1027 réponses à ce sujet

[Bryy_Miller]

ipgd wrote...

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.

Exactly. Even Valve has a limited budget to work with.

So yes, it's a justfication. But it's also not an excuse.

[Uccio]

I´ll take Origins model anyday over DA2 or this. What is so wrong with DAO way of giving armor to companions using stats? I just don´t get it. That is real rpg. This makes me even more cautious regarding DA3. I´m not going to buy another DA2.

[Yrkoon]

ipgd wrote...

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.

Right right.  Lets defend the lack of customization simply because we're dealing with a company that operates  under a shoestring budget and the mentality that  games have  to come  out fast... like  cheap food from a drive thru.

Please forgive me for  daring to have higher standards than that.  And for actually remembering that there's plenty of companies out there that have actually managed to do  many 'expensive things'   that Bioware  failed to.... even though their budgets were lower.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 31 août 2011 - 06:52 .

[Wivvix]

Modifié par Wivvix, 31 août 2011 - 06:29 .

[Wivvix]

Filament wrote...
What? From what you've said, it sounds like he's given you exactly what you want. He's not giving you customization of followers' appearances back. He's giving back itemisation to allow you to customize your followers' abilities and functions in combat.

I misread the fourth bullet point. My mistake. Perhaps Bioware is actually listening.
I'm not sure about having static costume appearances. While it might be more aesthetically consistent, it also means there's less visual impact as your companions progress throughout the entire game, rather than milestone appearance achievements.

Modifié par Wivvix, 31 août 2011 - 06:34 .

[esper]

Wivvix wrote...

Filament wrote...
What? From what you've said, it sounds like he's given you exactly what you want. He's not giving you customization of followers' appearances back. He's giving back itemisation to allow you to customize your followers' abilities and functions in combat.

I misread the fourth bullet point. My mistake. Perhaps Bioware is actually listening.
I'm not sure about having static costume appearances. While it might be more aesthetically consistent, it also means there's less visual impact as your companions progress throughout the entire game, rather than milestone appearance achievements.

He also says that you unlock new appearence so some changes will be.

[makraven]

I tried to get the staff of parthalan I mean is that I sign up for newsletter and I got a comformation number for my xbox 360. so I went to check it out in the game it did not appear what should I do.

[Fallstar]

makraven wrote...

I tried to get the staff of parthalan I mean is that I sign up for newsletter and I got a comformation number for my xbox 360. so I went to check it out in the game it did not appear what should I do.

Wrong forum, try Xbox 360 technical support.

[guardian of hades]

So Mike do I get royalties for this considering this is what I proposed in your "Thank You" thread around 3 months ago? 

Ukki wrote...

I´ll take Origins model anyday over DA2 or this. What is so wrong with DAO way of giving armor to companions using stats? I just don´t get it. That is real rpg. This makes me even more cautious regarding DA3. I´m not going to buy another DA2.

You still do.  There seems to some confusion on the subject on skins vs armors.  Skins are the just the appearances of the characters and don't have any statistical signifigance whatsoever.  The armors are the statistical based items that the characters are wearing that present the offensive/defensive benefits and are in fact the role-playing aspect.  What Mike Laidlaw is suggesting (and I guess I'm suggesting it to) is that you keep/change the armor and retain all the benefits while allowing the characters to maintain their unique looks.

For example, if we were to use this formula with DA2 you could put Isabella in a full armor suit like the Ser Isaac of Clark armor set (and all the benefits therein) but still maintain an outward appearance that keeps her unique (and also keeps her within her character).

[Gunderic]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

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.

This x100

[Gunderic]

ipgd wrote...

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.

Come on. There are other RPG's with a far smaller budget/amount of expendable resources than BioWare that give players far more content, features, and hours for our money. CDProjekt has given us a game with better art direction, graphics, higher-res armour textures, and without the flat skins of BioWare's item pack sets.

If other studios without the biggest publisher in the world can give us novelties such as diverse item sets, that are better looking than anything BioWare has done in a fantasy RPG; if such a mundane and run-of-the-mill feature can't be done in a BioWare RPG backed by EA because of 'time & money concerns', if suddenly expecting basic roleplaying elements to be in a franchise that had them from the beginning is 'unrealistic'--

Whoops, I forgot. BioWare game.

edit: And if they're willing to sacrifice gameplay elements like these for the betterment of storytelling, then Dragon Age 3's writing team must be pretty damn confident that their story is going to be bloody good.

Modifié par Gunderic, 31 août 2011 - 10:16 .

[Nadia]

I don't know if it has already been mentioned, but how about giving companions a few 'iconic appearences' exactly as mr Laidlaw presented + giving the option to change it like it was in Origins ?? Could that be possible? It would be a win/win situation for everyone in my opinion.

I remember that Morrigan had her unique robes but also we could change it if we didn't like it, that was really okay I think (I've made use of that option because her breasts made me feel a little bit unattractive ).

[Uccio]

guardian of hades wrote...

So Mike do I get royalties for this considering this is what I proposed in your "Thank You" thread around 3 months ago? 

Ukki wrote...

I´ll take Origins model anyday over DA2 or this. What is so wrong with DAO way of giving armor to companions using stats? I just don´t get it. That is real rpg. This makes me even more cautious regarding DA3. I´m not going to buy another DA2.

You still do.  There seems to some confusion on the subject on skins vs armors.  Skins are the just the appearances of the characters and don't have any statistical signifigance whatsoever.  The armors are the statistical based items that the characters are wearing that present the offensive/defensive benefits and are in fact the role-playing aspect.  What Mike Laidlaw is suggesting (and I guess I'm suggesting it to) is that you keep/change the armor and retain all the benefits while allowing the characters to maintain their unique looks.

For example, if we were to use this formula with DA2 you could put Isabella in a full armor suit like the Ser Isaac of Clark armor set (and all the benefits therein) but still maintain an outward appearance that keeps her unique (and also keeps her within her character).

To be frank I want to see the change along getting the stats so seeing Isabella still stepping around without pants while in the same time wearing full body armor is not ok.

[Merilsell]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Sounds better than DA2, but you get iconic characters through good writing. Origins characters didn´t look that iconic excluding Morrigan, but I think they are far more popular than most of 2´s party. Their personalities made them iconic, having more than one layer and feeling more like characters than stereotypes.

This. So much.

I'm truly worried when I think that the motivation for this (or at least one of them) is that it is awesome to see fans in the new iconic cosplay at a con. Boggles the mind. 

Also Bioware seems to love their catchphrases, do they? Iconic? Iconic! [/sandal]

[Valcutio]

I think designing iconic characters is more important than iconic costumes. Morrigan was so iconic because of her personality - her clothes were just an accessory. The reason DA2 characters failed in this regard was because of their terrible personalities. Even the most epic set of armor can't cover that up.

I favor letting US choose how our characters look by designing a system that allows us to match armor on them how WE see fit, not you. If you're set on designing unique looks then make it a toggle we can flip to switch back to how YOU want them to look. Problem solved.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

ipgd wrote...

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.

Exactly. Even Valve has a limited budget to work with.

So yes, it's a justfication. But it's also not an excuse.

So those corners cut on visual appearances helped where exactly in DA2? It certainly didn't help with the plot, or all the fed ex sidequests. or the silly wave combat with paratroopers, Or really anywhere at all. Lets just come out and say it. DA2 was a rushed mess of a game that some will defend to the end due to a developer's name on the box.

I'd still like to know where my detachable camera is in DA2, you know the one Mr. Laidlaw told us "It isn't tactical with out one"  yep still waiting.

[Nadia]

I don't see how DA2 characters are worse than DAO. In fact, I think many things regarding them (lack of the ability to customize the armor isn't one of those) has improved. I just felt the need to say this here, to let know there are other opinions. Companions and interaction with them are my favourite features of Dragon Age, I adore them as much as in DAO.

[Gunderic]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

ipgd wrote...

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.

Exactly. Even Valve has a limited budget to work with.

So yes, it's a justfication. But it's also not an excuse.

So those corners cut on visual appearances helped where exactly in DA2? It certainly didn't help with the plot, or all the fed ex sidequests. or the silly wave combat with paratroopers, Or really anywhere at all. Lets just come out and say it. DA2 was a rushed mess of a game that some will defend to the end due to a developer's name on the box.

I'd still like to know where my detachable camera is in DA2, you know the one Mr. Laidlaw told us "It isn't tactical with out one"  yep still waiting.

Dragon Age 2 was a mess, yes. But it was still probably Mike Laidlaw's most complex game he had an important role in to date. Never played Sonic Chronicles, but I find Jade Empire worse than Dragon Age 2.

There's definitely a reason Brent Knowles left. I respect him for doing so x10.

[Morroian]

Merilsell wrote...

I'm truly worried when I think that the motivation for this (or at least one of them) is that it is awesome to see fans in the new iconic cosplay at a con. Boggles the mind. 

What boggles my mind is the way that quote is being misinterpreted.

[Gunderic]

Morroian wrote...

Merilsell wrote...

I'm truly worried when I think that the motivation for this (or at least one of them) is that it is awesome to see fans in the new iconic cosplay at a con. Boggles the mind. 

What boggles my mind is the way that quote is being misinterpreted.

How so? They think more people recognizing their characters ( through cosplay and such ) means that their franchise will get more popular, even though Dragon Age 2 sold significantly less. Rather than investing in features that would please the player, the Dragon Age team wants to use party members as some pseudo-marketing tool by limiting content.

[Cutlasskiwi]

Gunderic wrote...

ipgd wrote...

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.

Come on. There are other RPG's with a far smaller budget/amount of expendable resources than BioWare that give players far more content, features, and hours for our money. CDProjekt has given us a game with better art direction, graphics, higher-res armour textures, and without the flat skins of BioWare's item pack sets.

If other studios without the biggest publisher in the world can give us novelties such as diverse item sets, that are better looking than anything BioWare has done in a fantasy RPG; if such a mundane and run-of-the-mill feature can't be done in a BioWare RPG backed by EA because of 'time & money concerns', if suddenly expecting basic roleplaying elements to be in a franchise that had them from the beginning is 'unrealistic'--

Whoops, I forgot. BioWare game.

edit: And if they're willing to sacrifice gameplay elements like these for the betterment of storytelling, then Dragon Age 3's writing team must be pretty damn confident that their story is going to be bloody good.

It's easy to sit here and say that other studios do certain things better than BioWare and therefor they should be able to give us the same things. But Dragon Age is a party based game, for example, how much money goes to working on followers and making sure combat will work and be balanced? How much money went to revamping the friendship system?  

[ipgd]

Nadia wrote...

I don't know if it has already been mentioned, but how about giving companions a few 'iconic appearences' exactly as mr Laidlaw presented + giving the option to change it like it was in Origins ?? Could that be possible? It would be a win/win situation for everyone in my opinion.

*breaks down and starts having convulsive fits*

Gunderic wrote...

Come on. There are other RPG's with a far smaller budget/amount of expendable resources than BioWare that give players far more content, features, and hours for our money. CDProjekt has given us a game with better art direction, graphics, higher-res armour textures, and without the flat skins of BioWare's item pack sets.

If other studios without the biggest publisher in the world can give us novelties such as diverse item sets, that are better looking than anything BioWare has done in a fantasy RPG; if such a mundane and run-of-the-mill feature can't be done in a BioWare RPG backed by EA because of 'time & money concerns', if suddenly expecting basic roleplaying elements to be in a franchise that had them from the beginning is 'unrealistic'--

Whoops, I forgot. BioWare game.

As far as I am aware, The Witcher, given that it has one PC with a static race and sex, does not have to do minimum 6-7 passes for each set of armor, and I have no idea what relevance it has to this particular topic. On a more general level, I certainly imagine that TW2's 3.5 year development cycle vs. DA2's 16-18 month cycle had something to do with it. Probably also the fact TW2 is a PC exclusive and DA2 was developed concurrently for console. But no, Bioware is just lazy; all developers' situations are exactly the same and must be judged by the same metric.

Gunderic wrote...

How so? They think more people recognizing their characters ( through cosplay and such ) means that their franchise will get more popular, even though Dragon Age 2 sold significantly less. Rather than investing in features that would please the player, the Dragon Age team wants to use party members as some pseudo-marketing tool by limiting content.

Sigh. No, they do not. That comment was meant as an example of "DA2's characters are evidently more visually iconic because there is more cosplay", not "we specifically made this change so people would cosplay more". But this wouldn't be the BSN if Bioware employees' comments weren't twisted to serve whatever agenda a poster wanted to push at the time. It's a wonder they even bother at all, with the propensity some of you guys have for turning even the most innocuous statements into a sign of the apocalypse.

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

So those corners cut on visual appearances helped where exactly in DA2? It certainly didn't help with the plot, or all the fed ex sidequests. or the silly wave combat with paratroopers, Or really anywhere at all. Lets just come out and say it. DA2 was a rushed mess of a game that some will defend to the end due to a developer's name on the box.

Funny. I defend DA2 because...







I like it. Shocking, I know -- the thought of someone with an opinion you don't share !?! ? ?! ?!? !? !?! That would never happen.

Remember, kids, STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE.

Modifié par ipgd, 31 août 2011 - 01:57 .

[Sad Dragon]

Yellow Words wrote...

It's easy to sit here and say that other studios do certain things better than BioWare and therefor they should be able to give us the same things. But Dragon Age is a party based game, for example, how much money goes to working on followers and making sure combat will work and be balanced? How much money went to revamping the friendship system?  

While im not sure how Bioware did it I can speak on this as a Computer Engineer and 3d Graphical Artist myself: The only hard part about the followers from a programming standpoint would be the AI, and that is more pathing problems then combat AI as you already have to do combat AI for your enemies. The friendship system isn't really revamped all that much if you look at it the only difference is that they use the negativ side of the friendship system from DA and go with it, mechanically it could work the same, and interacting with the partymembers is either like interacting with the PC (spending level point and equiping them) or like interacting with NPCs (Dialogue).

Balance is however always a problem, but one that ultimatly doesn't matter that much -- as this is a PVE game and not a PVP one. You want the balance to be good, but if you have a few characteristic fights you should be able to run those 3-5 fights a few times with various chararacters and specs making sure that even the 'weaker specs' could make it though and you are done.

As for the graphical side of things the problem -- especially with unique looking companions -- would be the modles and how they interact with the world. There are a few ways you can get around some of it but it you might bring other issues to the table -- like clipping or having every character have the same animation set, which makes them act the same way.

The writing department might also be something that could be an added workload but if you look at say TW2 (I really don't want to bring TW into this but it serves as a good example) they spent the same writing time on key NPCs and made them more fleshed out. Making both however could mean you have a lot of writing work for the game and that would mean the writers would get their work cut out for them.

Also on topic:
I prefer unique or iconic looking characters any day of the week to generic ones.

-The Sad Dragon

[tmp7704]

ipgd wrote...

Nadia wrote...

I don't know if it has already been mentioned, but how about giving companions a few 'iconic appearences' exactly as mr Laidlaw presented + giving the option to change it like it was in Origins ?? Could that be possible? It would be a win/win situation for everyone in my opinion.

*breaks down and starts having convulsive fits*

It really would, though ;/  I mean, the ability to equip these 'generic' armours would be there for these who can overlook the fact it'd potentially override the unique body build of the character (if there's any). Those who couldn't get past the concept could still simply limit themselves to the 'iconic' appearance selection.

Modifié par tmp7704, 31 août 2011 - 02:05 .