491 réponses à ce sujet

[addiction21]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

I certainly appreciate that. And as I said, I would support a system that allows for both, even though I think it runs counter to an RPG.

That's only true if you assume that the player only controls one character.

That obviously isn't the case in DAO.

Where should that controll end? If we are presented with characters that allready are preset. In their class, stats, alignment, character, reations... IE a fleshed out and full character that is allready preset should we have full controll of them?

Personally if i am given a fully fleshed out character then I am not in complete controll of them.

[Iakus]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

I certainly appreciate that. And as I said, I would support a system that allows for both, even though I think it runs counter to an RPG.

That's only true if you assume that the player only controls one character.

That obviously isn't the case in DAO.

I like that concept:

"If I control the character in combat, I want a voice in what they wear into combat"

[addiction21]

iakus wrote...

I like that concept:

"If I control the character in combat, I want a voice in what they wear into combat"

But with this propsed concept your getting that perforence. Is it the visual or the stats that matter?

I might of misinterperted your intentions tho

Modifié par addiction21, 03 septembre 2011 - 03:13 .

[Maconbar]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

I certainly appreciate that. And as I said, I would support a system that allows for both, even though I think it runs counter to an RPG.

That's only true if you assume that the player only controls one character.

That obviously isn't the case in DAO.

Did you have full control over the companions in DA:O? The level of control that I had with the companions was not as complete as the control that I had over the warden.

[craigdolphin]

Well, I'm not out to convince anyone of anything. I was just very surprised by the result of the poll because I think the proposal (as stated) has merit. And I'm one of the crowd who are demonstrably quite bitterly disappointed with DA2.

[Iakus]

addiction21 wrote...

iakus wrote...

I like that concept:

"If I control the character in combat, I want a voice in what they wear into combat"

But with this propsed concept your getting that perforence. Is it the visual or the stats that matter?

I might of misinterperted your intentions tho

Ideally both.  But If I absolutely had to pick one, I'd say visual.  You can guide stat development through other means like leveling or "Enchantment!"

But I am getting tired of having to put up with what Bioware decides is an "awesome" appearance.  In recent years, that seems to involve characters charging into combat shirtless or pantsless.  Which is why I support having a range of thematic outfits to choose from.  "iconic range" rather than "iconic look"

[Shadowlit_Rogue]

I would support this system under certain conditions, I think:

-Several "iconic" armor sets for each companion. Enough that it doesn't feel like they're being withheld for the eventual DLC packs.

-Each armor set should be earned. Like Mike Laidlaw suggested, getting these armor sets after a crazy ass quest, companion plot point, crafting quest, turning point in the story, or what have you would get me on board. I would just feel a lot better about these sets if I could look at them like the suits you get in Red Dead Redemption. Something earned, or representative of the point in the story in which it was obtained.

Seeing Aveline change her armor after her new appointment was nice. Earning the final piece of the Champion armor set after fighting the high dragon was also nice. Stuff like that, but much more often.

-The same system shouldn't apply to the player character. I don't necessarily mind losing the ability to customize the companions visually if there are going to be enough "iconic" armor sets (and the ability to manage stats), but not being able to do the same to the PC would be a definite dealbreaker.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maconbar wrote...

Did you have full control over the companions in DA:O? The level of control that I had with the companions was not as complete as the control that I had over the warden.

I had far more control over the companions in DAO than I did over NPCs.  My level of control over Alistair more closely resembed my level of control over the Warden than it did my level of control over Duncan.

The same is true in DA2.  In DA2, I can choose what skills are learned, what weapon is equipped, what actions are taken in combat, and what places are visited.  That control over Varric or Isabela is far greater than my control over the Arishok, for example.

[Sylvius the Mad]

And back on topic, the iconic looks should be optional. There is no reason to force iconic looks on all playersr.

[bEVEsthda]

addiction21 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

I certainly appreciate that. And as I said, I would support a system that allows for both, even though I think it runs counter to an RPG.

That's only true if you assume that the player only controls one character.

That obviously isn't the case in DAO.

Where should that controll end? If we are presented with characters that allready are preset. In their class, stats, alignment, character, reations... IE a fleshed out and full character that is allready preset should we have full controll of them?

Personally if i am given a fully fleshed out character then I am not in complete controll of them.

There's not much point in going down the road what we think is reasonable from a realistic perspective. And gameplay control, itself, shouldn't be considered from that view at all, IMO. Is it realistic that clicking here cause this? Why can I just choose stats from a menu when leveling up? Shouldn't the gain reflect what has been experienced? Do you see my point? Control defines the genre of the game. It shouldn't be considered from the perspective of realism. (And in this case we also have a game DA2 that absolutely pisses on realism in terms of gameplay, viewed from its forerunners DAO and BG. Which makes the question regarding realism for control... well.)
And what many of us want, what DA was supposed to be, and what we were promised, a decade ago, that DA would be, is a party rpg. In such games, you're supposed to have full control of the entire party. If this concept is eroded, we move into the realms of a squad game. And from there onwards to a single player rpg.

I'm not about to argue the merits of whatever. It's just that a party rpg is supposed to be in a certain way, and many of us specifically want a party rpgame. That's how we want things to be. We waited for DA for a good part of our lives because it was supposed to be a party control rpg.

[Kilshrek]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

And back on topic, the iconic looks should be optional. There is no reason to force iconic looks on all players.

Now that's something worth a toggle.

[just_me]

Sylvius
the Mad wrote...



And back on topic, the iconic looks should be optional. There is no reason to force iconic looks on all playersr.

But assuming that Bioware provides 3-4 distinct full armor sets (no parts) per companion that the player can freely choose, why exactly is this not enough?

I mean it does satisfy the need that you -as the player - can choose what the companions wear... but it is obviously just a subset of all the available options... but even companions in DA:O were supposed to wear a subset of the available armor, even if the subset was bigger... the only class that could wear everything were Arcane Warriors...

Is it because the subset is just too small? (not enough options)
The level of control is not fine enough? (just sets not parts)
Or because control (probably) appears to late in the game? (might take a while
to obtain a 2nd outfit to choose from)

My point is, when I was optimizing stats  I appreciated the fine level of control, since I could apply various combinations of effects (this is what I did for my active party), but when it was just about visual customization (the guys I did not intend to use) I never felt that this level of customization was really necessary, since I was going for stuff that "looks good together" I usually gave full armor sets to companions for a consistent look (I think meshing parts from various armor types together didn't look good in most cases ...e.g massive gauntlets and light armor) I even pretended some sets are "iconic looks" for certain companions... Legion armor for Oghren, Ancient Elven armor for Zevran etc.

I sometimes think separating visual customization completely from stat customization is a good thing, just because it provides more flexibility with builds if there is no need to care about stat requirements for armor.



And as a side note:
Should we get the Origins system back they should distribute the models a little better...
There were like 15 sets overall, 2 robes, 2 light, 2 medium, 1 heavy and 8(!) massive models (including DLC...) Without rather... exotic builds half of the models were more or less warrior exclusive... and Arcane Warrior of course...

edit: since CRTL+A copied more info than expected

Modifié par just_me, 03 septembre 2011 - 10:11 .

[Marionetten]

just_me wrote...

But assuming that Bioware provides 3-4 distinct full armor sets (no parts) per companion that the player can freely choose, why exactly is this not enough?

Because it breaks the visual continuity which is quite important to some of us. You're wearing something yet you're wearing something entirely different. Remember how reluctant BioWare was in giving us a helmet toggle? Well, this is the helmet toggle times a hundred in just how badly it screws over the visual continuity. If someone is wearing plate then that should show. It should be a direct visual cue and the same goes for enemies. If an opponent looks heavily armored then he should be heavily armored. Giving us a few predetermined outfits to pick from doesn't really solve this issue. Instead visuals ends up being completely divorced from statistics which is a very bad thing going on BioWare's own showing instead of telling philosophy.

What Dragon Age needs more than anything right now is coherence. This goes for both gameplay and art. This flies in the face of that in some misguided attempt to compromise between two camps with little to nothing in common. It's band aid design at its finest and it shows that BioWare is still unwilling to put in a proper effort. Not a promising sign of things to come. They need to start drawing some lines in the sand instead of half heartedly trying to pander to everyone.

[In Exile]

Yrkoon, this is my last post to you, so answer or not, whatever. I'm done talking to someone who doesn't just backtrack, but rather circumvents the entire globe.

[quote]Yrkoon wrote...
No it's not. An empty rune slot on a pair of gloves is still a stat... on a pair of gloves. Just a customizable one. [/quote]

So we're back to you complete missing the point, hardlocking armour with specific stats, and saying that the compromise should be you getting exactly what you want? My bad for assuming.


[quote]Correct. And who's to say the wearer of that ancient plate didn't customize it with the runes that you're looking at? Or that he didn't add the cold damage that's making that sword shimmer? And more importantly, who's to say the new owner can't switch out the runes?[/quote]

So long as generic armour (that has better stats sans runes) has the equivalent number of rune slots, the generic armour is better. This isn't even a complicated statistical concept. 

Look, I'll illustrate:

Armour 1: 8.99 armour, 1 runeslot, 
Armour 2: 8.99 armour, +2 CON, 1 runeslot. 

Armour 2 is objectively better for all possible builds. 


[quote]I can assure you, Exile, that I can, without any cheats at all, create an equally powerful (or more powerful)  level 20 Bloodmage Morrigan... using HER  (iconic) robes of possession... than you can with, say, Wynne wearing any robe avaliable in DA:O.  The ONLY way you can make a better bloodmage  Wynne is by using  her vessel of the spirit ability...  But that's not gear... that's a plot based talent.[/quote]

1) You missed the point to a comical extent. It is not inter-character. It is intra-character. Morrigain as a BM in Robes of Posession and Morrigain as a BM in Reaper's Vestments. 

2) Wynne is a better blood mage than Morrigain. She's an SM, and SM/BM is a much stronger combo than SM/SS, because Wynne as a BM has an infinite casting pool. I don't see why you'd bring up Vessel of the Spirit.... unless you somehow think that Magic is the primary stat that drives the build. 

And in that case you would be, again, wrong. 

But the fact you are not a power-gamer is not our issue.

[quote]And again, What does this have to do with my proposal, which you're attempting to shoot down?  Have I not said, at least 25 times on this thread, that Iconic gear should be customizable?[/quote]

Ah, so we're back to making things up. "Should be customizable" doesn't address the issue, as I have explained to you multiple times. In the above post, in fact, in reference to the runes. 

[quote]Yeah, your reading comprehension s*cks.  I wasn't sure before....I thought that since there's so many people posting on this thread, that maybe you're just confusing me with someone else, but no.  You're just utterly  misunderstanding  what  many people  here  are saying.[/quote]

Someone's reading comprehension sucks, but it's yours. The reply you just gave above, about Morrigain vs. Wynne shows that you missed what I said entirely. 

And your "customizability" is not even that, as I've already told you.

[quote]Needless to say, NO, that's NOT the opposite of anything I've ever argued.  it is, in fact, the same thing I've been repeating since...  oh... page 20 of the LAST thread.[/quote]

Oh, you've been repeating something, but it wasn't customizability, it was just the DA:O system with a bone thrown to the iconic look. You know, what you first lied about and then whinned about in response to Mr. Laidlaw's post. 

[quote]And what part of  "if she wants!"... and  "there's none in the game for anyone" equates to  "if you want iconic looks, you're gonna have to deal with  not being able to build a character how you want"?[/quote]

Yes. Because if I want the stats of the Robes of Avernus and the looks of the Robes of Posession... what exactly happens? 

Nothing, that's what. 

[quote]Yes...  please do, because twice now you've managed to take my posts and pluck out the complete opposite meaning to what's actually been said.[/quote]

Since you mentioned the last thread, I believe I'll start there:

Here is my favourite one:

How exactly does giving a companion  removable  Iconic gear, and even future upgrades/versions to thatremovable iconic gear, not satisfy the camp that prefers iconic gear?

Then a reasonable compromise, would be the Morrigan method.  Iconic gear  for a companion would conform with the  specific body style  of that companion....  THEN, give the rest of us the option to swap out that gear, with the full understanding that the companion's  unique body shape will revert back to Generic human/generic elf/genericdwarf, if we decide to put other armor on that companion.

And then you defind the Morrigain method before:

Again, I point to the Morrigan method.  She had Iconic gear, and many people stuck with that look because it was unique and iconic.

You then add:

And Morrigan's outfit (expecially the one you get after killing flemeth) is perfectly relevant even on nightmare.

And then this is what seals the deal:

Enlighten me,

Now exactly does giving a companion  removable  Iconic gear, and even future upgrades/versions to that removable iconic gear, not satisfy the camp that prefers iconic gear?

Yes, you certainly talked about armour being "statistically customizable" since page 20 of the LAST thread. You were even nice enough to specify that it was removable iconic gear and not customizable, and then make it clear that "Morrigain's outfit" refered to the static outfit you get from Flemeth and she starts with. Unless you're going to try and backtrack and say that the "Morrigain method" didn't really mean exactly what DA:O did. Which, given the way in which you interact with facts, would be surprising, given this:

 It's one thing to put out a  mediocre game, and quite another to  constantly  insult our intelligence at every turn  by claiming to be  making changes  but then refusing to deviate  one iota from that mediocre game's formula.

Oh, and in case you try to weasel out of that one, I'm going to quote this (which includes more information on what you think about statistical customization, especially the part where you say "changing stats" is what DA2 allowed you to do; really clarifies what you consider "customization", I think):

Are you trying to say it's not?

In DA2  your companions  had static gear.  You couldn't change the way they looked.

Will  DA3 be different in that regard?    uh-uh.   Read the OP.  And before you  come back  with  some worthless   rebuttal like  "but you can change the stats on the gear you liar!"  Just remember 2 things:   1) you could  change the stats on your companion outfits in  DA2 as well.  and 2) Many, MANY of us  don't, and never did, give a crap about the stats of Isabela's loin cloth anyway.  We cared about CUSTOMIZATION and  appearances that WE got to decide on for our party members-- which  we couldn't do in DA2

[quote]Oh no, you misundersand, Exile.    I'm calling you out for making a  FALSE claim.  Having +5 more spell power than, say, Iconic robed Morrigan will NOT make your Cone of cold  (for example) deal more damage.  [/quote]

Aren't you cute? I caught you lying (reposted for posterity above) and now you're trying 1) dodge the argument about spellpower and 2) think you're calling me out by fixating on an error. 

Cone of cold will deal less damage. 

BM + Spell Might + Spell Wisp + Fireball will deal more damage than 5+ to magic Fireball and never worry about running out of "mana".

[quote]Your  goal-post moving is beginning to bore me.  Your  initial claim was that an extra 5 magic equates to a solid boost in damage. [/quote]

I'm moving the goalposts? Says the poster who opened the last thread with lying, then then lied about the argument he was making! Yes, you really were just talking about customizable iconic looks since page 20 of the last thread. 

Someone is certainly moving the goal posts, but that's the one who is making things up, and then pretending he never said anything in the first place.

Here is what I said before that, just to be clear:

Distribute them however you want. If I have a robe that adds +2 to magic and you don't. for the same build my magic stat will always be higher. My build will always be better.

A "solid boost" is any non-zero boost, since we were talking about power-gaming, that's absolutely about these minor changes in damage. +5 spellpower is boost, if you power game. Simple as that. 

[quote]And while even that is false, you're now trying to argue that it's at least true of you decide to stack a pair of mage sustains  (which ANY mage can do anyway), so the difference  of 5 spell power between two mages  both using those sustains is not "increased", or "compounded" or whatever you're trying to argue..[/quote]

It doesn't matter that every mage can do it.

Spell Might at 20 Spellpower (this translates into +12) does not give you the same boost as Spell Might at 120 spellpower (this translates into + 22).  

Any mage can compound it... but a mage with a higher magic stat will get a greater boost, because there's no cap.

And when you're power-gaming, then the fun is the ideal build. 

[quote]Oh?  and what kind of  boost to   the  1:1 ratio  does lyrium and Blood magic give you? [/quote]

You keep the sustains, as I described. 

Modifié par In Exile, 03 septembre 2011 - 05:59 .

[In Exile]

Barbarossa2010 wrote...
It's absolutely fine to defend whatever system you want.  It's still stands that it's way beyond me why anyone would argue so vehemently for less choice...unless, of course, you actually work for Bioware.

Well, if you look at it that way, lots of reasons, including worrying about what design elements will be implemented.

But if those don't satisfy you, then the biggest one being the belief that NPCs are outside of the player's control, and that a good RPG will retain the uniqueness of other characters as living people in their world, with the player controlling only the player avatar. 

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That's only true if you assume that the player only controls one character.

That obviously isn't the case in DAO.

It certainly is. Morrigain's romance dialogue seals it, when she says that giving you a ring is like all the equipment you gave her to wear. It cannonizes that within the game, the Warden is a separate entity dressing the party. 

[Iakus]

Marionetten wrote...

just_me wrote...

But assuming that Bioware provides 3-4 distinct full armor sets (no parts) per companion that the player can freely choose, why exactly is this not enough?

Because it breaks the visual continuity which is quite important to some of us. You're wearing something yet you're wearing something entirely different. Remember how reluctant BioWare was in giving us a helmet toggle? Well, this is the helmet toggle times a hundred in just how badly it screws over the visual continuity. If someone is wearing plate then that should show. It should be a direct visual cue and the same goes for enemies. If an opponent looks heavily armored then he should be heavily armored. Giving us a few predetermined outfits to pick from doesn't really solve this issue. Instead visuals ends up being completely divorced from statistics which is a very bad thing going on BioWare's own showing instead of telling philosophy.

What Dragon Age needs more than anything right now is coherence. This goes for both gameplay and art. This flies in the face of that in some misguided attempt to compromise between two camps with little to nothing in common. It's band aid design at its finest and it shows that BioWare is still unwilling to put in a proper effort. Not a promising sign of things to come. They need to start drawing some lines in the sand instead of half heartedly trying to pander to everyone.

But what they're wearing would not be entirely different.  They'd be variations of a theme.  The theme stays "iconic"  Aveline, for example would always be a heavily armored warrior, because that's her theme.  What would change would be what her armor looks like.  She may not always be dressed as a Guardsman, but she'd still be wearing...I dunno...Blood Dragon armor.  Or something else distinctive.  Isabela's a pirate and a smuggler, her outfits would remain with the seafaring theme.  She wouldn't go around wearing Tevinter magister robees or shiny plate armor, because those aren't her.  And so on with Fenris, Varric, Anders.  They'd all retain a particular type of appearance based on their characters.  But the specifics would be more up to the player.

[just_me]

Marionetten
wrote...

Because it breaks the visual continuity which is quite important to some of us. You're wearing something yet you're wearing something entirely different. Remember how reluctant BioWare was in giving us a helmet toggle? Well, this is the helmet toggle times a hundred in just how badly it screws over the visual continuity. If someone is wearing plate then that should show. It should be a direct visual cue and the same goes for enemies. If an opponent looks heavily armored then he should be heavily armored. Giving us a few predetermined outfits to pick from doesn't really solve this issue. Instead visuals ends up being completely divorced from statistics which is a very bad thing going on BioWare's own showing instead of telling philosophy.

I understand that point, it's actually my biggest issue with the proposal. That's why I wouldn't do the advanced stat customization via "invisible gear" there are other methods, that can provide similar depth and flexibility.
I also think it's pretty weird if you cannot see the equipment at all... and the idea that equipment could have some influence on the outfit... I think it cannot be implemented good enough to yield satisfying results.
The only property that you can directly determine by looking at equipment is the armor value, but companion specific outfits can provide that... simply have one that looks more solid and give it a higher base value...
All other properties are pure guessing, you can't really tell if a gauntlet should increase strength or not...

But I wanted to know if a reasonable "iconic range" (that term is even better than iconic itself xD) could provide a satisfying depth in customization... in that case we might still be able "to work something out" on the terms, satisfying customization with looks and stats, unique body models and looks and still as few meshes for Bioware as possible. Otherwise no other system than Origins will do...

Modifié par just_me, 03 septembre 2011 - 06:26 .

[tmp7704]

Vicious wrote...

Customization while retaining a unique look is pure win. Who the hell over 12 thinks it's amusing to put ugly mismatching outfits on characters?

I like seeking possible ways to combine different pieces into coherent looking, interesting outfits. And yes, i'm over 12.

People have different tastes. You'll have to deal with it.

Modifié par tmp7704, 03 septembre 2011 - 06:38 .

[tmp7704]

Marionetten wrote...

Because it breaks the visual continuity which is quite important to some of us. You're wearing something yet you're wearing something entirely different.

Personally i view the appearance/gear slots system more like a way to customize stats of the item, one that's easy to operate (doesn't require you to jump through series of UI hoops) and universal for both PC and console users -- it's similar how mods like the Winter Forge allows you to set any attributes you like on the piece of gear, except this approach doesn't require ability to run such mods, and is simpler.

In other words, while the interface may show your character wear appearance item A and gear item B, i treat it as character wearing item A that was set to have attributes B.

Modifié par tmp7704, 03 septembre 2011 - 06:44 .

[Gunderic]

Blech. No.

I imagine most people here would want roleplaying elements in their roleplaying games.

[fchopin]

For myself i was very disappointed the way DA2 handled the companions.

The whole point of playing DAO for myself was that i could customise my companions both in armour and abilities so i could have a team that i liked and fight in the style that i was happy using.

In DA2 i could not customise the armour and i could also not customise my companions abilities the way i wanted, we were forced to have companions with us just so we could use certain abilities. That is not the kind of game i want to play.

If Bioware does not allow companion customisation in armour and abilities maybe they should change the game to single play without companions.

Another big disappointment in DA2 is that i had all the loot armour and i could not use it, i had to work out what i could use and what i could not and sell them.
It was probably the worst loot selection i have ever seen in any game.

[Nashiktal]

I support the general spirit given what we know so far. We get some limited control on how they look, and said outfits will remain in the general spirit of the character. At the same time we will be allowed to alter their stats using equipment, without compromising their character design.

However I think I will wait until we get more info on DA3 and their characters before I praise or criticize it completely.

[Zanallen]

tmp7704 wrote...

Personally i view the appearance/gear slots system more like a way to customize stats of the item, one that's easy to operate (doesn't require you to jump through series of UI hoops) and universal for both PC and console users -- it's similar how mods like the Winter Forge allows you to set any attributes you like on the piece of gear, except this approach doesn't require ability to run such mods, and is simpler.

In other words, while the interface may show your character wear appearance item A and gear item B, i treat it as character wearing item A that was set to have attributes B.

That's how I was thinking of it. Using magic or something to imbue one item with the properties of another. Like having a leather duster that can stop bullets like a kevlar vest.

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

Add diffirent unique civilian clothes which companions would wear during dialogues when on party in tavern, at home, at camp. Sten would't wear anything exept his plate, even asleep. Merrill will switch to a light green dress at home, for example.
In combat, they will wear what I say them to wear. I am their leader and commander. However, there is already clear distiction between classes, so no medium or heavy armor for Morrigan, but only robes and light armor maybe. Designers can handle 1/3 of all armor to display well on generic models, no?
No battle mage anymore, so no Wynne in full plate mail. That problem already solved.
Hope developers will think with their heads, not fan votes, and make something original and satisfying, and logical. No need to stick with black and white options and some deviations from them like "looks preset" to "you can do anything with them", if they really wish players to keep plate mail for Sten, not Wynne (as example).

Modifié par DamnThoseDisplayNames, 03 septembre 2011 - 11:00 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

It certainly is. Morrigain's romance dialogue seals it, when she says that giving you a ring is like all the equipment you gave her to wear. It cannonizes that within the game, the Warden is a separate entity dressing the party.

That only follows in games where Morrigan says that.

And even if we do accept this as true, that only exacerbates the problem of the gameplay/story dichotomy, which is something we should be trying to reduce, not expand.