1027 réponses à ce sujet

[AngryFrozenWater]

Mr Laidlaw, I don't like any of the ideas in your original posts. In my opinion the idea of having unique armor is cost reduction. If DA3 also has a non-human PC then that still applies. Armor in loot only has to fit the human only PC. So, it doesn't have to fit the companion races and genders. Marketing was able to sell that as "unique look" and a lot of us fell for that. The alternate look is yet another ME2 adaption. Introduce muskets into DA3 and there will be even less difference between those games. I do hope that these alternate armors aren't simply retextures of the basic ones.

Whats next? A modular armor for the PC with a couple of sliders for the color and shops where you can buy modular pieces? Oh, wait... Where have I seen that before?

I like the get rid of the companion armors and get proper armor back like in DA:O. Armor should be armor and have the proper function. Isabela's big breasts and beautiful legs shouldn't be considered armor. Am I afraid of changes? No. I want loot to have meaning and not find armor that only fits one person in the game world. That coincides with a system found in DA:O. Armor pieces that I find throughout the game and to which quests and lore are attached mean more to me than the silly abstract squares which "upgrade" the armor of the companion. The new system is a step backwards in this regard.

[Loain]

I like these goals.

Unlockable appearances should be available as soon as possible or all appearances should be available upon a replay. I say this because I would have loved to have Anders in his black outfit from the start.

[Sanguinerin]

I won't say that I'm thrilled because I prefer the Origins method above all of the others.

However, this certainly seems like a fair compromise. As long as my companions aren't trapped in a completely unchanging state (aesthetically), then I'll be much happier. Admittedly, the companion appearances were beautifully done. I love their outfits. It wasn't the looks themselves that caused me to be upset over the decision.

It was more that they felt to static in their appearances. It would have been lovely even to have combat appearances, and home base appearances. If Aveline approached Hawke at home, seeing her in her leathers (from the escape from Lothering portion), you know, a bit relaxed than the armor due to the far more casual situation, that would have helped out a lot.

It was really that no one, except for a romance option, shifted in the way that they looked at all.

Given this method laid out by Mr. Laidlaw, I'll be much more content. I can only hope that the different unlockable outfits aren't just re-colored versions of the same base, as it was in Mass Effect 2, although even that helped me feel some kind of difference. Changing the outfits between missions so that they weren't always in the exact same thing helped.

I think my only concern left with companions (and main characters) would be the weaponry now. I hated how I could never remove a staff from my mage's back, even in Kirkwall during the daylight. Since this thread covers visuals, would it be possible in the future to not have weapons equipped and have that show up visually as nothing attached to the character's back?

It's a bit jarring to put Hawke into non-robe mage outfits, only to have a staff obviously still attached to them.

[foo man chew]

I think they need o impliment this idea into a exspansion for da2 so people can fully understand what mikes talking about.It seems to me that people are on every side of this argument so this way we can try this idea out and give feedback to bioware to see if this is the direction the fans really want before da3 comes out.

[KLUME777]

Ughh... Laidlaw's idea sounds terrible.

Why can't you just use the system that KotOR had, where you can change and equip armour exactly like DAO, but they also have unique looking clothes, just like DA2?

That way you get the "iconic" look, but after an hour of gameplay that "iconic" look has now gotten old and boring (as it did in ME2 and DA2), but we can now swap them out, which is fun.















Pictured: The epitome of Follower armor/inventory system. It really is the best of both worlds, because it is exactly DAO's inventory system, except with changeable unique follower armour.


(Mods, please don't remove my images , they are a part of my argument)

Modifié par KLUME777, 30 août 2011 - 07:24 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Introduce muskets into DA3 and there will be even less difference between those games.

Blasphemy. Muskets only made Ultima even more awesome.

Whats next? A modular armor for the PC with a couple of sliders for the color and shops where you can buy modular pieces? Oh, wait... Where have I seen that before?

If people want to buy them and fork out money for them...it's in Bioware's interest to provide.

We don't have to partake.

I like the get rid of the companion armors and get proper armor back like in DA:O. Armor should be armor and have the proper function. Isabela's big breasts and beautiful legs shouldn't be considered armor. Am I afraid of changes? No. I want loot to have meaning and not find armor that only fits one person in the game world. That coincides with a system found in DA:O. Armor pieces that I find throughout the game and to which quests and lore are attached mean more to me than the silly abstract squares which "upgrade" the armor of the companion. The new system is a step backwards in this regard.

I am not as passionate about companion equipment as others here, but my dream system is:

Base iconic armour (like Morrigan's robes) that auto levels. 
We can apply looted/bought armour and accessories over the top and see that armour.
Introduce a 'hide armour' toggle (separate from the 'hide helmet' toggle) that shows only the base iconic armour while preserving the worn armour stats.
(Additionally, multiple base armours if we're going for multiple iconic costumes.)

Then people could choose. Everyone's happy except the programmers who have to figure out how to squeeze Isabela's breasts into dwarf-sized Legion of the Dead Armour.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 30 août 2011 - 08:13 .

[elearon1]

The idea of alternative, though still character specific appearances is a fantastic approach to the game. Especially since, it appears as though you'll still be able to apply armor to the characters - so you can give them the statistically best armor in the game - but allow them to maintain their customized looks. This is, to my mind, the best of both possible worlds. It lets those min/max item collectors directly effect the efficacy of their companions' clothing, without taking away the distinctive appearance which reflects the personalities of those characters.

I don't think I could ask for a better system.

[AngryFrozenWater]

rak72 wrote...

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.

Agreed. Shale and dog had different systems because it made sense. They needed to be unique. The changes to a character like Isabela didn't make sense. Not only did she now totally look different (skin color, face and body) she wasn't even able to use the same talents. All of a sudden she lost the Dualist talents (which she used to teach in DA:O) and was given a totally different talent tree instead. The uniqueness went too far.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 30 août 2011 - 09:12 .

[elearon1]

What a lot of you are failing to realize is that the NPCs are supposed to be *real people*. (insomuch as that can be achieved in a game) These people have personalities, tastes, preferences, and things they simply will not do - or wear. Limiting their costume choices reflects the fact that these people are not comfortable dressing in just any armor they pick up off some dead merc. They - as are any people who become "adventurers" - a unique lot and will not want to look just like every other armored knight. (unless that happens to be their thing)

[esper]

elearon1 wrote...

What a lot of you are failing to realize is that the NPCs are supposed to be *real people*. (insomuch as that can be achieved in a game) These people have personalities, tastes, preferences, and things they simply will not do - or wear. Limiting their costume choices reflects the fact that these people are not comfortable dressing in just any armor they pick up off some dead merc. They - as are any people who become "adventurers" - a unique lot and will not want to look just like every other armored knight. (unless that happens to be their thing)

 Well said, elearon1 and exactly what I believe too. Also Isabella still has the dual three, it is just tweaked to show her special flavor to it, because she has perfected it in her own direction. The warden was a newbie and thus didn't learn it exactly like Isabella know - The warden just picked up the basic.

Also when Aveline tells the seneschal that the vicount can mount his parade armour because she wear the armour of the common guard how can we defend that she allows Hawke to dress her up. 

[UpiH]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Introduce muskets into DA3 and there will be even less difference between those games.

Blasphemy. Muskets only made Ultima even more awesome.

Hell, yeah. Fred Flintstone had a car afterall. And a pet dino. An arquebus here and there is a must, of course. Didn't they demand them to be implemented in Salvatore's Drizzt series back in the 90's, why not in DA? Oh well, a Clarkian space elevator is a must as well as a coupla Stanislav Lem's antimatter throwers here and there.

A horse, a Jedi Council for a horse! At least a pair of pink ponies!

Pandering to every inane suggestion the fanbase comes up with might not necessarily be the best way to proceed. Many of us are not particulary interested in the way things were in some Ultima series or somesuch.

[Willybot]

elearon1 wrote...

What a lot of you are failing to realize is that the NPCs are supposed to be *real people*. (insomuch as that can be achieved in a game) These people have personalities, tastes, preferences, and things they simply will not do - or wear. Limiting their costume choices reflects the fact that these people are not comfortable dressing in just any armor they pick up off some dead merc. They - as are any people who become "adventurers" - a unique lot and will not want to look just like every other armored knight. (unless that happens to be their thing)

I understand the idea of flavor and what-not, but to use 'realism' in some situations but not others is a bit disjointed. I can command my companions to kill whomever the game-gods allow me to. If I want to take Aveline away from her guard duties and run around in useless circles for an indeterminant amount of time, she'll do it without complaint. If I equip Fenris with the game equivelant of a cardboard tube and have him charge every room solo for no gain other than to amuse myself with his pain, he'll do it. I can repeatedly do inane and self-destructive actions such as these but they draw the line at my telling them what color pants to wear?

I'm all for hand-waving such things since it's a game; such things aren't meant to be taken with much thought to realism. I simply find it silly to taut the 'personality' to cover for mechanical decisions then ignore it in other cases.

[Firky]

UpiH wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Introduce muskets into DA3 and there will be even less difference between those games.

Blasphemy. Muskets only made Ultima even more awesome.

Hell, yeah. Fred Flintstone had a car afterall. And a pet dino. An arquebus here and there is a must, of course. Didn't they demand them to be implemented in Salvatore's Drizzt series back in the 90's, why not in DA? Oh well, a Clarkian space elevator is a must as well as a coupla Stanislav Lem's antimatter throwers here and there.

A horse, a Jedi Council for a horse! At least a pair of pink ponies!

Pandering to every inane suggestion the fanbase comes up with might not necessarily be the best way to proceed. Many of us are not particulary interested in the way things were in some Ultima series or somesuch.

!!!

But an inexplicable firearm easter egg is RPG, man. (And it's not an "inane" suggestion in the slightest. It could be exactly the opposite if you consider it in the context of a humorous gesture that helps endear the old school RPG fan to the modern genre. Like pantaloons. A firearm probably wouldn't be actually useful. Just something fun to find as an easter egg, and be about the same level as an early bow or somesuch.)

[Savber100]

KLUME777 wrote...

Ughh... Laidlaw's idea sounds terrible.

Why can't you just use the system that KotOR had, where you can change and equip armour exactly like DAO, but they also have unique looking clothes, just like DA2?

That way you get the "iconic" look, but after an hour of gameplay that "iconic" look has now gotten old and boring (as it did in ME2 and DA2), but we can now swap them out, which is fun.

<snip images>

Pictured: The epitome of Follower armor/inventory system. It really is the best of both worlds, because it is exactly DAO's inventory system, except with changeable unique follower armour.


(Mods, please don't remove my images , they are a part of my argument)

Isn't that practically what Laidlaw said? I swore that's what Laidlaw meant... 

Like KOTOR, we will have alternate costumes in DA3 (think of it as the torso change in KOTOR which was usually the only armor part besides the head that made a visual difference).


That said, we can still equp different gloves or boots in which we have the stats but it just won't make a visual difference just like in KOTOR. 

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
"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." 

Edit: The only issues I can see is that theses clothes are UNLOCKABLES rather than stuff I can directly buy. THAT' is annoying since I would rather  buy them off of merchants etc rather than missing out on alternate costumes simply because I didn't get +45 friendship points or that I'm not romancing him/her

Modifié par Savber100, 30 août 2011 - 10:04 .

[UpiH]

Firky wrote...

But an inexplicable firearm easter egg is RPG, man. (And it's not an "inane" suggestion in the slightest. It could be exactly the opposite if you consider it in the context of a humorous gesture that helps endear the old school RPG fan to the modern genre. Like pantaloons. A firearm probably wouldn't be actually useful. Just something fun to find as an easter egg, and be about the same level as an early bow or somesuch.)

Yeah, those I can live with, no probs, even overpowered ones. The key word was "every".

[Firky]

UpiH wrote...

Firky wrote...

But an inexplicable firearm easter egg is RPG, man. (And it's not an "inane" suggestion in the slightest. It could be exactly the opposite if you consider it in the context of a humorous gesture that helps endear the old school RPG fan to the modern genre. Like pantaloons. A firearm probably wouldn't be actually useful. Just something fun to find as an easter egg, and be about the same level as an early bow or somesuch.)

Yeah, those I can live with, no probs, even overpowered ones. The key word was "every".

Oh God no. Every weapon as a firearm would suck.

(My impression of firearms in fantasy RPGs, which might be slightly wrong, is that there is always one, but only one.)

[KLUME777]

Savber100 wrote...

KLUME777 wrote...

Ughh... Laidlaw's idea sounds terrible.

Why can't you just use the system that KotOR had, where you can change and equip armour exactly like DAO, but they also have unique looking clothes, just like DA2?

That way you get the "iconic" look, but after an hour of gameplay that "iconic" look has now gotten old and boring (as it did in ME2 and DA2), but we can now swap them out, which is fun.

<snip images>

Pictured: The epitome of Follower armor/inventory system. It really is the best of both worlds, because it is exactly DAO's inventory system, except with changeable unique follower armour.


(Mods, please don't remove my images , they are a part of my argument)

Isn't that practically what Laidlaw said? I swore that's what Laidlaw meant... 

Like KOTOR, we will have alternate costumes in DA3 (think of it as the torso change in KOTOR which was usually the only armor part besides the head that made a visual difference).


That said, we can still equp different gloves or boots in which we have the stats but it just won't make a visual difference just like in KOTOR. 

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
"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." 

Edit: The only issues I can see is that theses clothes are UNLOCKABLES rather than stuff I can directly buy. THAT' is annoying since I would rather  buy them off of merchants etc rather than missing out on alternate costumes simply because I didn't get +45 friendship points or that I'm not romancing him/her

It is completely different. One being that equiping armour makes no visual difference on companions other than stats, and that is beyond all levels of stupid.

And Alternate costumes is not enough, the expansive inventory of DAO and Kotor is the best system, just simply give them unique clothes like Kotor did in DAO's system and have it scale with you.

[UpiH]

Firky wrote...


Oh God no. Every weapon as a firearm would suck.

(My impression of firearms in fantasy RPGs, which might be slightly wrong, is that there is always one, but only one.)

You're probably right. I was reminiscing the Baldur's Gate franchise and the Big Metal Unit therein. The armor was pretty clumsy, I never used it, and the weapon was just like that 10th level spell, whatchamacallit, Energy Plates, Discs?. At any rate, fun to discover it and not very easy since it required both games and all.

[FieryDove]

KLUME777 wrote...

It is completely different. One being that equiping armour makes no visual difference on companions other than stats, and that is beyond all levels of stupid.

And Alternate costumes is not enough, the expansive inventory of DAO and Kotor is the best system, just simply give them unique clothes like Kotor did in DAO's system and have it scale with you.

Many people ignored the statement it was an exception not the rule that companions would change looks over ten years and were disappointed. What it sounded like from the OP we might get a few recolors. Not several new outfits per companion. That would add up to lots of zots spent and mostly negate the purpose to begin with.

Also I had a different impression how upgrades would be for companions from everything that was said about DA2. The running around collecting upgrades each act can get annoying when one finds they didn't mean much for the most part. +2% critical damage or something is one used on a few. The least of things should have been 4 rune slots for all companions, some only got 1.

Until it gets more *set in stone* no one should get hopes up.

[Elhanan]

This thread seems to prove that not only has everyone got an opinion, but that there are still some that have to offer it without much class; like Bill Cosby mused, "steak served on a garbage lid"

[astreqwerty]

i dont want to play sims...the wardrobe part was terrible really..i want fully customizable armors and the fact that you cant provide betrays lack of polish in future game

[Elhanan]

Fandango9641 wrote...

One need only browse player screenshots for Origins or count the number of mods currently available for both Dragon Age games to see just how much joy is derived from visual customisation. Besides, given the evidence of Dragon Age 2, I neither want, nor trust, Bioware to decide upon the look of my party for me. I mean, if I don’t want to have my party adventure barefoot in black panties I shouldn’t have to right? Don’t get me wrong, I see the value (and appeal to some) of ‘Iconic’ characters, but happen to value the power and choice of Origins even more. So, please let us have both Mike.

Dunno; have fewer screen shots from DA2 due to lack of Killing blows and auto-posting to accounts, and not because of any said proof.
 
And I do not mind seeing Iconic characters if it helps insure we get to see Ser Jory go through the Joining fully clothed.

[Sabariel]

elearon1 wrote...

What a lot of you are failing to realize is that the NPCs are supposed to be *real people*. (insomuch as that can be achieved in a game) These people have personalities, tastes, preferences, and things they simply will not do - or wear. Limiting their costume choices reflects the fact that these people are not comfortable dressing in just any armor they pick up off some dead merc. They - as are any people who become "adventurers" - a unique lot and will not want to look just like every other armored knight. (unless that happens to be their thing)

Except, ya know, they're still puppets. Self-sacrifice isn't exactly in Isabela's vocabulary and yet I can make her run off and get eaten by a dragon, serving as a distraction so the rest of my group can flank said dragon.