491 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

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 there are other armour options in the game world which should fit the companions, and I might prefer to see them in those.

In those 3-4 complete sets (why can't they be parts, incidentally - I'd like to mix and match even within the iconic looks), the overall theme to which they adhere might be something we really dislike.  For example, I hate that Fenris is barefoot.  It's incredibly stupid.  I also dislike that he appears to be wearing lycra stirrup pants.  And, I think he violates the laws of physics when he runs.  The ability to give Fenris shoes, of any sort, plus the default animation rig, is a huge bonus, and one without which I don't think I could bring myself to use Fenris at all.

The generic armour of DA2 suits Fenris extremely well, I think (it does cause some clipping in several cinematics, but John Epler could easily work around that if he knew Fenris might be wearing bigger armour).

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...

Not true.  Very few armours in DAO were lmited by class.  They were limited by attributes.

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)

All of those.  There's no reason for my level of control over the companions to differ at all from my level of control over the PC.  It doesn't during combat.  It doesn't during level-up.  It doesn't during exploration or overland travel.  It doesn't while shopping.  Why is equipment suddenly different?

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.

What you think looks good has no bearing on what appearances other people might want to use.  Not only might I disagree with you about what looks good (and I do; I found matched sets were generally too monochromatic, and the muted tones in DAO pretty much all went well together - that's another win for DAO's overall art direction compared to DA2's, by the way), but I also would routinely choose equipment for other reasons.  That a character is willing to look like an idiot to achieve some statistical goal is relevant to his personality.  That a character thinkgs heavy gauntlets intimidate people (regardless of whether that's true) is relevant to his personality. And in a roleplaying game, every decision ties on to that character's personality.  It has to.  Otherwise the decision-making process doesn't make any sense within the game world.

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.

The only way to make everyone happy is to make both visual customisation and visual representation of statistical customisation optional.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 04 septembre 2011 - 05:27 .

[DariusKalera]

Strongly against.

Give me full customization of my party.

If I'm going to put armor on someone, I want that armor to show.

[PsychoBlonde]

 Sounds really good to me.  I like the iconic appearances, but I would have liked to have more of them that changed over time.

One of my problems with DA2 was that while it (theoretically) covered a 10-year period, there was no visual cue as to the passage of time.  The seasons didn't change, people wore the same clothes year after year, nobody aged . . . it could have all happened in the same week.

So yeah, I'd like to see the iconic outfits change over time, particularly if they go for a long-timespan story again.  Also, you can get a lot more value out of the "reused" areas if you just change a few things that gives a visual cue of "time passing".  Let's see some snow in the streets.  Some holiday ornaments.  Fallen leaves.  A rainstorm.  Blazing noonday sun.  SOMETHING.

I also wouldn't mind if they mimicked ME to the effect that your buddies wear their armor when they're in-party, but when you visit them at home/at the party camp/whatever, they're wearing *clothing*.  This would also help in that their armor can look like ARMOR yet they can still have just plain clothes for other occasions.

And let's have a few scenes where we get to see people in their fancy-dress best, too.  The end of Origins where everyone (well, almost everyone) was all gussied up was cool.

I realize that in-game outfits are work, and that the art takes time to do, but this sort of thing REALLY adds a lot to a game going for any kind of living "feel".

Addendum:  You know what COULD be done which would be really kind of neat? Have armor for companions (and even for the PC) come in several LAYERS.  The base layer is their "iconic" layer (and you could, say, customize this in the character generation screen for the PC--and in whatever equivalent there is to the Black Emporium, too), and this is where all the rule-breaking gear for NPC's exists--their long sleeves, boots, leather thong, whatever.  Then have your EQ add stuff on TOP of this layer.  Put an armor suit on your Qunari follower?  He gets heavy shoulderpads and a big belt.  Put some boots on him?  He gets some armored greaves.  Gloves add some bracers.

This would enable both options--iconic appearances, AND customization.  You could even make it so that you could, say, change the color of NPC "undersuits" and maybe even cycle through a couple of different unlockable options.  

DDO assembles armor suits in this way (although it's static--a given robe has X undersuit and Y over-gear and you can't change them independent of each other), but it works GREAT.  It allows for ENORMOUS variety in appearances, yet requires actually very few PARTS for that variety.  It's win-win.  If you're smart in how you design the under-suits, there's not even really clipping issues.

How's THAT for a proposal?

Modifié par PsychoBlonde, 04 septembre 2011 - 07:23 .

[Rixxencaxx]

Do you realize that all this chatting about "iconic look" is only about saving money for texture work?
Do you realize that when laidlaw talks about possible different iconic clothes he means "recolours of the same armour?"
Do you realize that the new Bioware is all about spending less and earning more?
If the problem is really the iconic look why don't they let us customize the companion ad much as we want and add a set of armour only equippable by a specific companion for fans of unique appearing???
Well Bioware learned nothing from da2 fail and this will bring to more...bigger fails in the future.

Modifié par Rixxencaxx, 04 septembre 2011 - 08:55 .

[Rixxencaxx]

Sareth Cousland wrote...

Why not create an iconic look (or 2, or 3) for each character and leave the decision to the player, in-game, whether he/she wants to keep that iconic look?

[Edit: If it's indeed related to development funds due to modeling work involved, which would make sense, I agree that the compromise solution presented here is a good one. There are more important things that need to be taken care of, like a larger game world to explore.]

Ok i'll be crude....
dragon age 2 new ideas and their reasons

1) All the game into the same city/time jumps-------------------------less textures, less work-----money and time saving
2) unique appearence-------------------------------------------see above.....
3) fast paced combat----------------------less work on animations ------time and money saving
4) only one fixed character------------------------less work, money and time saving
5) few categories of enemies/monsters copy/pasted from origins---------se above

As you see there isn't a single idea that wasn't money and time related.

Now they see 1,5 mln copies sold on a game done with nothing in 18 months and there is no way they come back to quality AAA titles.
But they don't understand that da2 sold 1,5 mln copies cause the 70-80% of customers thaught it was origins 2. In fact when the word passed mouth to mouth and on the internet the game sales collapsed and almost stopped.
Now they are taking a risk creating a da3 with the art style and limits of da2...and they don't realize that customers (and reviewers if you take a look at legacy scores) are well aware of the new direction of the franchising and this time sales will crumble....

Save this post for the future (i did another like this during the development of da2 and Gaider lolled at me and other old customers with the 5 phases of acceptance. Now i am the one who lolz)

Modifié par Rixxencaxx, 04 septembre 2011 - 09:40 .

[Shadowlit_Rogue]

I don't know. At the same time, it makes sense that BioWare would want to forego a part of the development process that has always ultimately resulted in somewhat low quality armor all around. If you want to make a suit of armor, you have to model it so that it fits humans, dwarves, and elves, and then you have to differentiate them between sexes. Suddenly you're making each set of armor six times. That's probably why Sten looked closer to human in DA:O, since that would've meant making each set seven times.

I'm thinking back to BW's later 3D games, and even in KotOR there were very few sets of armor that I liked; I usually always ended up with the Sith Master Robe or something. In Mass Effect, I settled on the Spectre Armor. Even in Dragon Age, I wasn't really satisfied with my rogue's armor until I found one of the sets in DA: Awakening. (I forget the name). With this system, it sounds like they'll be able to give followers their "iconic" appearance, spend less time customizing each and every piece of armor to match different models, and then spend MORE time focusing on PC armor, which might result in many more sets as good as the Champion Armor. (Might. If the commitment's not there the next time around either, then I won't know what to say.)

With the re-inclusion of stat management for followers, this is a system I can definitely get behind. In my mind, it falls to BioWare to show that this system is being implemented for efficiency's sake, and not to make one big cut corner like DA2 was. =/

Modifié par Shadowlit_Rogue, 04 septembre 2011 - 11:18 .

[Feanor_II]

I would also want to know if aside from what Mr. Laidlaw has proposed if they will keep all those equipment restrctions from DA2, I mean, daggers and bows only for rouges, plate armors only for warriors etc.....

[Flopsi]

Rixxencaxx wrote...

Do you realize that all this chatting about "iconic look" is only about saving money for texture work?
Do you realize that when laidlaw talks about possible different iconic clothes he means "recolours of the same armour?
Do you realize that the new Bioware is all about spending less and earning more?

1)Iconic looks like in DA2 also come with unique body models(like Isabela's big breasts). That requires more texture work than in DAO. In DAO there was only 2 textures per armor. There was no difference between a Morrigan and a Leliana wearing the same robes. Both had the same body types(same goes for the Warden). But DA2 has both 2 general body types for each armor set(for Hawke) and unique body types/looks for the companions.
2)How do you know that all the different iconic looks will be simple recolours?
3)Everyone wants to spent less and earn more...

[DariusKalera]

Flopsi wrote...

Rixxencaxx wrote...

Do you realize that all this chatting about "iconic look" is only about saving money for texture work?
Do you realize that when laidlaw talks about possible different iconic clothes he means "recolours of the same armour?
Do you realize that the new Bioware is all about spending less and earning more?

1)Iconic looks like in DA2 also come with unique body models(like Isabela's big breasts). That requires more texture work than in DAO. In DAO there was only 2 textures per armor. There was no difference between a Morrigan and a Leliana wearing the same robes. Both had the same body types(same goes for the Warden). But DA2 has both 2 general body types for each armor set(for Hawke) and unique body types/looks for the companions.
2)How do you know that all the different iconic looks will be simple recolours?
3)Everyone wants to spent less and earn more...

Because for #2, it is exactly how the instituted iconic looks and armor changes in ME2.  You do someone's personal quest and then you can change the color of thier armor.

Sounds alot like what they are proposing now and I didn't like it then either.

[Flopsi]

DariusKalera wrote...

Because for #2, it is exactly how the instituted iconic looks and armor changes in ME2.  You do someone's personal quest and then you can change the color of thier armor.

Sounds alot like what they are proposing now and I didn't like it then either.

That didn't happen in DA2 and it wont happen in ME3 so I have no reason to believe it will be so in DA3. Until then I go for Positive.

[tmp7704]

Flopsi wrote...

In DAO there was only 2 textures per armor.

Not really true -- the light, medium, heavy and massive armours had between 4-5 texture variants each. Two textures or so per mesh was the case for robes, but robes in turn had more meshes.

But DA2 has both 2 general body types for each armor set(for Hawke) and unique body types/looks for the companions.

That's also not really exact -- there's one 'body type' mesh per armour (per species) in DA2, whether it's companion armour or one that's worn by Hawke and other NPCs. The body type associated with any particular armour can be slightly different, but that was the case for DAO armours as well.

Modifié par tmp7704, 04 septembre 2011 - 03:10 .

[Xeper84]

Rixxencaxx wrote...

Ok i'll be crude....
dragon age 2 new ideas and their reasons

1) All the game into the same city/time jumps-------------------------less textures, less work-----money and time saving
2) unique appearence-------------------------------------------see above.....
3) fast paced combat----------------------less work on animations ------time and money saving
4) only one fixed character------------------------less work, money and time saving
5) few categories of enemies/monsters copy/pasted from origins---------se above

As you see there isn't a single idea that wasn't money and time related.

Now they see 1,5 mln copies sold on a game done with nothing in 18 months and there is no way they come back to quality AAA titles.
But they don't understand that da2 sold 1,5 mln copies cause the 70-80% of customers thaught it was origins 2. In fact when the word passed mouth to mouth and on the internet the game sales collapsed and almost stopped.
Now they are taking a risk creating a da3 with the art style and limits of da2...and they don't realize that customers (and reviewers if you take a look at legacy scores) are well aware of the new direction of the franchising and this time sales will crumble....

Save this post for the future (i did another like this during the development of da2 and Gaider lolled at me and other old customers with the 5 phases of acceptance. Now i am the one who lolz)

So true the whole game (DA2) felt like they tried to save money on every aspect of the game...

To the question i really can't decide.
If i would have more than 10 outfits for every Char in a ton of different colors + be able to alter all the stats  i could be ok with it. Better would be if we would have Origins system with a lot more variations. For example i've played a blood mage in DA:O and couldn't find any cloth that would fit my imagination of a "dark" mage...

Modifié par Xeper84, 04 septembre 2011 - 03:25 .

[bEVEsthda]

Rixxencaxx wrote...

Sareth Cousland wrote...

Why not create an iconic look (or 2, or 3) for each character and leave the decision to the player, in-game, whether he/she wants to keep that iconic look?

[Edit: If it's indeed related to development funds due to modeling work involved, which would make sense, I agree that the compromise solution presented here is a good one. There are more important things that need to be taken care of, like a larger game world to explore.]

Ok i'll be crude....
dragon age 2 new ideas and their reasons

1) All the game into the same city/time jumps-------------------------less textures, less work-----money and time saving
2) unique appearence-------------------------------------------see above.....
3) fast paced combat----------------------less work on animations ------time and money saving
4) only one fixed character------------------------less work, money and time saving
5) few categories of enemies/monsters copy/pasted from origins---------se above

As you see there isn't a single idea that wasn't money and time related.

Now they see 1,5 mln copies sold on a game done with nothing in 18 months and there is no way they come back to quality AAA titles.
But they don't understand that da2 sold 1,5 mln copies cause the 70-80% of customers thaught it was origins 2. In fact when the word passed mouth to mouth and on the internet the game sales collapsed and almost stopped.
Now they are taking a risk creating a da3 with the art style and limits of da2...and they don't realize that customers (and reviewers if you take a look at legacy scores) are well aware of the new direction of the franchising and this time sales will crumble....

Save this post for the future (i did another like this during the development of da2 and Gaider lolled at me and other old customers with the 5 phases of acceptance. Now i am the one who lolz)

I'm not going to argue with you if you're right or wrong in every case, and I wrote a cleverly nasty version of the 5 phases, but I cannot feel upset about that they're managing costs and resources. That is just something that has to be done. At the bottom line there has to be a business plan and thus a budget. The only question is how to use it as well as possible. Spend less on one unimportant feature and maybe you can add something with more value elsewhere.
I'm sure my personal prefs for how the resources should be spent are much different from Bioware's ideas of how they gain the most customers. But that's basically the huge discussion we have on this forum.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 04 septembre 2011 - 05:07 .

[just_me]

In those 3-4 complete sets (why can't they be parts, incidentally - I'd like to mix and match even within the iconic looks), the overall theme to which they adhere might be something we really dislike.

I mentioned whole sets, because of the "outfits that break the rules" thing that was mentioned.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Not true. Very few armours in DAO were lmited by class. They were limited by attributes.

You're right... I was under the impression that all mage robes had the class restriction, but I over generalized... because all robes in Awakening and the "good ones" from DA:O had the restriction and these were the ones present in my head... well then Templars were the ones that could equip every model... that should be correct now^^
And the massive/heavy armor had at least a "do not use"-warning sign for rogues with the strength requirement ... but you could equip such armor if you really wanted to...

All of those. There's no reason for my level of control over the companions to differ at all from my level of control over the PC. It doesn't during combat. It doesn't during level-up. It doesn't during exploration or overland travel. It doesn't while shopping. Why is equipment suddenly different?

OK... I should have seen this answer coming
But I think level of control differs anyway... you can't choose their class, the way they look... I mean the face (well you can put a helmet on...), one of the specs was preset as well as some skills and a attribute profile (and while this could be considered as a recommendation at earlier levels it was "the only way to go" if you recruited the companion at a higher level) and you have no control over their dialog... so there are some restrictions considering "characterization", but fewer considering gameplay. Depends in which category you put visual customization via armor. The "I don't like it, I should be able to change it, because I'm the player"-statement is hard to beat however...

What you think looks good has no bearing on what appearances other people might want to use. Not only might I disagree with you about what looks good (and I do; I found matched sets were generally too monochromatic, and the muted tones in DAO pretty much all went well together - that's another win for DAO's overall art direction compared to DA2's, by the way), but I also would routinely choose equipment for other reasons. That a character is willing to look like an idiot to achieve some statistical goal is relevant to his personality. That a character thinkgs heavy gauntlets intimidate people (regardless of whether that's true) is relevant to his personality. And in a roleplaying game, every decision ties on to that character's personality. It has to. Otherwise the decision-making process doesn't make any sense within the game world.

mhm... I felt random armor parts went better together in DA2 since there were no really bulky parts (like the massive armor parts in DA:O) and fewer extreme contrasts like the red tones from red steel/dragon bone equipment compared to steel/silverite... well... opinions

The only way to make everyone happy is to make both visual customization and visual representation of statistical customization optional.

So it seems, although I'm not really a fan of the "toggles for everything" approach.
I'll be happy as long as I have deep stat customization... with or without iconic looks and/or swappable armor.

Considering the "all changes in DA2 are just to save money" argument:
But wouldn't it be better to make DA:A2 instead?
Awakening also "features" some "trades" of DA2 like reduced interaction with companions and other NPCs and more linear dialogue. And reusing something that is already there (and cut some of the features) is still faster than building something new with reduced capability...
Not changing anything would have been less work and made more people happy as it seems.

[Sylvius the Mad]

just_me wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

All of those. There's no reason for my level of control over the companions to differ at all from my level of control over the PC. It doesn't during combat. It doesn't during level-up. It doesn't during exploration or overland travel. It doesn't while shopping. Why is equipment suddenly different?

OK... I should have seen this answer coming
But I think level of control differs anyway... you can't choose their class, the way they look... I mean the face (well you can put a helmet on...),

Once you're in the game, the same is true of the PC.  You're making an apples to oranges comparison with the face and the class, since we never see the character creation of the companions.

The parts of the game that contain both the PC and the companions, though, should almost no differences.  There's dialogue (which I also don't think shouldn't be markedly different), and now equipment.

one of the specs was preset as well as some skills and a attribute profile (and while this could be considered as a recommendation at earlier levels it was "the only way to go" if you recruited the companion at a higher level) and you have no control over their dialog... so there are some restrictions considering "characterization", but fewer considering gameplay. Depends in which category you put visual customization via armor. The "I don't like it, I should be able to change it, because I'm the player"-statement is hard to beat however...

I'll admit I modded both DAO and DA2 to eliminate the pre-set attribute and talent selections.  I like making Sten an archer, or Merrill a Spirit Healer.

mhm... I felt random armor parts went better together in DA2 since there were no really bulky parts (like the massive armor parts in DA:O)

I didn't like the massive armour in DAO, so I just didn't use it.

And that's something DAO lets me do.  But if I don't like Fenris's armour, there's nothing I can do other than just not use Fenris. 

So it seems, although I'm not really a fan of the "toggles for everything" approach.
I'll be happy as long as I have deep stat customization... with or without iconic looks and/or swappable armor.

I used to think that was the most important bit (and I'm baffled that they thought removing that in D2 was a good idea), but given that game's aren't that tactically interesting any more, and the battles hardly take any thought, and they're generally not very difficult (without using a lore-breaking difficulty setting), I find the stats just don't matter to me very much.  I'd like to be able to give the characters stats appropriate to their combat role (and only I can know that - BioWare can't ever know how I'm going to use a character), but especially fine contrrol just doesn't matter than much to me, because it doesn't make much difference to the gameplay.

Combat is perhaps my least favourite part of an RPG, and as the combat grows more streamlined that only becomes more true.

Considering the "all changes in DA2 are just to save money" argument:
But wouldn't it be better to make DA:A2 instead?
Awakening also "features" some "trades" of DA2 like reduced interaction with companions and other NPCs and more linear dialogue. And reusing something that is already there (and cut some of the features) is still faster than building something new with reduced capability...
Not changing anything would have been less work and made more people happy as it seems.

Someday soon I'll actually play Awakenings.

[Perles75]

I just hope that we'll have more freedom in the companions' armors than just the four "forced" upgrades with the occasional rune of DA2

[MonkeyLungs]

Rixxencaxx wrote...

Do you realize that all this chatting about "iconic look" is only about saving money for texture work?
Do you realize that when laidlaw talks about possible different iconic clothes he means "recolours of the same armour?"
Do you realize that the new Bioware is all about spending less and earning more?
If the problem is really the iconic look why don't they let us customize the companion ad much as we want and add a set of armour only equippable by a specific companion for fans of unique appearing???
Well Bioware learned nothing from da2 fail and this will bring to more...bigger fails in the future.

I don't think most people do realize. When they do, they jump on the excuse train and start apologizing for Bioware talking about how hard it is to release a game within the designated timeframe and budget. People these days afre trained to be susceptible to brainwashing and corporate double speak, they eat it up.

Bioware needs a system like Origins but with WAY more armors and each armor type should look different on each character so Leather would look one way on Varric and another on Isabella. There should be tailors and armor smiths in game that you can bring armor/clothes to and have them refitted for the character you want to outfit. You could offset the cost of this by providing the tailor with some other amror pieces you just intended to sell. This adds an economy element to the unique iconic armor looks, allows us to equip ALL of our companions, and retains a unique look for each companion. Any other system is just cost cutting laziness and Bioware can keep that mumbo jumbo to themselves.

[Firky]

^

I think that that way of doing armour would be great. Sounds detailed, fun and anything linked to crafting like that gets my thumbs up. But you're accusing "any other system" of being "cost cutting laziness." At the same time as suggesting people "apologising" for BioWare based on guesses made about time and budget are "brainwashed."

My question is, do you know how much your proposed system would cost in modern games dev terms? I have no idea. But I'd like to know. It might be horrendously large. Like, in BG2, you could see what armours people were wearing, and craft armour out of ankheg hides etc but the characters were tiny. So, it might not have been a significant cost. Again, I have no idea. But, characters aren't little sprites these days, armour has to look fairly detailed, character models vary in body shape, etc. Why wouldn't that be costly? Is it a cost worth spending? Surely, we'd have no idea until we knew what the cost actually was.

So, without actual monetary figures, or a decent attempt at trying to tease them out, expecting a zillion armours sounds as unreasonable to me as people mindlessly justifying iconic looks. (PS. I think many people do have good reasons for wanting iconic looks. I'm not one of them, but many of the justifications sound genuine.)

[Weltenschlange]

My attitude towards this theoretical concept is definitely "Strongly Positive".

We would finally have a use for all the armor our PC cannot wear while keeping each companion's individual look.

It's almost exactly the same system I would chose for DA3 if I were in charge of the development process.

I would actually go one step further though and apply the same system to the companion's weapons.

[Apologies if the following has already been discussed in this thread.]

For example in DA2 I really liked the elegant look of Isabella's starting dagger set and I think it complements her clothing style. I was quite disappointed to learn that most daggers in DA2 have a much more rough and coarse appearance and IMO don't really fit Izzy's overall style.

If the armor system outlined by Mike Laidlaw were also applied to the weapons, Isabella could be supplied with new blades over the course of the game but they would always look like her starting daggers on her.

I know that the 'hardcore customizers' (no offense meant) will probably roll their eyes at my proposal but I personally prefer NPC-companions with an iconic look. For me it only makes sense to have full control over the appearance and look of an RPG-character that I create myself and not one that was created by a development team.

I also wasn't a fan of the party equipment customization in DA:Origins. I too often had to choose between giving a companion a piece of armor that looked good on him/her or to give that companion something that had good statistics. I think most RPG's that offer full party equipment customization suffer from this. You get this 'thrift store effect' where the PC gets the best (looking) stuff and the other party members have to make do with the rest which then leads to them wearing outfits that look like they just stole random clothing items from a thrift store. (Although Neverwinter Nights 1 avoided this with a crafting system that allowed you to change the appearance and color of any armor in the game, given the right skills and crafting materials.)

In summary: I think this idea is a step in the right direction.

[Ianamus]

I'm really in two minds about the whole situation. Yes, companions should look iconic, but there is one thing in Mike's posts that I am not happy about

Mike Laidlaw said....

As per above, adding armor pieces to these slots will not impact the follower's appearance directly, only their statistics.

I really didn't like the fact that adding armour upgrades did nothing to the appearance, and It was the thing I hated the most about DA2's system- next to their armor changing randomly in the middle of the game without my consent (Like that horrible Merrill giraffe-in-white costume :shudders:) 

The following quote makes me slightly more hopeful:

Mike Laidlaw said....

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.

However, I am staying on neutral territory until I have confirmation that we will be able to change their appearance to a noticeable extent (similar to how the iconic outfits changed for romances- but with many more options).

I would also need confirmation that we will be able to change statistics to a noticeable extent. Only having three slots, after which you've upgraded them compltely, and with no choices between different upgrades, Like in DA2 would make me lean in the negetive direction.

If they were to give us more slots and options, as well as more visual customisation then I would be positive about the new system. 

Modifié par EJ107, 06 septembre 2011 - 08:19 .

[esper]

Weltenschlange wrote...

My attitude towards this theoretical concept is definitely "Strongly Positive".

We would finally have a use for all the armor our PC cannot wear while keeping each companion's individual look.

It's almost exactly the same system I would chose for DA3 if I were in charge of the development process.

I would actually go one step further though and apply the same system to the companion's weapons.

[Apologies if the following has already been discussed in this thread.]

For example in DA2 I really liked the elegant look of Isabella's starting dagger set and I think it complements her clothing style. I was quite disappointed to learn that most daggers in DA2 have a much more rough and coarse appearance and IMO don't really fit Izzy's overall style.

If the armor system outlined by Mike Laidlaw were also applied to the weapons, Isabella could be supplied with new blades over the course of the game but they would always look like her starting daggers on her.

I know that the 'hardcore customizers' (no offense meant) will probably roll their eyes at my proposal but I personally prefer NPC-companions with an iconic look. For me it only makes sense to have full control over the appearance and look of an RPG-character that I create myself and not one that was created by a development team.

I also wasn't a fan of the party equipment customization in DA:Origins. I too often had to choose between giving a companion a piece of armor that looked good on him/her or to give that companion something that had good statistics. I think most RPG's that offer full party equipment customization suffer from this. You get this 'thrift store effect' where the PC gets the best (looking) stuff and the other party members have to make do with the rest which then leads to them wearing outfits that look like they just stole random clothing items from a thrift store. (Although Neverwinter Nights 1 avoided this with a crafting system that allowed you to change the appearance and color of any armor in the game, given the right skills and crafting materials.)

In summary: I think this idea is a step in the right direction.

I actually wouldn't mind. The more the followers have something uniqe the higher is the chance that it will somehow be part of their story which would make people comment on it. And I love those little comments, but I don't think we will ever see that happening, so I will have to settle for the compromise.  

[Anomaly-]

I much prefer the way Origins did it, with everything essentially equippable by everyone, provided they meet the requirements. I really don't get the whole 'iconic look' thing.

First of all, I play these games for the progression and choices/strategy, not to play dress up. Personally, I'm a lot more concerned with whether these new gloves offer better protection than my previous ones, rather than if they match my boots better. That said, it is kind of special when they do, but that's what set bonuses are for. Secondly, why not focus more on companion faces and personalities being unique? Typically, that's how it works. This would also help to improve other aspects of the game, such as story and romances. The whole iconic look thing is as if to say you wouldn't recognize your own friends unless they wore the same clothes every day. And finally, seeing my companions in the same gear they were in when we started doesn't make me feel like we've had much of an adventure. I feel much less sense of progress.

Modifié par Anomaly-, 07 septembre 2011 - 03:42 .

[Thunderfudge]

The system I'de most like is like the one mentioned in TS, but more Origins-y.
Basically the Origins system (so, you can put whatever you want on your characters) but also 'upgrade armours' like Morrigan's (after you kill Flemeth) multiple times throughout the game for all characters.

So overall it's like the system in the TS, with the added ability to equip other items if one feels like it.

Edit: Though I'm all for the iconic character-look thing. So if it comes down to the system in the TS or a complete reversion back to the Origins system, I'de pick the former anyday.

Modifié par Thunderfudge, 07 septembre 2011 - 04:07 .

[Kilshrek]

Anomaly- wrote...

I much prefer the way Origins did it, with everything essentially equippable by everyone, provided they meet the requirements. I really don't get the whole 'iconic look' thing.

First of all, I play these games for the progression and choices/strategy, not to play dress up. Personally, I'm a lot more concerned with whether these new gloves offer better protection than my previous ones, rather than if they match my boots better. That said, it is kind of special when they do, but that's what set bonuses are for. Secondly, why not focus more on companion faces and personalities being unique? Typically, that's how it works. This would also help to improve other aspects of the game, such as story and romances. The whole iconic look thing is as if to say you wouldn't recognize your own friends unless they wore the same clothes every day. And finally, seeing my companions in the same gear they were in when we started doesn't make me feel like we've had much of an adventure. I feel much less sense of progress.

Bold parts, QFT. I mean, what RPG was never about loot? And then distributing said loot with your chums, hey?

Sure you may have to save the world from an ancient evil. or you may have had your family and friends killed and you're out for revenge, or you may just be a nameless wanderer, it all boils down to loot! And shiny loot.