice between having a unique body model and a wildly mismatched body model for the generic armors, and designing characters so that there is no incongruency to begin with, they're going to do the latter (lest they invent an entirely new group of disgruntled people complaining about their immersion being ruined by unexplained shapeshifters). And that is effectively an entire dimension of character design and visual narrative removed from the table that I would find very unfortunate.

They could go so much further than what they've already done with the unique body models (and I will say they haven't very done much with it yet, beyond characters like Jack and Fenris, but they could). They could do something like a one-armed swordsman. I'd personally be disappointed if they let the technological constraints of equipable armor stop them from really pushing their visual character designs.

You can keep him in is iconic armor then.  His tatoos wern't that important to me.  I switched out his armor.  It didn't make a difference anyway because the tatoos were covered by the armor & I could still see them on his face.
Shale was a companion, she had her own type of armor that was only equipable by her.  People didn't complain about this.  If the party member is that outlandish, let them have their own thing.  If they are close to what exists, then let us have the optoion.  I can decide for myself what breaks my immersion or not.

[ipgd]

rak72 wrote...

You can keep him in is iconic armor then.  His tatoos wern't that important to me.  I switched out his armor.  It didn't make a difference anyway because the tatoos were covered by the armor & I could still see them on his face.

But... if you have your generic armor, Fenris would have never been designed with tattoos in the first place. Because then there would be just as many people complaining about having their immersion ruined.

And, again: where are they going to get this extra time and resources? What area do you suggest they should divert manpower and money away from in order to outfit every model in armor?

[Big_Chief]

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.

Just noticed this part, and I approve. It sounds a bit like Diablo 2, where equipping armor would alter the character's appearance, but what it was altered to was still distinct for that character, i.e. wearing chainmail would change a paladin's appearance differently than it would change a necromancer's appearance. Although it almost certainly wouldn't be as extreme as it was in Diablo 2, it sounds like a system that might work for companions going forward, as a way to provide visual diversity while maintaining strong iconic appearances. I am intrigued to hear more.

[Zanallen]

Gunderic wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Calling it "dress-up" might be a little condescending, but that is essentially what it is. With stats removed from the equation, all you are fighting for is the ability to dress your companions in different outfits of your choosing. Playing dress-up.

And what does that mean for people who support the currently proposed, purely aesthetical alternative outfit unlockables/trinket inventory system? 

My personal feelings on the matter is that I like having companions with unique body types. I don't give a damn what I have them wearing as long as they don't all look the same. Since I can't have unique body types if all armors have to be visably represented on every companion, I prefer the companions having a set look.

[Zanallen]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Oh, the silence is deafening. Good one !

Lol, that post had already been addressed three times.

[hoorayforicecream]

Filament wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Or someone with other uniquely identifying physical characteristics of the type that seem common among heroes. A physically transformed abomination. An awakened darkspawn. A golem.  A centaur. A man who is perpetually burning and on fire. A succubus with wings. A woman with a tail. A sentient suit of armor. A talking, floating skull. There's a lot of potential out there, but you shut the door on some of that if the designers are constrained to generic bodies.

Generic bodies evidently didn't rule out a golem companion, or dog. Probably wouldn't rule out the floating skull, person perpetually on fire, succubus, or sentient suit of armor either. Assuming they simply wouldn't be equippable in the conventional way.

No, it wouldn't. But enough unique-looking people and you're back to DA2, where you can't equip your companions because your armor won't work on them. I thought the point of the announcement was to not have to do that.

[rak72]

ipgd wrote...

rak72 wrote...

You can keep him in is iconic armor then.  His tatoos wern't that important to me.  I switched out his armor.  It didn't make a difference anyway because the tatoos were covered by the armor & I could still see them on his face.

But... if you have your generic armor, Fenris would have never been designed with tattoos in the first place. Because then there would be just as many people complaining about having their immersion ruined.

And, again: where are they going to get this extra time and resources? What area do you suggest they should divert manpower and money away from in order to outfit every model in armor?

They are going to design him with tatoos because they believe this is what is the most people want & it goes along with the story. People who don't want their immersion ruined will leave him in his iconic gear. A lot of people left Morrigan in her iconic robes because that is what they believed she belonged in.  Others, like myself, changed her out of them as soon as possable because they (ie. me) hated them.  I appreciated the option and I didn't care that her body type was different or that Lelina was talking about her "rags" while she was wearing apprentice robes.  If it did bother me, I wouldn't have changed her outfit.. I'm not asking them to divert to make every model in armor.  Just let us equip whatever already exists for that race & gender.

And also, please, let us unequip weapons.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

willholt wrote...

So basically the argument for the 'iconic' system has now been reduced to ' We need it in case we create a one-armed swordsman' ?

Wow...... rotflmao

I thought the argument was because iconic was easier to cosplay.

Wonder if there will be another competition after DA3 launches?

[RagingCyclone]

I'm catching up a little here and caught the business of the one-armed man reasoning. I suppose a lot of you don't realize that was a scenario already done in another game? KOTOR: The Sith Lords already did this similar thing with Kreia who starts the game with two hands and has one cut off. It's nothing new to achieve and been done...with a game that had generic bodies. Sorry Laidlaw...try another approach. While I like the new concept to a point...I still prefer having the ability to place armor on companions in quests like Deep Roads or Legacy.

[DreGregoire]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

willholt wrote...

So basically the argument for the 'iconic' system has now been reduced to ' We need it in case we create a one-armed swordsman' ?

Wow...... rotflmao

I thought the argument was because iconic was easier to cosplay.

Wonder if there will be another competition after DA3 launches?

And I thought Leliana had gotten to them and iconic was now all about shoes. *smirks*

[Atakuma]

RagingCyclone wrote...

I'm catching up a little here and caught the business of the one-armed man reasoning. I suppose a lot of you don't realize that was a scenario already done in another game? KOTOR: The Sith Lords already did this similar thing with Kreia who starts the game with two hands and has one cut off. It's nothing new to achieve and been done...with a game that had generic bodies. Sorry Laidlaw...try another approach. While I like the new concept to a point...I still prefer having the ability to place armor on companions in quests like Deep Roads or Legacy.

Missing a hand is hardly the same thing as missing an entire arm, really faulty logic there.

[Nerdage]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Filament wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Or someone with other uniquely identifying physical characteristics of the type that seem common among heroes. A physically transformed abomination. An awakened darkspawn. A golem.  A centaur. A man who is perpetually burning and on fire. A succubus with wings. A woman with a tail. A sentient suit of armor. A talking, floating skull. There's a lot of potential out there, but you shut the door on some of that if the designers are constrained to generic bodies.

Generic bodies evidently didn't rule out a golem companion, or dog. Probably wouldn't rule out the floating skull, person perpetually on fire, succubus, or sentient suit of armor either. Assuming they simply wouldn't be equippable in the conventional way.

No, it wouldn't. But enough unique-looking people and you're back to DA2, where you can't equip your companions because your armor won't work on them. I thought the point of the announcement was to not have to do that.

1/3 of the companions in KotOR couldn't wear traditional armour, I still think it was worthwhile to make the armour show on characters it applied to. Scrapping the whole system on the off chance that none of the companions are traditional humanoids seems like a remote contingency. If it turns out to be the case down the road that literally none of the companions are able to wear normal armour then I'd be happy to accept that in that case, but that's no reason to not show the armour on characters who can wear it now.

Modifié par nerdage, 30 août 2011 - 03:39 .

[Nerdage]

RagingCyclone wrote...

I'm catching up a little here and caught the business of the one-armed man reasoning. I suppose a lot of you don't realize that was a scenario already done in another game? KOTOR: The Sith Lords already did this similar thing with Kreia who starts the game with two hands and has one cut off. It's nothing new to achieve and been done...with a game that had generic bodies. Sorry Laidlaw...try another approach. While I like the new concept to a point...I still prefer having the ability to place armor on companions in quests like Deep Roads or Legacy.

Wasn't Kreia stuck with the unique robe, though? Seems like an argument for rather than against.

[RagingCyclone]

Atakuna...considering the game I mention is seven years ago...not really a stretch to from a hand to an arm. In the case of Kriea she kept the same robes because she was blocked from placing armor which is what Laidlaw's new style is talking about. (She had three different looks in that game) and Mandalore was loxked as well, but the rest of the companions including Visas could still be switched out ...which has been what a lot of people are asking for...a blending of both. What I am saying is that it has already been done...why not again?

[The_11thDoctor]

I dont care for this method honestly... I rather be able to put any armor I want on MY PARTY. I If I find a cool armor I like and want to put my entire team in the same gear(If they can wear it), I want to be able to do that. IF this idea you have is like my party having there on versions of the same armor I have one, but only equitable to them, that is slightly better and long as they all have as many armor choices as my main character has. EX. I have on Champion's armor and Isabella has it on as well, but it looks like something she'd wear due to her's having a skirt instead of pants, cleavage instead of a plate on the chest, etc, fine. Knee highs instead of normal boots, fine. No problems. But I refuse to buy another DA game with only 2 armors for my party set at timed intervals for when I can change their clothes and only once!

If you want them to have iconic looks, but make us happy, level with us and make a ton of armors for them we can change out as soon as we have the gold to do so. Not that timed nonsense... I might have blanked out during the explanation of what you're doing, but if it follows what I stated, Im happy.