2 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

 In a previous thread, Mike Laidlaw outlined a new vision for DA3 with regard to companion inventory:

1) We would gain the statistical customization of DA:O.
2) We would retain the iconic looks prevalent in DA2. 

This is a poll looking at your general attitude toward the proposed system: positive or negative. 

Here is the link to the poll (the poll seems to round up, and that leads to rounding errors and so a missing or extra % point):

social.bioware.com/59861/polls/24099/

***
Summary of currrent results (01/09/2011):

Overall Positive: 167 (43%)
Neutral: 29 (8%)
Overall Negative: 187 (49%)

The fanbase continues to be polarized, but more than 1/3rd of voters have rated the changes as Strongly Negative.  Overall, the "Strongly Negative" rating has fluctated widly during the day, from as low as 28 to as high as 38 right now. 

Otherwise, the trend looks to be more positive than negative. 

****

Summary of current results (02/09/2011)

Overall Positive:244 (45%)
Neutral:  40 (7%)
Overal Negative: 267 (49%)

The number of voters has increased, but otherwise the trend seems to be pretty stable. 

Interestingly, of those opposed, the majority are strongly opposed to the changes, where as of the positive reactions, they are more split. Which is in keeping with the general reaction to DA2, i.e. people that dislike it really dislike it. 


***

***

Here is Mr. Laidlaw's post, reproduced in full:

Mike Laidlaw said....

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.

[/list]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.

Modifié par In Exile, 02 septembre 2011 - 09:40 .

[John Epler]

If you find yourself unable to respond to a point with more than a single word 'troll', then perhaps refrain from posting. Why you'd think that kind of post is in any way acceptable is beyond me.

[John Epler]

Any sort of poll like this, while useful to a degree, shouldn't be looked at as 'See, BioWare, exactly X% of your fans like the idea and Y% dislike it.' Certainly, there's some of that to a degree - a percentage of the people who voted 'no' are completely opposed to the idea, while a percentage of the people who voted 'yes' are completely for the idea. Yet that doesn't really tell the whole story.

For example, someone in the 'no' category might believe that there are aspects of the idea that, if implemented properly, would be an acceptable compromise. Yet they may believe that the way the idea will be implemented in actuality will not be acceptable. To put it simply, they may feel (for any number of reasons) that what we are putting forward looks okay, but what they're actually going to get is the 'worst case' version of it. IE, instead of a selection of companion appearances + statistical customization as a result of the armour being selected, they feel that they'll get exactly the same number of appearances that they had in DA2, with the statistical part added on as a way to 'throw them a bone', as it were.

Conversely, people in the 'yes' category may be looking at the idea in the most positive light possible, and while they may not agree with it in the 'worst case' scenario, they believe that we're going to implement it in a way that belongs more to the 'best case' scenario, whatever they feel that is. So it's hard to look at the numbers and state 'yes, this many people like/dislike the idea'. A lot of the community reaction is going to be based on -how- we implement the idea, as with anything else. And that's something you don't get from simply reading the numbers, but rather the posts being made in support of and against the proposed system.

Which is part of why I'm not an enormous fan of polls, honestly - they're useful if you want to say 'look, X number of people hate it/love it', but beyond that the usefulness breaks down a bit. It's not a good way to inform decision-making, as it's a rather simplified picture of how people are feeling. The feedback that accompanies those responses, now that's useful. Seeing why people feel the way they do helps us inform our decisions in a much more useful fashion, because it gives us something to work off of other than 'YOUR IDEA IS GOOD/BAD'.