1027 réponses à ce sujet

[MerinTB]

Zanallen wrote...
Quick question! How does the ability to choose between different pieces of completely superficial armor somehow promote critical thinking or intelligence? Creativity, I could see, but not critical thinking or intelligence. There is nothing critical about choosing between the muave gloves or the burgandy ones.

Between this and In Exile's "response" to my honest admission of being mistaken on what something meant, I think I've used up my allotment of "spending time arguing in forum threads" for today.

Another time.

[In Exile]

Filament wrote...
It is a defense. One you've all been using.

At least me, I'd be happy with options for both. But I don't think we can have that and not lose content elsewhere. So I argue for a different feature.

Ideally, I'd totally support two parallel systems where we both get what we want, just like I'd support multiple voices and no VO at all if the $$ was there.

Anders isn't anywhere near paper thin, him conforming to generic bodies bothers me even less than the previously mentioned examples.

I wish I was on the PC where I could show you a screencap of his arm and Hawke's arm. Ander's arm is 1/2 of the regular Mesh's arm. It has no muscle at all. 

And the animation rigs aren't tied to the models. They have to test it to make sure it doesn't clip, I suppose. Like they do with all custom animation rigs, like they'd have already had to do with the one-armed man.

They have to test every animation with every armour, no matter what. It's extra work. 

Yes they would by virtue of customization.

It's not customization. There, I'm going to play your card. Having everyone end up wearing the same gear and looking identical removes customization, because nothing is "custom" but rather a choice between standard presets and everyone can look the same with nothing unique about them. 

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...
Between this and In Exile's "response" to my honest admission of being mistaken on what something meant, I think I've used up my allotment of "spending time arguing in forum threads" for today.

Another time.

You insulted people while making it, and even said you agree with the sentiment behind the term and that features that are refered to as dumbing down do make people dumb. An apology needs more than just an "I'm sorry". It needs a change in behaviour. 

[FieryDove]

Zanallen wrote...

There is nothing critical about choosing between the muave gloves or the burgandy ones.

What absurdity! The Red tie always wins.

[tmp7704]

Zanallen wrote...

You do realize that they are implementing a system where you can make whatever armor you are wearing look like a specific "iconic" set right?

This is a nice thing to have, but on the other hand i'd like it more if that was just option, with the alternative of neomg able to replace the "iconic" appearance with one of my own selection, if i so choose.

Can't say i see any real benefit in choosing this more limited implementation instead, given from the description of the new system it comes very close to it already, technically.

[Zanallen]

MerinTB wrote...

Between this and In Exile's "response" to my honest admission of being mistaken on what something meant, I think I've used up my allotment of "spending time arguing in forum threads" for today.

Another time.

But you said: "I still agree with the concept. As a whole. Everything is being
oversimplified and everyone, as a result, are being challenged less and,
as further result, society as a whole is becoming less critical and
less intelligent."

You believe that removing the ability to visually customize your companions is simplification or "dumbing down". ((Which isn't what Bioware is doing. You can still adjust what a companion looks like, just through a different method with less choices)) And earlier you defended someone else's argument that visual customization is a complexity that is now lost.

So, how is adjusting superficial armor somehow complex? How does it promote intelligence or critical thought? I'm just not seeing it.

[Zanallen]

FieryDove wrote...

What absurdity! The Red tie always wins.

Sigh, I wish the Dragon Age series had ties...Even bow ties. Varric in a bow tie would be so cool.

[Zanallen]

tmp7704 wrote...

This is a nice thing to have, but on the other hand i'd like it more if that was just option, with the alternative of neomg able to replace the "iconic" appearance with one of my own selection, if i so choose.

Can't say i see any real benefit in choosing this more limited implementation instead, given from the description of the new system it comes very close to it already, technically.

We were talking about World of Warcraft at that point. The new transmogrification system.

[Gunderic]

MerinTB wrote...

Huh, okay, I just took the fifteen seconds that Google needs for you to research anything and did learn that "dumbing down" is considered a pejorative.

That's never how I used it or read it in the context of the majority of where I saw it.

So, in that sense, I stand corrected. It's largely seen as an insult to those that the "dumbing down" is targeted at.

And yet -

I still agree with the concept. As a whole. Everything is being oversimplified and everyone, as a result, are being challenged less and, as further result, society as a whole is becoming less critical and less intelligent.

But that's neither here nor there...

I guess I better stop saying "dumbed down" in mixed company as, clearly, it was a phrase that I was at least partially misinterpreting.

My apologies.

Well, Dragon Age 2 was 'dumbed down' in comparison to Origins and other RPG's, and Dragon Age 3 probably will be too, but less so.

You can't go in expecting the next sequel to fix 90% of your problems with the franchise, or expect bad developers/project administration to become good overnight. That's just wishful thinking.

Modifié par Gunderic, 30 août 2011 - 10:36 .

[ipgd]

Filament wrote...

I don't know, that argument you had with TMP where he brandished the picture of those secret service agents gave me a different idea.

While I'd love to start posting pictures of naked dudes with their heads cut off and ask if you can tell the difference between them by body structure alone, that might be getting a little hot for this thread.

Though what's "jarringly obvious" to me is probably nothing normal people give a **** about or would notice, admittedly. It's not like I uh reflexively measure people's proportions when I see them oh god

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

It's not customization. There, I'm going to play your card. Having everyone end up wearing the same gear and looking identical removes customization, because nothing is "custom" but rather a choice between standard presets and everyone can look the same with nothing unique about them. 

Customization is understood as ability to make thing different than the provided default. As long as having everyone look identical rather than unique is an option and concious choice of the player, then it remains part of the customization process. The ability to customize things isn't by any means removed by what's simply act of making one of available choices, whether that choice is to make everyone wind up unique or uniform, or as anything in-between.

[Elhanan]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Hey folks,

At the PAX panel last night (which I enjoyed immensely! Thanks to all those that came, and pushed the room to capacity), I made some mentions about the pros and cons of the direction we took for follower armors and appearances in DAII, and strongly hinted that customization would be coming back. In the interests of transparency, I wanted to pop in here and lay out our current thinking in terms of how follower armors will work in the future.

To start, there was a thread a month back or so that was an excellent litmus test for us, as it asked what you folks would like to see in follower armors, and it was great to see that what was suggested by the majority of people was what we were thinking. I was careful not to comment much in that thread, so as not to influence the discussion, but a huge thanks to the folks who offered their opinions.

Second, I want to make it very clear that this is the direction we are thinking, not a contractual agreement. When and exactly how we make the changes is something we can't talk about at this point; remember that no official products have been announced, and, of course, circumstances can change, but I'm reasonably confident in this direction and thought it would be good to let you know early.

Now, to the meat of it. Our goals are:

• 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.

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 thought it might be nice to keep the actual quote with this thread while it moves forward in absurdity.

[tmp7704]

Zanallen wrote...

We were talking about World of Warcraft at that point. The new transmogrification system.

Ah; wasn't aware they're doing that, but since it sounds the described system for DA3 will allow the very same thing, i think my comment can still apply

[tmp7704]

ipgd wrote...

While I'd love to start posting pictures of naked dudes with their heads cut off and ask if you can tell the difference between them by body structure alone, that might be getting a little hot for this thread.

there is no need to remove heads, especially when these can get quite similar, too.

(the point here isn't that people always look identical, but rather, that they can be similar enough you actually have to spend some time staring to pick up the minor differences. As such, i'd find it personally quite fake for every character to wind up wildly different, about on par with the present situation where everyone winds up the same)

[In Exile]

[quote]Filament wrote...

They don't look the same. They have faces.

[/quote]

Haha. I mean, the bodies look the same. 

[quote]tmp7704 wrote...
This is a nice thing to have, but on the other hand i'd like it more if that was just option, with the alternative of neomg able to replace the "iconic" appearance with one of my own selection, if i so choose.

Can't say i see any real benefit in choosing this more limited implementation instead, given from the description of the new system it comes very close to it already, technically.[/quote]

Look on the bright side: you could model it to be like DA:O easily. 

[quote]tmp7704 wrote...
Customization is understood as ability to make thing different than the provided default. As long as having everyone look identical rather than unique is an option and concious choice of the player, then it remains part of the customization process. [/quote]

If having different preset options that are set-up according to the conscious choice of the player = customization, then what Mike offers in the OP is customization. 

[quoteThe ability to customize things isn't by any means removed by what's simply act of making one of available choices, whether that choice is to make everyone wind up unique or uniform, or as anything in-between.[/quote]

Then certainly this potential system has customizability. 

[quote]tmp7704 wrote...
(the point here isn't that people always look identical, but rather, that they can be similar enough you actually have to spend some time staring to pick up the minor differences. As such, i'd find it personally quite fake for every character to wind up wildly different, about on par with the present situation where everyone winds up the same)[/quote]

So people who do the same thing, and train for it all their lives, where the shape of their body is crucial to the performance look the same? 

Explain why that would be the same for a party of different backgrounds & professions, especially thos where body type doesn't matter? 

[Mike_Neel]

What? Sounds like the Mass Effect 2 system. 3 different color swaps for the companion outfits you can choose from, and 4 separate DLC appearance packs sold through out the games lifespan that change more than just color.

[ipgd]

tmp7704 wrote...

there is no need to remove heads, especially when these can get quite similar, too.

(the point here isn't that people always look identical, but rather, that they can be similar enough you actually have to spend some time staring to pick up the minor differences. As such, i'd find it personally quite fake for every character to wind up wildly different, about on par with the present situation where everyone winds up the same)

Sigh. Yes, there are indeed people who look alike, especially when you get into the area of 'conventionally attractive pretty girls handpicked to make a quaint little group'. I am familiar with the creepiness of SNSD. That does not mean that all characters should ideally look alike. There is an incredible range of body types in humanity, that should fit the characters' history and profession. Merrill and, say, Aveline having the same body type would make me die inside. Because I actually care about this ****.

But if we get into this 'what is or is not important to people who actually care about character design' argument again I'm pretty sure my brain is going to turn into sludge and leak out of my ears. I am not going to try to make you care about the things I care about.

Modifié par ipgd, 30 août 2011 - 11:29 .

[Zanallen]

In DA3, all characters should use the same body type and that type should be Shale's.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Beerfish wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Sigh. Why it needed to change in the first place is beyond me. I really don't get Bioware's new fascination with stripping their titles down to essentially be cinematic action games, with little choice either in general customization or plot choices or combat tactics involved. Obviously I'm just not their target audience anymore. Enjoy the casual crowd Bioware, I guess the hardcore RPG crowd will have to stick to CDPR, Bethesda and Obsidian for actual deep complex RPG's from here on out. It was nice while it lasted I suppose.

Nonsense.  Hardcore rpg does not = having a wide number of outfits.  I dare say games of the past that are 'beacons' of hard core rpgdom had little to no character and or companion customization.

To ask for more customization is fine but these dramatic posts are baloney for the most part.

Nonsense? I will tell you what I think is nonsense.

I am not interested in old school stuff (really, I couldn't care less - so spare me the lecture of the hardcore stuff, it is wasted on me), but I am interested in the previous title of the series. If DA:O allowed me a given method of customization, like collecting armor from loot, then I expect the next title to have at least that. If the armor found in loot is too generic and removing that option and replacing that by a single companion armor then that is not an improvement to the perceived "problem". And improvement would be to make sure there is more different armor to be found. An improvement would be to have quests related to armor in which lore would play a role in the story telling. An improvement would be to have armor shops with a wide variety of armor. Etc. Dream up something, but don't go backwards, because *that* is nonsense.

In the responses in this thread here I read people complaining about how generic DA:O armor was and that they didn't like the retexturing of the armor. Of course I agree with that. So instead of going for an even worse system where you have no option at all (or, in the case of ME2 from which the system came, just a retexture), BW needs to address that. Don't make those guys lazy. BW has currently an attitude of the less work the better, the less something it cost the better, and the faster development goes the better. I am not not interested in how much money they make. I am interested in great games that stun me. Afterall: I am a gamer. Not a stockholder.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...
1- Poor justification to expect to find a feature again like customization, companions interactions,  choices, in the next bioware game because it has always been the case ?

Yes, absolutely. For one, for the player, the research needs to be done. If you buy a game without doing the research, you deserve to be cheated. 

More generally, for the designer, a feature should never be included just because the previous version had it and no one complained.

not at all, and especially ridiculous to think that. Or so says me, explains, I do'nt really follow your point. If bioware, decides to withdraw an important feature that has always embodied a part of its game, who gave pleasure in each game, without solid reasons, people expect to find this again, and definitely define the quality of a production with or without theses features, from their experience.

First of all, whether or not wearing an exchangable universal mesh made the game better for anyone is up for debate. Ditto whether that's what makes an RPG. The whole reason for this debate (esp. between us two) is that we don't agree on whether any of this was ever true. 

Other than the fact it was in previous versions of Bioware games. And again, that's not a defence.

3 - And I was not talking about " less customization ", I was spirited to point those who claimed to want to remove the customization because the characters were supposed to be independent. When you quote, try to be accurate.

But that isn't customization to them. You're trying to skew the debate.

4 - You do not read or you simplifies everything you read. And what you say makes no sense because it would mean that people would not know what to expect from a next Bioware game, and not even to know what to expect and what to want for the future rpgs.

People shouldn't know this. They should do the research. Pure and simple. If people buy a game based only on the company, I honestly hope they get cheated every single time. That kind of laziness deserves as much. 

5 - You, you. The others are not you. it's not because you do not share their view that the justification of their position is not healthy. And that's probably why you do not really know. You do not share their ideas based on a concept close to the tradition, good for you, but it's still a valid point, even if you preferred you, more of anti-conformism. And that's mainly the subject of this year, what to keep from traditional rpgs, and what to change.  

The others are not you either. 

But we are speaking about justification in general. And in general, "let's keep it the same because it was always like that!" is a bad justification. "Let's keep it the same because everyone likes that!" is a better argument, but that's totally independent of how it was done. 

Buf if people use their experience from the past to define what has to be a rpg, their reasons aren't invalide, and their reasons to be angry, because we remove theses feature that were important in the past, aren't at all bad justifications. You may not agree, but, still, tat's correct.

No, in that case the justification is "like" not "past". It should stay how it was always done because I like it, the justification follows after because and is the I like it part of the sentence. 

All you've said to me in this whole entire thread, and past ones on the subject that you not only approve of the player getting less options and features, but you actually actively encourage devs do less work and simplify titles, Why any one as a player would actively want this? Beyond my line of reasoning and logic but none the less this is what you do. And you use terrible reasoning to do it. Like anyone really cares if Morrigan's bust grows a tiny bit. To me it's a weak excuse. Or that anyone should care that there's less actual roleplay on the player's end when they have to guess at what THEIR pc is going to say? I just can't fathom it.

Dues ex handles it well, the game tells you exactly what Alex is going to say, so the player can make informed choices on the how's and why's throughout the plot/choices.  It's not that it can't be done or is really all that much more work.

Still why anyone would actively want rpg's to be so completely streamlined to the point of it being fruitless to even offer the illusion of choice is just totally foreign to me. At that point why call them RPG's? Just call them Cinematic action games and get it over with.

[In Exile]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
All you've said to me in this whole entire thread, and past ones on the subject that you not only approve of the player getting less options and features, but you actually actively encourage devs do less work and simplify titles, Why any one as a player would actively want this?

No, I don't. I actively argue against your taste, but only for what I see as greater reactivity and more meaningful features. Like iconic looks, which I consider a more significant version of customizatiom so long as we choose between unique meshes for alternate outfits. And if we have only universal meshes that are intercheangable, then I think fixed iconic outfits are more meaningful.

That's the only thing this thread has been about, asde from a few posters that talked about how statistical costumization isn't relevant and visual customization is. 

Beyond my line of reasoning and logic but none the less this is what you do. And you use terrible reasoning to do it. Like anyone really cares if Morrigan's bust grows a tiny bit. To me it's a weak excuse. Or that anyone should care that there's less actual roleplay on the player's end when they have to guess at what THEIR pc is going to say? I just can't fathom it.

You can't fathom it because you're too wrapped up in your own preference to even acknowledge that in other people's POV, these features increase roleplay by improving immersion (having more than one body type for every individual makes the world feel alive) and by adding depth to interaction (I really don't want to rehash the VO debate, but suffice it to say I think VO makes for better RP in a way that can't even be quanitifed). 

Dues ex handles it well, the game tells you exactly what Alex is going to say, so the player can make informed choices on the how's and why's throughout the plot/choices.  It's not that it can't be done or is really all that much more work.

Deus Ex has multiple moments where Adam rewords something compared to the full-text paraphrase and speaks on his own. 

Still why anyone would actively want rpg's to be so completely streamlined to the point of it being fruitless to even offer the illusion of choice is just totally foreign to me. At that point why call them RPG's? Just call them Cinematic action games and get it over with.

Is there anything in this post other than a thinly veiled insult in my direction? 

[John Epler]

If we continue down the 'what is an RPG' path, this thread is going to be locked. So let's try and return to the topic at hand.