1027 réponses à ce sujet

[ipgd]

FieryDove wrote...

And sometimes it's not.

Given the conduct of the many Bioware employees who go out of their way to come here and interact personally with the fans, I have no reason to have any sort of negative suspicions about their character, nor any idea why anyone else would, beyond a kind of baseless pessimism that assumes the worst of them and attributes all of their explanations to deception.

To the thread topic:
I really don't like my way or the highway statements, nor do I feel all or nothing is something we have to live with. I say allow both options. Toggle or whatever. That is the best of both worlds. imho

Stating that a suggestion is the best of both worlds when it is only the best of one world, and totally ignores the opinions of the other world, is not actually a suggestion that is the best of both worlds.

While you are not obligated to agree with said other world or go out of your way to fully understand their point of view, when people who belong to that other world repeatedly state, with examples, why it is not satisfactory to their world, it's probably not satisfactory to their world, and as the people who actually hold those opinions, they are probably a better authority as to what is or is not satisfactory to them than a person who does not hold or understand those opinions is.

Toggles are not a magical cure-all.

[AngryFrozenWater]

In Exile wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

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.

Whether or not a feature is good is the issue. I want unique equipment for each body. I want each NPC to have their own unique body shape that appears nowhere else in game, and to have armour they wear themselves instead of armour they steal from the dead or from caves. 

If there are merchants, I would like for the armour to be crafted & fttted in such a way that the look is unique for each NPC in the party. My improvement over DA:O keeps the statistical customization and allows us to equip whatever, but each NPCs visual apperance changes uniquely based on what they equip.

So in a perfect world, Alistair & Sten both wear plate, but the plate looks different on each as they each wear their "style" of plate, and they have one for each armour class and a unique texture for each armour. 

But as it stands, this system we have right now is much better than DA:O.

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.

You know what I don't care about? How much Bioware works. I only care about arguing for features I like. Right now, in this thread, our debate is about whether or not Mike's OP is a good thing. People talked about visual customization like DA:O. I think that's a bad feature. Full stop. So I'm arguing against that. Once I see this feature in action, I'll criticize it further. 

In this thread I have given the readers my reasons why I don't like the new route DA2 has chosen for companion armor. You have given yours. Thanks for that.

Like you said, the discussion is about whether we like the OP's proposal or not. It may not come as a surprise that I am not a fan of his ideas. I've also tried to explain why. Your "I think that's a bad feature" doesn't cut it for me.

There is a problem with criticizing something in action. The most obvious one is that you cannot turn back the clock. We have seen that with all the feaures people didn't like in DA2. All BW can do about that is improve their next version of the game. Guess what we are doing right now? I have seen companion armor at work and I am criticizing it. Mr Laidlaws plan is still keeping it. So in this thread I write about giving his plan the boot. And I think it is a good idea to argue against it right now while there is still time to prevent it from being implemented in DA3. That means the time is right and I am in the correct thread to do so. Let's hope Mr Laidlaw reads my posts. So, I am doing exactly how you would want to deal with the issue. Sorry.

[FieryDove]

Maconbar wrote...

My guess that toggling between a unique body to a generic body would be substially more resource intensive than most of the options/ideas that have been proposed.

I can think of one that is more. Make two versions of the next game. One that has everything (even the kitchen sink) and a lite version. That would be the most cost prohibitive method and...While interesting I wouldn't recommend it.

ipgd wrote...

Given the conduct of the many Bioware employees who go out of their way to come here and interact personally with the fans, I have no reason to have any sort of negative suspicions about their character, nor any idea why anyone else would, beyond a kind of baseless pessimism that assumes the worst of them and attributes all of their explanations to deception.

I don't think the Bioware folks are trying to be deceptive at all. I said my peace long ago when EA bought them and that fear comes to fruitation. And no I do not wish to debate that here.

ipgd wrote...

Stating that a suggestion is the best of both worlds when it is only the best of one world, and totally ignores the opinions of the other world, is not actually a suggestion that is the best of both worlds.

While you are not obligated to agree with said other world or go out of your way to fully understand their point of view, when people who belong to that other world repeatedly state, with examples, why it is not satisfactory to their world, it's probably not satisfactory to their world, and as the people who actually hold those opinions, they are probably a better authority as to what is or is not satisfactory to them than a person who does not hold or understand those opinions is.

Toggles are not a magical cure-all.

Ah I see. So if someone wants iconic armor the person who doesn't isn't allowed to have what they want. If a person wants full customizing including visual people who want iconic can't have it. Great let's just do nothing. Maybe DA4 will have no companions.

Modifié par FieryDove, 31 août 2011 - 01:42 .

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

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.

Yes, i agree. As long as there's indeed multiple appearances for each companion to choose from, that can be definitely considered customization.

Personally i'm just (somewhat) disappointed that it doesn't go one step further and include also the "generic" armour pieces, simply because it would increase number of available variants per person.

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?

Considering our typical RPG party consists of people who do perform narrow range of professions and who do train for them all their lives (warriors, rogues, mages) and that the body type can actually matter quite a bit for these professions... i think it'd be easier to explain/handwave why they do wind up looking very similar to one another

[Tommy6860]

ipgd wrote...

There's no way any of them actually care about the quality of the games they create, given that the only metric of a good game is one that caters to what you want, personally.

Yet one who is quite openly and diametrically opposed to AFW states the same thing in that "what he wants" in many posts in this very thread. Counter'm all I say, if you're going to counter, otherwise you're jsut playing the one side.. I agree with you in general, whether I agree with your taste or not, I do not know, and I don't want to get  into it. But if you're going to carry the all in one appraoch, then at least express what you have been challenging the past few post, to those on the oppostie end as well.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 31 août 2011 - 01:43 .

[NedPepper]

I don't have time to read 36 pages....but thank you, Mike. This was what a lof of us were talking about in that thread. Thanks for listening! They remain distinct, but there are options. Awesome. : )

[erynnar]

Tommy6860 wrote...

ipgd wrote...

There's no way any of them actually care about the quality of the games they create, given that the only metric of a good game is one that caters to what you want, personally.

Yet one who is quite openly and diametrically opposed to AFW states the same thing in that "what he wants" in many posts in this very thread. Counter'm all I say, if you're going to counter, otherwise you're jsut playing the one side.. I agree with you in general, whether I agree with your taste or not, I do not know, and I don't want to get  into it. But if you're going to carry the all in one appraoch, then at least express what you have been challenging the past few post, to those on the oppostie end as well.

Would that fall under the "follow your own advice" given to fierydove? I do believe it would. Thanks for saying it better than I could Tommy.

[ipgd]

FieryDove wrote...

Ah I see. So if someone wants iconic armor the person who doesn't isn't allowed to have what they want. If a person wants full customizing including visual people who want iconic can't have it. Great let's just do nothing. Maybe DA4 will have no companions.

No, you just don't frame your argument as if it's satisfactory to the opposing party when the opposing party explains repeatedly that it isn't satisfactory, and why.

You're free to state that you want something to be changed because you like it better that way. That is an argument that is not predicated on ignoring what the other group has been saying. You do not, in fact, have to reach an arbitrary All Party Satisfaction Quota in order to make a suggestion. Most methods of implementation will not satisfy all parties and cannot be expected to.

[tmp7704]

ipgd wrote...

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 ****.

While i'll generally agree with the bolded part (i definitely wouldn't mind if the game could scale the body proportions on individual basis), that part about Merrill and Aveline in particular... let's just say i think it may show a different view we take at these things, and that we care about somewhat different **** -- because it'd instead make me froth to see what i'd perceive as yet another game perpetuating some variant of the "mages are frail and warriors are bulky" stereotype. And having them look close to each other allows me instead to interpret it as stereotype-breaking situation where a mage can be a physically fit person, and a warrior isn't a walking mountain of muscles but more of a regular person. Which to me is preferable.

Of course, if you meant that you'd rather see Merrill with thicker built than Aveline then please disregard that.

Modifié par tmp7704, 31 août 2011 - 01:51 .

[FieryDove]

ipgd wrote...

No, you just don't frame your argument as if it's satisfactory to the opposing party when the opposing party explains repeatedly that it isn't satisfactory, and why.

You're free to state that you want something to be changed because you like it better that way. That is an argument that is not predicated on ignoring what the other group has been saying. You do not, in fact, have to reach an arbitrary All Party Satisfaction Quota in order to make a suggestion. Most methods of implementation will not satisfy all parties and cannot be expected to.

I can't help it if some people won't budge or be open minded enough to allow the *most* people to be happy. I was trying to suggest something for two sides. People can have iconic looks and people can have full customization. Who is left out? The ones that can't allow the other side to be happy.

I don't want to argue. I would love to see everyone be happy-happy joy-joy on these forums but I guess it will never happen.

[Tommy6860]

erynnar wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

ipgd wrote...

There's no way any of them actually care about the quality of the games they create, given that the only metric of a good game is one that caters to what you want, personally.

Yet one who is quite openly and diametrically opposed to AFW states the same thing in that "what he wants" in many posts in this very thread. Counter'm all I say, if you're going to counter, otherwise you're jsut playing the one side.. I agree with you in general, whether I agree with your taste or not, I do not know, and I don't want to get  into it. But if you're going to carry the all in one appraoch, then at least express what you have been challenging the past few post, to those on the oppostie end as well.

Would that fall under the "follow your own advice" given to fierydove? I do believe it would. Thanks for saying it better than I could Tommy.

I actually agree more with you, FD,CSJ, Dre, Shadow, BtS, and though I slightly disagree with AFW tastes, in only that he liked DA2 more than I and found soemthing alright with, I understand what he means and agree with his points regarding dev time needed. He isn't being intrransigent to what it is he wants, only that Bioware spend more time catering to eveyone possible. Unless someone is reading something he said otherwise, I am not getting that. He's probably one of the fairest guys I know in these forums, he is jsut a little more emphatic than others .

[tmp7704]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

FWIW, I think the 'making all armour wearable by all 6 body types' argument could be ignored if we Bioware* put race or even gender restrictions to certain pieces of armour. One size does not fit all, if people want to argue realism so passionately.

I'm a big fan of the approach that armour should be species/size-limited, along the lines of dwarf armour being wearable by dwarves etc   Not in the least because yes, that's one way to cut down on amount of models that need to be built, meaning it's easier to create multiple, differently looking armours for each species, increasing overall variety of appearances by a lot.

[Zanallen]

tmp7704 wrote...

While i'll generally agree with the bolded part (i definitely wouldn't mind if the game could scale the body proportions on individual basis), that part about Merrill and Aveline in particular... let's just say i think it may show a different view we take at these things, and that we care about somewhat different **** -- because it'd instead make me froth to see what i'd perceive as yet another game perpetuating some variant of the "mages are frail and warriors are bulky" stereotype. And having them look close to each other allows me instead to interpret it as stereotype-breaking situation where a mage can be a physically fit person, and a warrior isn't a walking mountain of muscles but more of a regular person. Which to me is preferable.

Of course, if you meant that you'd rather see Merrill with thicker built than Aveline then please disregard that.

I want to see a fat mage. Just a really fat one who is constantly complaining about traveling around.

[tmp7704]

Zanallen wrote...

I want to see a fat mage. Just a really fat one who is constantly complaining about traveling around.

Wouldn't mind at all. She also should be an elf and a love interest.

[erynnar]

Tommy6860 wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

ipgd wrote...

There's no way any of them actually care about the quality of the games they create, given that the only metric of a good game is one that caters to what you want, personally.

Yet one who is quite openly and diametrically opposed to AFW states the same thing in that "what he wants" in many posts in this very thread. Counter'm all I say, if you're going to counter, otherwise you're jsut playing the one side.. I agree with you in general, whether I agree with your taste or not, I do not know, and I don't want to get  into it. But if you're going to carry the all in one appraoch, then at least express what you have been challenging the past few post, to those on the oppostie end as well.

Would that fall under the "follow your own advice" given to fierydove? I do believe it would. Thanks for saying it better than I could Tommy.

I actually agree more with you, FD,CSJ, Dre, Shadow, BtS, and though I slightly disagree with AFW tastes, in only that he liked DA2 more than I and found soemthing alright with, I understand what he means and agree with his points regarding dev time needed. He isn't being intrransigent to what it is he wants, only that Bioware spend more time catering to eveyone possible. Unless someone is reading something he said otherwise, I am not getting that. He's probably one of the fairest guys I know in these forums, he is jsut a little more emphatic than others .

What's funny is I like the iconic looks, just want more choices for their iconic looks. I always figure Isabela washed up on shore in her shift because armor (even leather armor) would have drowned her but that after a few months at most (to steal a little gold) that she would have bought replacement armor. Not because she looked ****ty (she can have sexy pirate clothes and it would rock) but because she had on a shift and no protrection save an arm guard. Having just cut my finger good with my own damn kitchen knife through the sponge I was using to wash it with,  I feel Issie needs more protection. Granted, she's more agile and graceful than me, but still... I could totally see her in a very fem version of Jack Sparrow's outfit. More form fitting and revealing in some ways of course.

Also no more armor that goes to just my PC but they can't wear (no more mage robes for a rogue, or plate for a mage). Giving them to my companions while not showing them reminds me of LoTR's cosmetic option. Which I like. My hobbit burgler has a snazzy elegant plumed hat that has the stats of better helmets that are ugly. I am still cutomizing. 

Toggles would be good, if feasable. But I don't know if they would be.

[erynnar]

Zanallen wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

While i'll generally agree with the bolded part (i definitely wouldn't mind if the game could scale the body proportions on individual basis), that part about Merrill and Aveline in particular... let's just say i think it may show a different view we take at these things, and that we care about somewhat different **** -- because it'd instead make me froth to see what i'd perceive as yet another game perpetuating some variant of the "mages are frail and warriors are bulky" stereotype. And having them look close to each other allows me instead to interpret it as stereotype-breaking situation where a mage can be a physically fit person, and a warrior isn't a walking mountain of muscles but more of a regular person. Which to me is preferable.

Of course, if you meant that you'd rather see Merrill with thicker built than Aveline then please disregard that.

I want to see a fat mage. Just a really fat one who is constantly complaining about traveling around.

You made me think of that barkeep in Redcliffe or Slim Courdry in Denerim. ROFL!

[Zanallen]

erynnar wrote...

You made me think of that barkeep in Redcliffe or Slim Courdry in Denerim. ROFL!

I was thinking of Borgan from Lunar 2: Eternal Blue.

[erynnar]

simfamSP wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

I'm still wondering why Isabella needed to look like a **** for the entire game for people to get the idea, hey she's a **** in personality as well.

It's been stated a thousand and two times, though here's a thing:
Same reason you have a unique avatar, you stand out in the crowd and makes you shine. For better or for worse, people will recognize that "Hey, that person posted in the thread!". It invokes emotion in the reader, more so than any blank face avatar given to everybody.

In relation to this. Not that I'm expecting for anybody to reply... but how can I get a unique avatar? I've tried a tonne of times and it doesn't give me that option. I even tried putting an avatar in my DA:O character file so I could pick from there, but there seems to be no option in doing so. I hate this N7 bull**** I have going on now.

None of your characters in game are showing up in your change profile pic page? I have had trouble having mine upload for the game. Or do you mean really unique from elsewhere, sweetie?

[erynnar]

Zanallen wrote...

erynnar wrote...

You made me think of that barkeep in Redcliffe or Slim Courdry in Denerim. ROFL!

I was thinking of Borgan from Lunar 2: Eternal Blue.

OH my! LOL!

[TEWR]

so.... what's this thread discussing now? It seems to be a popular thread that jumped many pages since I was last here.

[tmp7704]

simfamSP wrote...

Unique, like from my computer I have a tonne of Planescape Torment Avatars and a few The Witcher 2 ones I'll go for the former though or else I'll be attacked by giant space monkeys

See if this helps: http://social.biowar...8720/blog/2142/

[Sylvianus]

Erynnar, the lack of capital letter at the beginning of your first name disturbs me greatly. :'(

[ipgd]

Tommy6860 wrote...


Yet one who is quite openly and diametrically opposed to AFW states the same thing in that "what he wants" in many posts in this very thread. Counter'm all I say, if you're going to counter, otherwise you're jsut playing the one side.. I agree with you in general, whether I agree with your taste or not, I do not know, and I don't want to get into it. But if you're going to carry the all in one appraoch, then at least express what you have been challenging the past few post, to those on the oppostie end as well.

Wait, what? You've lost me.

tmp7704 wrote...

While i'll generally agree with the bolded part (i definitely wouldn't mind if the game could scale the body proportions on individual basis), that part about Merrill and Aveline in particular... let's just say i think it may show a different view we take at these things, and that we care about somewhat different **** -- because it'd instead make me froth to see what i'd perceive as yet another game perpetuating some variant of the "mages are frail and warriors are bulky" stereotype. And having them look close to each other allows me instead to interpret it as stereotype-breaking situation where a mage can be a physically fit person, and a warrior isn't a walking mountain of muscles but more of a regular person. Which to me is preferable.

Of course, if you meant that you'd rather see Merrill with thicker built than Aveline then please disregard that.

I'd want a character's build to actually match that character's behaviors. I would have no problem with a physically active mage being visually reflected as being buffer than average. It would just be a bit strange to have Merrill, who presumably flounces around all day picking flowers and studying elven history and magic, to have the same exact build as Aveline, the captain of the guard. They actually do have different levels of physical activity; that should reflect in their muscle tone. Breaking stereotypes in that manner has to reach further back into the writing aspect first.

FieryDove wrote...

I can't help it if some people won't budge or be open minded enough to allow the *most* people to be happy. I was trying to suggest something for two sides. People can have iconic looks and people can have full customization. Who is left out? The ones that can't allow the other side to be happy.

I don't want to argue. I would love to see everyone be happy-happy joy-joy on these forums but I guess it will never happen.

But this is a situation where the implementation of what one side wants (swappable armors that, with the technology Bioware currently uses, necessitates the use of generic body models) directly negatively affects the implementation of what the other side wants (in more abstract terms, greater overall freedom for the artists to design characters who diverge from and are less constrained by the default body model).

Your proposals don't have to satisfy me personally, but I would feel less obligated to make these dumb replies if your proposals were not worded in a manner that suggests we would be satisfied when several of us have explained repeatedly, in response to that very same suggestion, that it does not satisfy us and why. You do not have to agree with us to acknowledge the factual statement that we disagree. Hell, you don't even have to understand it, just take our word for it, man.

I do not demand that Bioware does everything to please me or my group personally. While I would like them to go with the idea I like best, it's not going to be the end of my world if they ultimately end up going back to the DAO method or something like it. I understand why people want swappable armors, and I respect the people who would rather play a game with that in it. The reason I am still posting in this thread is because a lot of people seem to be a) operating under a fundamental misunderstanding as to what people who want unique companion models actually want and why it can't live together forever in harmony with the swappable armor method, or deliberately misrepresenting the opinions of people who want unique companion models in a fashion that creates an infuriating event horizon of ****** that I cannot escape from.

If you can understand what I'm talking about and just disagree, I don't have a problem.