1027 réponses à ce sujet

[Zanallen]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

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

We are talking about the inclusion of iconic fat mages like the one present in this video: www.youtube.com/watch

[FieryDove]

ipgd wrote...

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.

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

My earlier suggestion was iconic looks in off-time hours and whatever we equipped for questing/battles would then show up. This is still not fair to those that want iconic all the time so my suggestions have veered to the below:

What I was suggesting was iconic looks (That includes unqiue body models) Or if someone equips a generic heavy armor loot drop #44 then the body model would go generic so the armor would look decent. (Plus the artists don't lose so much hair)

I guess I'll just say I don't undrstand the position or problem you or anyone else has with this. (except the devs who have to make things work and factor in vision, time and zots).

Peace...no war.

[tmp7704]

ipgd wrote...

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.

I tend to think the mages actually work out quite a bit, especially with the DA2 animations -- they're twirling those heavy staves like batons for hours, and that's even more physical activity than you'd see from a guy fighting straight with a pike. As such, i could get quite easily over idea those two would wind up with similar build, especially if say, Aveline had small frame to begin with and became a warrior despite that disadvantage.

But that's entering the realms of fanfiction so probably best leave it at that

Modifié par tmp7704, 31 août 2011 - 02:37 .

[TEWR]

question for the tech savvy people out there:

Would it be possible to have a compromise that is largely what Mike Laidlaw posted, but add to it that when the player equips other armor to the companion it changes their iconic look a little bit?

Example: Varric's Tailored Leather Duster gains a bit of plating on the chest area if you put him in a set of heavy plate armor that requires 18 strength, but the Duster is still recognizable as his iconic look and you can still see most if not all of his chest hair that's shown in his current iconic look.

[TEWR]

Zanallen wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

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

We are talking about the inclusion of iconic fat mages like the one present in this video: www.youtube.com/watch

I approve of this.

[ipgd]

FieryDove wrote...

I guess I'll just say I don't undrstand the position or problem you or anyone else has with this. (except the devs who have to make things work and factor in vision, time and zots).

As I've said: It's a problem that goes back to the actual initial design processes. If a character has to look close enough to the default body model that it won't be extremely noticable if they later swap into it, that character is going to necessarily be designed in order to avoid that issue. If Fenris or Jack could be changed into armor that would make their tattoos disappear, they would have never been designed with tattoos in the first place. It becomes a technological constraint on the character designers in the same sort of way they don't design characters with capes or very long hair because of the clipping concerns. And, as someone whose #1 obsessive priority is character design, I dislike anything that serves as a limitation to visual character design and diversification.

They could just ignore that entirely, but like In Exile has gone over, crazy random shapeshifting bodies could very well ****** people off in the same way reused environments did. They didn't really bother me, and I would personally have never anticipated the level of backlash Bioware received for that, but that is the wonder of people existing who are not me and don't think like I do. And Bioware still has to deal with those people, even if you or I don't.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Seriously guys...Mike's already said the OP isn't set in stone. If enough people give reasonable alternatives that will make more people (or everyone) happy, maybe Bioware will put some alterations into their plans.

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.

*Edit

Agreed, no matter how much I loved Origins over DA2, Sten being able to wear Zev's armor was jarring. Race specific (or even body size ranges specific) armors would be OK by me. As long as there can be variations to my companions wearing different sets special to them, especailly with armors having specific qualities, being useful for certain times (especailly battles). Now, I think making specific outfits for compaions that cannot be changed for when they are in certain venues (like Hawke's home or drinking at the bar) is very OK as well, it is a casual setting anyway. I know, with the different body shapes they had in DA2 this could be costly in dev time, so I understand that part. But, I would like to see Bioware buuild on that. If they won't, at least give us a toolset .

Erm... Zev's armor? That was a generic armor. The game did have unique armor, though. And it did also gave me the freedom to give it to a companion of my choice. Why BW's lack of money is a concern to use players to justify companion armor escapes me. I had to put up with that because DA2 had this cost savings operation I wrote about. That should not be my concern. My concern as player is to get the fun back into the game. Of course if people think they rather enjoy unique companion armor then that is fine. I don't like it, because I have less choice and to overcome using some generic armor for some companions in DA2 there is a simple solution: Create more unique armor sets. That way there is more choice. Problem solved. That's probably more expensive, but that's not my problem. I don't believe that BW will be broke because they have to create some extra armor. I am a gamer. And not a stock holder.

Like I said earlier, when we defend removing features from the game then we become part of the problem and BW's new "streamlining and innovation" policy that only limits our choices and customization options will succeed. That's absolutely not in my interest. I don't know about you, but I am not charmed by the 4 or 5 squares that are supposed to contain the companion armor upgrades and replace armor sets.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 31 août 2011 - 02:46 .

[Zanallen]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I approve of this.

Yeah, this guy is awesome: rpg-home.lunar-net.com/lunarweb/lunar2web/bromide16.htm

[Atakuma]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

question for the tech savvy people out there:

Would it be possible to have a compromise that is largely what Mike Laidlaw posted, but add to it that when the player equips other armor to the companion it changes their iconic look a little bit?

Example: Varric's Tailored Leather Duster gains a bit of plating on the chest area if you put him in a set of heavy plate armor that requires 18 strength, but the Duster is still recognizable as his iconic look and you can still see most if not all of his chest hair that's shown in his current iconic look.

Mike said that they are looking into doing that.

Modifié par Atakuma, 31 août 2011 - 02:57 .

[TEWR]

Atakuma wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

question for the tech savvy people out there:

Would it be possible to have a compromise that is largely what Mike Laidlaw posted, but add to it that when the player equips other armor to the companion it changes their iconic look a little bit?

Example: Varric's Tailored Leather Duster gains a bit of plating on the chest area if you put him in a set of heavy plate armor that requires 18 strength, but the Duster is still recognizable as his iconic look and you can still see most if not all of his chest hair that's shown in his current iconic look.

Mike said that they are looking into doing that.

Oh, I must've missed that part in the OP.

I hope they can make it come to fruition, because that seems like the best of both worlds

[tmp7704]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Erm... Zev's armor? That was a generic armor.

They mean you could take a piece of armour from Zevran, put it on Sten and it'd magically "grow" to fit the latter. But under the hood it meant there were two separate models built that looked the same, but had different dimensions etc.

[AngryFrozenWater]

tmp7704 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Erm... Zev's armor? That was a generic armor.

They mean you could take a piece of armour from Zevran, put it on Sten and it'd magically "grow" to fit the latter. But under the hood it meant there were two separate models built that looked the same, but had different dimensions etc.

Ah. Yes.

[erynnar]

Yeah the amazing stretchy dwarven armor to fit Alistair, or the amazing shrinking armor to fit a human then Zev was a little on the weird side.

[ipgd]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Why BW's lack of money is a concern to use players to justify companion armor escapes me.

People defend Bioware's monetary concerns because Bioware has a finite amount of time and money with which they can use to develop the game. If you want more time and money put into armor, some other aspect of the game will necessarily have to suffer for it. They do not have money tree orchards out back or TARDISes lined up in the parking garage. You can say "I'm not a stock holder" until we all drop dead, but that doesn't stop any suggestion that deliberately disregards monetary concerns from being unrealistic.

Like I said earlier, when we defend removing features from the game then we become part of the problem and BW's new "streamlining and innovation" policy that only limits our choices and customization options will succeed. That's absolutely not in my interest. I don't know about you, but I am not charmed by the 4 or 5 squares that are supposed to contain the companion armor upgrades and replace armor sets.

I prefer to individually argue or defend features based on whether or not I like them, not whether or not they fall under an arbitrary category of disdainfully quote-encased steamlining and innovation. Complexity does not make something inherently good and simplicity does not make something inherently bad. Shockingly, something that costs more is not always better, either.

And, besides, it's not as if they simply removed companion armor for absolutely no reason and left nothing at all behind. They replaced it with a different method -- one you don't personally like, but it comes with its own challenges and costs. And, yes, there are reasons for prefering this method beyond "this costs less money!!!", and I am not so pessimistic about Bioware that I believe they completely fabricated a host of deceptions in order to cover up the fact THEIR ONE AND ONLY MOTIVATION IS MONEY MONEY MONEY NO REASON TO DO ANYTHING IF IT COSTS MORE MONEY !!!!!

Where they did leave a gaping hole was stat customization, which they are now filling. With the exact same method they used in DAO. This is certainly a substantial step forward from DA2's method regardless of how you slice it.

[Sith Grey Warden]

erynnar wrote...

Yeah the amazing stretchy dwarven armor to fit Alistair, or the amazing shrinking armor to fit a human then Zev was a little on the weird side.

Would you rather have to go to Wade or another Smith every time you wanted to re-equip a piece of armour to a new companion?

[TEWR]

Sith Grey Warden wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Yeah the amazing stretchy dwarven armor to fit Alistair, or the amazing shrinking armor to fit a human then Zev was a little on the weird side.

Would you rather have to go to Wade or another Smith every time you wanted to re-equip a piece of armour to a new companion?

I would've been happy with Bodahn saying "My boy's enchantments can cause your armor to be a one-size fits all!"

[Sith Grey Warden]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Sith Grey Warden wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Yeah the amazing stretchy dwarven armor to fit Alistair, or the amazing shrinking armor to fit a human then Zev was a little on the weird side.

Would you rather have to go to Wade or another Smith every time you wanted to re-equip a piece of armour to a new companion?

I would've been happy with Bodahn saying "My boy's enchantments can cause your armor to be a one-size fits all!"

Fair enough. And "Sandal did it!" is better than "A wizard did it!"

Modifié par Sith Grey Warden, 31 août 2011 - 03:38 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Dear ipgd,

I am very glad that you like your own opinion. The way you post does not invite me to respond to you. So, let me be clear to you: Post whatever you see fit, but I will not let this or another thread be derailed by it. Thanks for your attention.

[ipgd]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Dear ipgd,

I am very glad that you like your own opinion. The way you post does not invite me to respond to you. So, let me be clear to you: Post whatever you see fit, but I will not let this or another thread be derailed by it. Thanks for your attention.

I am glad we can agree to sharing the use of this public forum thread, where I am free to utilize my ability to publicly respond to publicly posted posts.

[In Exile]

seraphymon wrote...
Weren't you the one who whined saying you shouldn't say something is best or better without acknowledging that it is your opinion.

I didn't whine. I said people shouldn't act as if they speak for everyone. And I was brutally unclear in my post, and should have specified it was better for me. When I used "we", I was thinking "those of us who like the iconic look" but I didn't clarify it at all.

To me someone else already said a good idea or compromise. And it always seems like the best to me and thats having the choice. Such as some sort of toggle of wether you want them showing their unique appearance, or off and showing what you have equipped on them. Even if it does change the body appearance a bit.

Like I already said: a toggle is great, if they implement it. But if they could, wouldn't they already do that? I'm assuming the devs aren't stupid and would give everyone the game they wanted if they could. 

Sylvianus wrote...

Wow. In Exile. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wondering.png[/smilie][smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wondering.png[/smilie]

Everything you have done is only to scratch the surface and respond to rhetoric, to simplify everything, your response has no substance. I do not know if it's because you used to do that, or if is it just because you're upset in this thread , but realize that you do more rhetoric than to express a vision. The goal is not necessarily to devour the opponent with just rethoric, which serves no purpose but to explain his thinking.

I'm not trying to use rhetoric. I'm expressing a vision: that tradition is a bad standard. There has to be some justification beyond how it always was for it to be "good". 

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
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.

I totally respect that. Aside from using "dumbing down" to refer to your view of the way visual customization is handled. Not cool. 

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.

My "I think that's a bad feature," is there to illustrate my general stance: I don't care about how things were in a game (and whether DA2 is anything like DA:O, or whether DA3 is anything like DA2) but rather that the features are, by some measurable (if subjective) standard, good. 

We can certainly debate DA:O's way of handling customization. My only statement re: that was that I didn't think it was good, so the mere fact that it was DA:O's system doesn't mean that's a good reason to carry it forward, or return to it seeing that the alteration in DA2 flopped spectacularly (and I mean this as a personal thing, i.e. it sucked for me). 

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
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.

No, what I'm saying is that to me, the feature sounds very good in concept. Maybe it sucks. DA2 sounded good in concept but the execution sucked. So what I'm saying is not in reference to you at all, but rather a description of where I'm standing. 

You said that some people in this thread are excusing Bioware being lazy. I'm saying that what I care about are results, and since I can't judge the result of something yet to be implemented, all I can talk about is the principle. 

[NedPepper]

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.

THIS^ 

A funny, whiny bald fat mage would make DA 3.  And he must ROMANCEABLE!  And Orlesian! Seriously.  Give him a good heart underneath his whining and gorging.

"I eat because I'm unhappy...and I'm unhappy because I eat.  It's vicious cycle." 

His battle cry should be "The CHEESE IS NOT STINKY!" 

I think I need to go bed.

[seraphymon]

In Exile wrote...



Like I already said: a toggle is great, if they implement it. But if they could, wouldn't they already do that? I'm assuming the devs aren't stupid and would give everyone the game they wanted if they could. 

Honestly i dont know how hard or easy it is to implement. However i see something similar to weapon swapping back in DAO Or something as a shortcut to swapping different armors for certain situations when needed. Like needing fire resistance gear. Or like someone said with the helm showing on or off.

In the end with this view again i just find its kinda a waste for  making cool looking armors, if you can only view say 33% of them in one playthrough, that is if armor euip requirements is still like DA2, vs DAO in which you had more leeway i think.

[seraphymon]

double posted sorry.

Modifié par seraphymon, 31 août 2011 - 04:47 .

[craigdolphin]

Mike,

what you described is a solution that I think will work for me. This aspect of the game, at least, will be ok. I still prefer Origin's system, but this will work. I like the idea of increasing the diversity in iconic 'appearances' too, but the equipping aspect of armor slots etc is the key for me.

Definitely a positive announcement IMO.