1027 réponses à ce sujet

[Zanallen]

vania z wrote...

That means that for every armor mesh, they would have to do a pass for human males, human females, elf males, elf females, dwarf males, dwarf females, companion 1, companion 2, companion 3, companion 4, companion 5, companion 6, companion 7, companion 8, and companion 9. That is 15 passes for every 1 armor mesh. That is why companions have generic bodies under the DAO method.

Not 15. It would be 15 if every companion is warrior. Also, it can be done partially automatically(and with good algorithm absolutely automatically).
"no tattooed characters" - since when tattoos require special mesh?

In Origins, every companion could wear every armor. So 15.

[ipgd]

vania z wrote...

Not 15. It would be 15 if every companion is warrior.

If you want to make the Morrigan in Massive Armor guys cry, sure.

Also, it can be done partially automatically(and with good algorithm absolutely automatically).

Go write it for them

"no tattooed characters" - since when tattoos require special mesh?

Then every skin-revealing armor would require a special texture, which may be even more time consuming than mesh resizing.

[vania z]

Zanallen wrote...


In Origins, every companion could wear every armor. So 15.

In NWN every race could wear any armor and it didn't require 6 races * 2 genders * 2 body types models. It can be and is done automatically. 

[Zanallen]

errant_knight wrote...

Disappointing. Unless I misunderstand this, it still means that most of what we find in the game outside a few items from specialized quests will only be usable the the PC or invisible--far more DA2 than DA:O. I'm not surprised, though. My expectations are that while changes made to DA:3 to placate those who preferred Origins gameplay will be as minimal as possible and largely a veneer rather than substantive. This stilll removes most of the fun of the inventory.

Stat customization - Completely DA:O
Loot use - Completely DA:O
Looks - DA2, though with more choices that the player can choose between. Basically a compromise between DA2 and DA:O

So...How is this far more DA2 than DA:O?

[vania z]

ipgd wrote...

Go write it for them

Then every skin-revealing armor would require a special texture, which may be even more time consuming than mesh resizing.

1 - I already have job, thanks. 
2 - it would not. 
Are you familiar with programming and modelling at all? Which education do you have?

[andar91]

Thank you for telling us this, Mike. It sounds good to me!

[Yrkoon]

ipgd wrote...
No.

Let's say they bring back human, elf and dwarf races for DA3 and have 9 humanoid companions, each with his or her own "unique body shape" (technically completely equivalent to having an entirely new race/sex).

That means that for every armor mesh, they would have to do a pass for human males, human females, elf males, elf females, dwarf males, dwarf females, companion 1, companion 2, companion 3, companion 4, companion 5, companion 6, companion 7, companion 8, and companion 9. That is 15 passes for every 1 armor mesh. That is why companions have generic bodies under the DAO method.

If you are using the DAO method, that necessarily means (unless you are expending a gigantic amount of resources on this) that all companions will have the same generic body model when outside of their "iconic gear". This also means that unless you want to have shapeshifting shenanigans going on every time you move a companion out of their iconic set into a generic armor set, their bodies have to be built around the generic body model for their sex/race (like Morrigan's gear was). This means no skinny characters, no tattooed characters, no characters with missing limbs, etc..

This is where I have my problem. I do not want the artists to be constrained by having to design around the generic body model. I want that dimension of visual character design to be open to them and I want them to take it much further than what they've already done in ME2 and DA2. If generic body models come back, the only design liberties they will be able to take are facial designs and clothing designs, which I'm sure you don't care about, but I and the people who actually care about this broader subject do.

Ok, I understand.


Then a reasonable compromise, would be the Morrigan method.  Iconic gear  for a companion would conform with the  specific body style  of that companion....  THEN, give the rest of us the option to swap out that gear, with the full understanding that the companion's  unique body shape will revert back to Generic human/generic elf/genericdwarf, if we decide to put other armor on that companion.

I don't at all see the problem with this.    unless your side disapproves of the rest of us  changing  what our companions look like in our own game?

Modifié par Yrkoon, 30 août 2011 - 04:27 .

[hoorayforicecream]

vania z wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Go write it for them

Then every skin-revealing armor would require a special texture, which may be even more time consuming than mesh resizing.

1 - I already have job, thanks. 
2 - it would not. 
Are you familiar with programming and modelling at all? Which education do you have?

Too bad. If you could actually write an auto-resizing algorithm that took rigging into account and actually looked good 100% of the time, you'd probably be a very very rich person. Right now, the only way to make new meshes work right is to have an artist hand scale them and test them against each rig they are scaling them to. Otherwise you end up with animation and vertex issues that need to be fixed by hand which takes about as long as just resizing them the right way to begin with.

[vania z]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Too bad. If you could actually write an auto-resizing algorithm that took rigging into account and actually looked good 100% of the time, you'd probably be a very very rich person. Right now, the only way to make new meshes work right is to have an artist hand scale them and test them against each rig they are scaling them to. Otherwise you end up with animation and vertex issues that need to be fixed by hand which takes about as long as just resizing them the right way to begin with.

So, you are sayng that in NWN they made 24 models for each armor and in Evil Islands they had, well, hundreds of meshes, since you could tweak height and width of player model? 

[ipgd]

vania z wrote...

In NWN every race could wear any armor and it didn't require 6 races * 2 genders * 2 body types models. It can be and is done automatically.

NWN models are pretty low res/poly. Using an algorithm for models like DAO's would introduce an interesting level of distortion that would probably be more noticable for a game not released in 2002.

vania z wrote...

2 - it would not.
Are you familiar with programming and modelling at all? Which education do you have?

I know how DAO's engine presently works, which is complete body substitution with generic meshes/textures. Rewriting their engine would probably also be pretty time consuming.

[Maconbar]

vania z wrote...

That means that for every armor mesh, they would have to do a pass for human males, human females, elf males, elf females, dwarf males, dwarf females, companion 1, companion 2, companion 3, companion 4, companion 5, companion 6, companion 7, companion 8, and companion 9. That is 15 passes for every 1 armor mesh. That is why companions have generic bodies under the DAO method.

Not 15. It would be 15 if every companion is warrior. Also, it can be done partially automatically(and with good algorithm absolutely automatically).
"no tattooed characters" - since when tattoos require special mesh?

why would the companion's class matter?

[Zanallen]

vania z wrote...

In NWN every race could wear any armor and it didn't require 6 races * 2 genders * 2 body types models. It can be and is done automatically. 

Really? So the armors just magically appear and there is no work required in making them and fitting them to the models? It is just automatic. Wow, that is some crazy technology.

[vania z]

Maconbar wrote...

why would the companion's class matter?

Because you cant put rogues armor on mage in dragon age 2? 

[vania z]

Zanallen wrote...


Really? So the armors just magically appear and there is no work required in making them and fitting them to the models? It is just automatic. Wow, that is some crazy technology.

Are you programmer or 3d modeller? If not, than it is magic for you. 

[Maconbar]

vania z wrote...

Maconbar wrote...

why would the companion's class matter?

Because you cant put rogues armor on mage in dragon age 2? 

But you could in DA:O and that is the system many want to return.

[In Exile]

Yrkoon wrote...

I'm not impressed.  Seriously.   

Still trying to cover up the fact that you just made things up to prove your point?

I'm not dropping this. You tried to lie to make a point. You're still playing the victim. That's not cool.

 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.

We didn't have complete customization. We had the choice between universal presets. That's all that DA:O was. Universal presets with locked in statistics. 

DA:2 is giving us individual presets with the ability to customize those statistics for all party NPCs, and presets with fixed statistics for the PC. 

Spare me the victimization. 

But keep lying. I suddenly respect you a lot less, seing how you just make things up about features you don't like to prove your point. 

 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.

No. The Morrigain method is the middle finger. You getting everything you want doesn't make it a compromise.

Morrigain's starter gear is inferior mage gear, and gets progressively weaker as you advance in the game. You can get an upgrade... but only if you kill Flemeth. What if you don't want to? Why do you have to go through a boss battle to get better gear?  What about all the time between killing Flemeth and the start of the game?

If you want to call that a compromise, then what Mike Laidlaw offered is just as fair of a compromise, with the scales tipped the other way.

Why is your preference for visual customization somehow more deserving of anythign than mine? You keep dodging that to play the victim.

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.

No. That method is cheaper. But again, go play the victim and wax poetically about your suffering. Oh, and make up more facts. That's always respectable. 

Modifié par In Exile, 30 août 2011 - 04:34 .

[Zanallen]

vania z wrote...

Are you programmer or 3d modeller? If not, than it is magic for you. 

Are you? Cause you are being refuted by people whose opinion I actually trust on this matter.

[esper]

Yrkoon wrote...

ipgd wrote...
No.

Let's say they bring back human, elf and dwarf races for DA3 and have 9 humanoid companions, each with his or her own "unique body shape" (technically completely equivalent to having an entirely new race/sex).

That means that for every armor mesh, they would have to do a pass for human males, human females, elf males, elf females, dwarf males, dwarf females, companion 1, companion 2, companion 3, companion 4, companion 5, companion 6, companion 7, companion 8, and companion 9. That is 15 passes for every 1 armor mesh. That is why companions have generic bodies under the DAO method.

If you are using the DAO method, that necessarily means (unless you are expending a gigantic amount of resources on this) that all companions will have the same generic body model when outside of their "iconic gear". This also means that unless you want to have shapeshifting shenanigans going on every time you move a companion out of their iconic set into a generic armor set, their bodies have to be built around the generic body model for their sex/race (like Morrigan's gear was). This means no skinny characters, no tattooed characters, no characters with missing limbs, etc..

This is where I have my problem. I do not want the artists to be constrained by having to design around the generic body model. I want that dimension of visual character design to be open to them and I want them to take it much further than what they've already done in ME2 and DA2. If generic body models come back, the only design liberties they will be able to take are facial designs and clothing designs, which I'm sure you don't care about, but I and the people who actually care about this broader subject do.

Ok, I understand.


Then a reasonable compromise, would be the Morrigan method.  Iconic gear  for a companion would conform with the  specific body style  of that companion....  THEN, give the rest of us the option to swap out that gear, with the full understanding that the companion's  unique body shape will revert back to Generic human/generic elf/genericdwarf, if we decide to put other armor on that companion.

I don't at all see the problem with this.    unless your side disapproves of the rest of us  changing  what our companions look like in our own game?

As far as I understand ipg it would be a problem if say the character has lyrium tattoes or say missing a limp. Or are you fine with character growing limps and losing thing carved into their flesh?  Also A da:o Zevran was supposed to have tattoes on his whole body. I didn't see them. I would much rather had see those tattoes than be able to place him in medium armour if I was so inclined

[ipgd]

Yrkoon wrote...

Ok, I understand.


Then a reasonable compromise, would be the Morrigan method.  Iconic gear  for a companion would conform with the  specific body style  of that companion....  THEN, give the rest of us the option to swap out that gear, with the full understanding that the companion's  unique body shape will revert back to Generic human/generic elf/genericdwarf, if we decide to put other armor on that companion.

I don't at all see the problem with this.    unless your side disapproves of the rest of us  changing  what our companions look like in our own game?

The problem with this is the people who would be upset by aforementioned shapeshifting shenanigans.

I never would have anticipated that people would care so much about something like, say, reused enviroments, but there you go. Legions of people who get very angry about something I would have an incredibly hard time caring less about.

The only way to get this would be modding, probably, where Bioware would not be subject to the blame for the incongruencies. And I imagine some brave soul will do the job for DA3, anyway, so you'd get this after a few months if you really care about it.

[In Exile]

Yrkoon wrote...

How would it not work for, say a warrior? They *could* have given Alistair (for example) an Iconic outfit. Or Sten. 

And how do you handle that? Does Alistair start with gear that has +4 to STR and +2 Con and 42 armour? Does he get plate that's weaker than every random drop of plate you find? Suddenly, your power-curve is b0rked. 

And Morrigan's outfit (expecially the one you get after killing flemeth) is perfectly relevant even on nightmare.

Yeah, except for the whole killing Flemeth part. 

[vania z]

Zanallen wrote...

Are you? Cause you are being refuted by people whose opinion I actually trust on this matter.

Studied it for year closely and check on new technology rather regulary. 

[hoorayforicecream]

Yrkoon wrote...

Then a reasonable compromise, would be the Morrigan method.  Iconic gear  for a companion would conform with the  specific body style  of that companion....  THEN, give the rest of us the option to swap out that gear, with the full understanding that the companion's  unique body shape will revert back to Generic human/generic elf/genericdwarf, if we decide to put other armor on that companion.

I don't at all see the problem with this.    unless your side disapproves of the rest of us  changing  what our companions look like in our own game?

If you do this, you lock out the possibility of designing around unique physical attributes, and having characters remark on things that make no sense. I'll go back to my one-armed swordsman as the example. Let's say they decide to add a one-armed swordsman as a follower. You can't use generic human armor with him, because the generic models have both arms. So you need to do special meshes just for him. If you lock him into only One-Armed-Armors, then you've got another problem - now he can't wear any other armor at all, and it's the DA2 no-customization problem all over again.

It may fly for just one character out of seven, but what if they want to experiment with more visual character designs? I created a list in a previous post of visual body types that are not at all unheard of in fantasy games, but none of them would conform to the generic body tech without requiring a new body mesh.

[Fallstar]

Zanallen wrote...

DuskWarden wrote...

There is no blood magic enhancing armour in Origins, so I don't know where you got that from, there's only an amulet and a belt. And there is definitely nothing in the game to enhance the Shapeshifter spec, so again, whats the problem there? 

Quote from Mike:

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.

So you'll be able to customise the companion to your liking based on their role as a tank, damage dealer, healer, cc, etc.

You really shouldn't jump into an argument already in progress without reading the whole of it. You get all turned around that way, buddy.

All's I was doing was correcting you. Since there was no blood mage/shapeshifter enhancing armour in Origins, why does it matter that the Robes of Posession don't have those properties?

[In Exile]

RussianSpy27 wrote...
inExile, thanks for your thoughtful reply.  You're right about the weird cliping. You're also right that by far not everything about DAO's customization is realistic. I guess it was my personal preference to overlook "fire burning in your face" and smile with approval when Alister was equiped with a horned helmet that actually showed up in game to be a horned helmet (because duh I mean, it's a helmet with horns!!! ).

I know. I personally hate realistic armour, because I like apperance over function when it comes to style in games, and 'apperance' to me is precisely about things that aren't possible in reality.

I love fantasy and sci-fi as a genre precisely because they are not realistic. I can't cast magic, but my Warden can. I don't want realistic armour for the same reason.

I suppose I'm a fan of some minor realistic portrayals (like DA:O) as opposed to a person alledgedly wearing massive armor and helmet and being seen in game with a shirt and no helmet on. It's just like while reading, you imagine warriors in battle with armor (as per an author's general or specific description) . It feels right. 

Don't get me wrong - I don't favour silly things like having a tank with a loincloth. It bugs me. I like armour working according to our rules. You can always handwave it away - the loincloth is magic! - but it still leaves a bad taste.

I just don't like realistic looking armour, and to get stylized armour it seems that you have to have iconic looks.

Your point about cost trumps it all though...I get it .

It's not that cost trumps it as much as the cost is very high, so you have to give up a lot to get it (like another plot area or like 10 hrs of gameplay). That's no good (IMO).