1027 réponses à ce sujet

[Gunderic]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

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.

Neverwinter Nights 2 had a lot of character model diversity with 'generic bodies': creatures with tails, men burning on fire, people made out of earth and stone. The only 'downside' was that people couldn't cosplay their favourite character as well, I guess.

Modifié par Gunderic, 30 août 2011 - 12:23 .

[Saintthanksgiving]

So basically,

People can equip armor, but won't get to see it on their companions... so basically no change from DA2.

The set armor remains... but now you don't have to sleep with someone to get a change of clothes.

I do not see how this changed anything from DA2. Basically it is patronizing the stat crunchers, ignoring the people who wanted to build their own experience, and protecting the ability to sell additional outfits as DLC.

This sounds like DA3 is just going to be a more polished DA2. Not interested.

[Gunderic]

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

So basically,

People can equip armor, but won't get to see it on their companions... so basically no change from DA2.

The set armor remains... but now you don't have to sleep with someone to get a change of clothes.

I do not see how this changed anything from DA2. Basically it is patronizing the stat crunchers, ignoring the people who wanted to build their own experience, and protecting the ability to sell additional outfits as DLC.

This sounds like DA3 is just going to be a more polished DA2. Not interested.

Definitely not. BioWare is willing to 'compromise [RPG elements]' by giving us more trinket slots and extra alternate costume unlockables, like in Assassin's Creed 2/Prince of Persia. We should all be grateful. 

[Sith Grey Warden]

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

So basically,

People can equip armor, but won't get to see it on their companions... so basically no change from DA2.

The set armor remains... but now you don't have to sleep with someone to get a change of clothes.

I do not see how this changed anything from DA2. Basically it is patronizing the stat crunchers, ignoring the people who wanted to build their own experience, and protecting the ability to sell additional outfits as DLC.

This sounds like DA3 is just going to be a more polished DA2. Not interested.

It's different because you can change the stats of their armour.

Also, seeing as they haven't tried to sell additional outfits as DLC for DA2, what makes you think they would for DA3?

Modifié par Sith Grey Warden, 30 août 2011 - 12:41 .

[Sith Grey Warden]

I think this is a pretty good compromise. I was hoping it would go more in the Morrigan direction where if you choose to equip non-unique armour, you get a different look, but this way we do still get stats customization. The system worked well in KOTOR II, and here it would be improved by allowing the customization of appearance separately. I do hope, though, that the additional outfits are not just re-skins like ME2.

[Nerevar-as]

I´d like to have variants of the companion appearence depending on what kind of armor we give them. Differences depending on wheter s leather, mail or full plate for instance, with "distinctive" default appearence changing depending on that.

[RussianSpy27]

Mr. Laidlaw,

Thanks about your explanation about BioWare's wish to retain iconic appearances. They are fun and certainly have a merit. I don't understand though what was so wrong and unacceptable about the realistic portrayal in Origins where armor could be displayed? Why can't give players a choice to have the iconic outfit as one of outfit choices, so players can choose whether or not to be in the iconic outfit and the one that customizes appearance?

Is it such a great drain on memory or graphics to do that? Is it such a scary concept for people who didn't play RPG (I fail to comprehend this one)? I honestly don't understand. It worked very well in Origins.

What's so evil about being able to see the armor in a realistic way again in addition to their regular attire?

[Cohesion]

I like the idea of something akin to Shepard's armor cabinet in ME2, in that you should be able to buy the armor piecemeal, and then mix and match the pieces you'd like to see your companion wear. As long as each piece isn't massively under-or-overpowered -in that you're not tied to a specific set simply because they're an improvement over the stats of another - it could work nicely, as it would allow the developers to design the items with a unique style but also allow them to retain the flavour of a follower's 'iconic' appearance. If the player doesn't choose to implement any of the new items, have it so their default appearance is their basic, 'iconic' look.

Modifié par Cohesion, 30 août 2011 - 02:09 .

[In Exile]

RussianSpy27 wrote...

Mr. Laidlaw,

Thanks about your explanation about BioWare's wish to retain iconic appearances. They are fun and certainly have a merit. I don't understand though what was so wrong and unacceptable about the realistic portrayal in Origins where armor could be displayed? Why can't give players a choice to have the iconic outfit as one of outfit choices, so players can choose whether or not to be in the iconic outfit and the one that customizes appearance?

Here is the issue: The statistical costumization and power-gaming.

1)Let's say you do it like KoTOR, and have one outfit. In KoTOR, the clothing had no stats and no armour. If you wanted to keep an iconic look, you had to suffer a gameplay penalty that became increasingly major as time went on.

2) Even if you add stats (and make the item level-up like DA2) it will always be suboptimal for at least a few builds (or possibly all of them, depending on the stats). 

As I mentioned before, this is not a compromise between the two positions: this is just one side getting everything they want (exactly like DA:O!) and the other side getting a bone thrown (here, it's one item, deal with it if you don't like the gameplay consequences). 

That's not to say that what Mr. Laidlaw is offering is a good compromise. Or even a compromise at all, because the OP was only about increasing statistical customization. But these counter-offers designed to be compromises absolutely aren't.

Is it such a great drain on memory or graphics to do that? Is it such a scary concept for people who didn't play RPG (I fail to comprehend this one)? I honestly don't understand. It worked very well in Origins.

What do you mean?

DA:O had no iconic equipment. It had very generic equipment (and even sillier) armour that literally changed the breast size of the women who wore it (just look at the Chasind armour of magical boob growth on Morrigain). 

The actual issue is cost:

To make a custom model, it's expensive. DA:O only had 6 armour models, and that meant a tremendous amount of work. 

With Bioware's increased focused on cinematics, you have to test every item on every character of every size,which means all the armour has to look the same (that's why Hawke's armour was more generic aside from the Champion's armour) to make sure you don't have weird clipping or other problems. If there are, that means your designer has to go back and fix the armour. That has to be tested for every character and each model, while there are other game features to be 

What's so evil about being able to see the armor in a realistic way again in addition to their regular attire?

We're talking about realistic armour in a game where getting doused in fire while wearing metal doesn't immediately result in:

"OH GOD IT'S MELTING MY FACE GOD AHGGHGHGHSL...... (you are dead)". 

But seriously, what do you mean by realism? 

[In Exile]

Sith Grey Warden wrote...

I think this is a pretty good compromise. I was hoping it would go more in the Morrigan direction where if you choose to equip non-unique armour, you get a different look, but this way we do still get stats customization. The system worked well in KOTOR II, and here it would be improved by allowing the customization of appearance separately. I do hope, though, that the additional outfits are not just re-skins like ME2.

I'm curious, why? All the armour in DA:O was a reskin.

[Ramus Quaritch]

Gunderic wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

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.

Neverwinter Nights 2 had a lot of character model diversity with 'generic bodies': creatures with tails, men burning on fire, people made out of earth and stone. The only 'downside' was that people couldn't cosplay their favourite character as well, I guess.

THIS X 1000.  I couldn't agree more. Maybe if the Dragon Age games had a longer development cycle they could have more unique bodies while still allowing players to customize the companions' outfits/armors.

[Saintthanksgiving]

If there was a real distinction between heavy, med, light armors... that type of system might not be horrendous... I don't think that mike laidlaw made that distinction though

I think the point he was making is that isabella will look like the static isabella no matter what color you decide she will wear.  They took everyones complaints about feeling disconnected from the storytelling and basically said:
"here ya go, you can pick the color of her shirt... "

Modifié par Saintthanksgiving, 30 août 2011 - 02:24 .

[Yrkoon]

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

So basically,

People can equip armor, but won't get to see it on their companions... so basically no change from DA2.

The set armor remains... but now you don't have to sleep with someone to get a change of clothes.

I do not see how this changed anything from DA2.

Because it's not a change at all.   It's not even a reasonable  compromise.

It's like telling us that  a Warrior  will now be able to equip 2 weapons,  but that combat will still show that warrior swinging  one giant 2 handed sword. 

If this is what they mean by "encorporating the best of both games", then color me finished with  the DA franchise.  It's one thing to put out a  mediocre game, and quite another to  constantly  insult our intelligence at every turn  by claiming to be  making changes  but then refusing to deviate  one iota from that mediocre game's formula.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 30 août 2011 - 02:43 .

[In Exile]

Yrkoon wrote...
Because it's not a change at all

That's false. You now get to alter statistics and you can use all of the loot.

It's not even a compromise.

I don't think it was meant to be.... but let's pretend it was.

Why not? Because it isn't close enough to your taste, it isn't a compromise?

If this is what they mean by "encorporating the best of both games", then color me finished with  the DA franchise.  It's one thing to put out a  mediocre game, and quite another to  constantly  insult our intelligence at every turn  by claiming to be listening to our feedback  but then refusing to deviate  one iota from that mediocre game's formula.

Dude, what? 

Right now, you have all the statistical customization from DA:O. At least, in theory. Everything works exactly the same. You have, again in theory, more visual customization than DA2.

The visual aspect is still inspired by DA2, and the statistical aspect is entirely DA:O.

That's way more in DA:O's direction than just adding things in from both games. But somehow, if it's not a middle finger to people who like iconic looks, it's not good enough, and not even a compromise? 

How exactly is this not listening to feedback? How is this insulting intelligence, when the feedback was:

Fans: "It sucks we can't equip followers!"

Bioware: Here is full customization, characters can equip everything!

Fans: "It's insulting because it's not identical to DA:O, so no one is listening to us!"

Look, I tend to like your post and respect you, but this is silly. It's one thing to dislike a direction, but outright spinning things and saying things that aren't true is uncalled for. 

Modifié par In Exile, 30 août 2011 - 02:48 .

[Siven80]

While i do like the sounds of the changes, I would still like to see some companion specific item drops and more importantly, much better accessories (rings etc)

[aries1001]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

MY OFFER TO SUBMIT WORK BY E-MAIL IS STILL VALID. I'LL SIGN NDAs AND EVERYTHING. MIKE, CALL ME.

Why don't you just write an application and submit your work as part of the email ?

[element eater]

In Exile wrote...
That's not to say that what Mr. Laidlaw is offering is a good compromise. Or even a compromise at all, because the OP was only about increasing statistical customization. But these counter-offers designed to be compromises absolutely aren't.

imo thats the crux of the problem what mike is offering isnt any kind of compromise its just a variation to the current system. Unfortunately, many are seeing it as an attempt to compromise as a result of which it naturaly seems like a failure. Atleast thats how i feel if it actualy is an attempt at compromise i would be bitterly dissapointed.

while its probably unworkable i was wondering why not simply have a toggle in the inventory, Which allowed u to keep unique appearance when equiping new gear and thus only getting the statistical change or to use the appearance of whatever had been equipped accepting that  by doing so u might have some issues such as boob shrinkage and growth, tatoo loss etc.

[syllogi]

Yrkoon wrote...

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

So basically,

People can equip armor, but won't get to see it on their companions... so basically no change from DA2.

The set armor remains... but now you don't have to sleep with someone to get a change of clothes.

I do not see how this changed anything from DA2.

Because it's not a change at all.   It's not even a reasonable  compromise.

It's like telling us that  a Warrior  will now be able to equip 2 weapons,  but that combat will still show that warrior swinging  one giant 2 handed sword. 

If this is what they mean by "encorporating the best of both games", then color me finished with  the DA franchise.  It's one thing to put out a  mediocre game, and quite another to  constantly  insult our intelligence at every turn  by claiming to be  making changes  but then refusing to deviate  one iota from that mediocre game's formula.

This is what is infuriating and depressing me right now.

There is no reason to continue purchasing products that I do not find entertaining.  This ridiculous new implementation of the SAME system from DA2 is symptomatic of the underlying problem; Mike Laidlaw wants to take away choice, he doesn't want to make an RPG, and he's telling us we're unreasonable when we ask for RPG elements.

So I should expect waves of enemies falling from the sky, heavily recycled areas, overly simplified, unfun crafting, insulting FedEx quests, and all pretenses of giving the player choice taken away in DA3...BUT, you'll do it all in new and different ways!  Great!  I'll pass.

[Yrkoon]

While I'd think this should go without saying, part of the Beauty of  a good party based RPG IS  that you don't have to powergame if you don't want to (ie. basing your choices on stats alone).  You could, for example, equip your companions with gear based on aesthetics.  imagine that.

I did a playthru of DA:O once and equipped my warden, and his  3 traveling  companions  All with Dalish armor for the duration of the Bracialian forest quest.  Just for the hell of it.  just  for the theme of things.

But forget about that.  We're now being told that one of the ideas being bandied about is phantom equips?  That you can put, say,  a set of black metal armor on a companion and it will be INVISIBLE, if that companion's 'Iconic' looks  is, say,  a green speedo.

Ridiculous.

You know what, Bioware?  Do what you want.  Make a game YOU'D love to play.  I'll go play something else.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 30 août 2011 - 03:04 .

[In Exile]

element eater wrote...
imo thats the crux of the problem what mike is offering isnt any kind of compromise its just a variation to the current system. Unfortunately, many are seeing it as an attempt to compromise as a result of which it naturaly seems like a failure. Atleast thats how i feel if it actualy is an attempt at compromise i would be bitterly dissapointed.

This isn't an issue where compromise even makes sense. The two views are opposites. There's no middle ground. 

What Mike offered is this:

1) More visual customization, in that each companion has (an unsaid) amount of multiple outfits.
2) Full statistical customization, just like in DA:O.

So what we have is this:

Statistical: Identical to DA:O.
Visual: More varied than DA2.

You can try to oversimplify it and say that "under the hood" it is identical to DA:O, and superficially it is a fix of what DA2 failed to offer. 

Or you can look at it as completely capitulating on one side to recreate DA:O, and making an effort to recapture the sentinent of DA:O on another.

And the response? That this doesn't even ceede ground. It boggles the mind, honestly.

while its probably unworkable i was wondering why not simply have a toggle in the inventory, Which allowed u to keep unique appearance when equiping new gear and thus only getting the statistical change or to use the appearance of whatever had been equipped accepting that  by doing so u might have some issues such as boob shrinkage and growth, tatoo loss etc.

There are two problems with this:

1) Cost. You have to design all these models.

2) Instability in the game. Sure, you might be happy knowing you get this feature which is unbalanced that you really care about. But not all gamers are you. Some gamers would be pissed off that a feature is implemented while broken. 

Here is a hypothetical statement on something else:

"I want more quests. I don't see why Bioware can't just re-use some areas in the game to give us more quests. I don't care if the game has no unique areas, and they all pretty much look the same. As long as I get the next game in 2 yrs and it has LOTS of content, I'm 100% okay with re-use."

Well, we all saw how that turned out. I'm not saying that what you're suggesting here is the same. But trying to put a feature that isn't 100% super optimized is rolling the dice on a crazy scale. 

Modifié par In Exile, 30 août 2011 - 03:08 .

[In Exile]

Yrkoon wrote...

While I'd think this should go without saying, part of the Beauty of  a good party based RPG IS  that you don't have to powergame if you don't want to (ie. basing your choices on stats alone). You could, for example, equip your companions with gear based on aesthetics.  imagine that.

And what if I want to power game and have aesthetic gear? Why does your preference somehow matter more than mine? 

Not to mention that this fails to address the fact that you were making things up. It's great that you're dodging the issue, but dude, I don't care for dishonesty. It's one thing to absolutely hate a feature, but at least man-up about what you said. 

I did a playthru of DA:O once and equipped my warden, and his  3 traveling  companions  All with Dalish armor for the duration of the Bracialian forest quest.  Just for the hell of it.  just  for the theme of things.

And that's awesome for you. But this still doesn't address the central issue with the system: why should people who like iconic looks have to suffer, instead of people who like seeing the equipment change when they change parts ( I refuse to say visual customization, because the proposed system does allow for visual costumization - just not in the way you seem to favour)?

But forget about that.  We're now being told that one of the ideas being bandied about is phantom equips?  That you can put, say,  a set of black metal armor on a companion and it will be INVISIBLE, if that companion's 'Iconic looks  is a green speedo.

Ridiculous.

It's almost as ridiculous as you being dishonest about a feature so you can score a point on an online forum. 

It's the system that, funny enough, JRPGs have been used for years. Decades, even. And even RPGs used them back in the day with sprites. 

It's what Planescape Torment did. 

[Elhanan]

Just because some may forget here on the back pages (or seem to): *partial quote*

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.

Modifié par Elhanan, 30 août 2011 - 03:11 .

[Yrkoon]

In Exile wrote...

element eater wrote...
imo thats the crux of the problem what mike is offering isnt any kind of compromise its just a variation to the current system. Unfortunately, many are seeing it as an attempt to compromise as a result of which it naturaly seems like a failure. Atleast thats how i feel if it actualy is an attempt at compromise i would be bitterly dissapointed.

This isn't an issue where compromise even makes sense.

What Mike offered is this:

1) More visual customization, in that each companion has (an unsaid) amount of multiple outfits.
2) Full statistical customization, just like in DA:O.

So what we have is this:

Statistical: Identical to DA:O.
Visual: More varied than DA2.

I'm not impressed.  Seriously.     Because I know what CAN, and HAS been done.   Starting us off with complete companion gear  customization (DA:O), and then taking it ALL away (DA2), and then giving us back  some (very) limited scraps of customization (DA3?)... IS not  a reasonable compromise.


 The Morrigan  method is a reasonable compromise..  She had  Iconic gear.    And the player could remove it if he/she wants.  Simple.  Effective.  satisfies both camps.

What am I missing?  Oh yeah, I forgot.  The Morrigan method is too expensive for  our cut-scene artists.    Fine.  I'll return the favor:  DA3 will be  too expensive for me  to bother purchasing.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 30 août 2011 - 03:16 .

[rak72]

What Yrkoon said