791 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr.House]

tmp7704 wrote...

rak72 wrote...

I have no idea what a snakes ass is

An instantly recognizable pean to virility and the perfect human form.

[rak72]

@ snakes ass

Lol, at least Izzy had the decency to put on a thong.

[mesmerizedish]

DamnThoseDisplayNames wrote...

I still don't get one thing, by the way. Why do we need to remember character's look so much, when we already remember their personalities?
You can't "cheat" and make character more memorable with some extraordinary looks, if he lacks personality. That just is't how RPG's work. And I dare to say that's not even how people's mind who play RPG's work.

No one is saying that's how anything works, and that's not BioWare are saying they plan to do.

That a tool (visual characterization) is not 100% absolutely necessary (because, hey, BG, Ultima, blah blah didn't have it!) does not mean they should just throw it aside.

It's a tool. It's useful. It's (in general) good.

[Sad Dragon]

Wasn't going to get into a discussion but I will however just state a few things that has been on my mind on this subject.

First however I would like to address point #2 of the OP: Now I don't know exactly how they wrote the particular set of functions that handles switching of armor meshes for the PC for DA2 but assuming they didn't make it more complex then making it so that you can equip armour -- but not having them change the visuals shouldn't be that big of a programming job. So that would actually be kind of a none-issue -- or so I feel anyway.


Now for some generic stuff:

Personality: Clothing is part of the personality, you wouldn't see me walking out on the streets with punk-rock clothing and spikes because, well, that just isn't me. What I do wear does speak of who I am, it gives me an identity and adds to my personality. In this way having an established look actually gives the characters more personality, not less.

Now for people who like to think that they are the party, the are not just the PC but the NPCs as well I can see this being a bad thing as you can not give every character the personality you want them to have but the fact of the matter is, currently we do not play as the party we play as the PC. We get to make decisions for the PC and the PC alone the other party members can either like, dislike or attack you for the choices you make -- they are their own characters.

I know that games like that exist where you get to play the whole party, and restricting armor customization in such a game would make no sense as you get to build the whole party though ever since I started playing Bioware games, i have never encountered them making such a game.

I think that is all I have, if you dig up some of my old posts in other threads on the topic you might find something more but I don't want to sound like an echo chamber so i will skip those points so to not bore you

Also, for the one who posted what I assume is a cosplay of Zev; If the cosplayer was turned the other way -- looking right rather then left -- i don't think anyone could say that it was Zeveran as well... the tattoos wouldn't be visible then. So my answer is no -- and to be honest if it wasnt posted on BSN im not sure I would have thought of good ol' Zev at all or at least it would have taken me a while -- even with the tattoos.

Have been wanting to post that ever since the first thread the cosplay was posted XD


But enough of my rambelings time for some productive posts! Go! Go! Go!
-The Sad Dragon

[ipgd]

rak72 wrote...

@ snakes ass

Lol, at least Izzy had the decency to put on a thong.

I can't imagine a thong would be terribly advantageous in a sneaking mission. He would have to spend too much time picking it out of his butt.

They both got the corset down, though.

[tmp7704]

Willybot wrote...

I stand by my insistance that ponies solve all the world's problems:

Though, on the subject, it's pretty easy to make them recognizable even without the iconic outfits, too.

[PsychoBlonde]

Addai67 wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...
So what was the primary difference customization-wise between Origins and DA2 as far as I was concerned?  In DA2 *some* of the armor my character could wear wasn't UGLY AS SIN.  I consider that an IMPROVEMENT in customization of appearances. 

And all you're saying here is that the same people who designed ugly armor in Origins should design companion armor that you can't change even if there IS something you prefer available in the game.

What's wrong with this picture?

No,my point is that there was nothing to "prefer" in Origins.  It was all ugly.  Ugly on companions.  Ugly on the PC.  Some was slightly less ugly because it was part of a set and at least had the virtue of matching, but unfortunately since I prefer playing mages and rogues and don't like the warriors much and I HATE the ENORMOUS SHOULDER PLATES OF DOOM on the PC, I was kind of screwed for acceptable (to me) options.

So, to me, DA2 had more and better appearance customization.  As far as I'm concerned the *only* reason I want customization is so I'm more likely to get something I want for my PC.  (That and I don't much like playing any character who appears in a marketing campaign.)  50 hairstyles I hate and one I like = 1 option.  500 armor options I hate and 1 I like = 1 option.

I don't (much) care how the companions look because they are not my character.  I don't go around accessorizing my friends in RL, if my fake friends in a game want to dress like a blind hobo, so be it.

And, actually, it wasn't even that bad because at least their clothes matched their skin tone and so forth.  Finding armor in Origins that didn't make Sten look seriously ill took some serious doing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

A toggle is not an option.

I'm smart enough not to call for a toggle.

But something like the Diversified Followers Armour mod for DA2 allows the player to keep the iconic look if they like it, modifiy it slightly if they want to, or discard it in favour of generic armour.

That's the approach you should use if you want to provide players with iconic looks.

[Addai]

David Gaider wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

I just wish Bioware would shift their focus back to empowering players with choice instead of trying to enforce their own. 

Yep.  And focusing on deeper characterization in dialogue rather than by "enforcing" static visuals.

And I believe we've already stated that we're doing that-- on our terms, of course, but when would it be otherwise? What I'm hearing is that unless you have this choice, you don't have anything.

Not from me.  I like a lot of customization- fiddling is part of the fun of an RPG for me- but story choice and consequence and seeing the results of your choices in the world is also a good thing.  What you are probably hearing is that people felt restricted on multiple levels- I'd also throw in not being able to talk to your followers except in designated places when they have yellow arrows over their heads- but this being a thread about follower armor, that's what we're talking about here.

[bEVEsthda]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

It's a tool. It's useful. It's (in general) good.

I don't think it's useful or good.
The only point I see is if they intend to do movies (which they do) or comics (which they apparently also intend to do).
And I would suspect that's basically it. Some marketing dude has had his spin...

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

It's a tool. It's useful. It's (in general) good.

You contradict yourself here. Tool is a tool, it's useful, how much good it brings depends solely on how you use it. We have some examples already, which did't "amaze" or "supermangreenlantern" me.

[Zanallen]

Filament wrote...

I would note that there was a Batman variant (or maybe it was fanart) where he was wearing armor plating, but it was still instantly recognizable as Batman. Ironman has variants of his armor that are much more ornate/heavy. Samus has multiple different suits. Final bosses in video games tend to go through multiple stages of grotesqueness while preserving an element of the antagonist's "identity" that makes them recognizable.

My point is that by Stanley Woo's post, I feel a bit concerned that they're so scared of losing that "iconic" look that they barely even want to consider recolors (because Superman and Green Lantern just wouldn't be themselves recolored, though Spiderman manages), much less more significant variations. This would be a far too limiting interpretation of what is needed to make a character "iconic."

But they are still uniquely Batman, Ironman, Spiderman, etc. All of their variable costumes have elements of their iconic appearance. Batman has his bat ears and logo. Superman has his shield. Ironman's costumes all have a very similar helmet. Put Batman in Spiderman's costume and he just wouldn't be Batman anymore. Put Wolverine in Ironman's suit and he is no longer really Wolverine. And besides, Bioware is talking about having multiple looks per companion. What the scope of these outfits is remains to be seen, but it still constitutes a choice in visual appearance.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

I cannot account for the game you're playing in your own head, Sylvius. I can, however, account for the experience of the game as we intend it to be. If what you want is something different, that's great, but making a game for the sole purpose of allowing you to play an unintended version in your head is not our goal.

True, but you also don't need to prevent me from playing an unintended version in my head, and that's what you've started doing.

That you can't account for the game in my head doesn't matter.  The problem is that you want to control what game it is I'm playing.

[astreqwerty]

this is not to be negotiated..i dont get why they cant add customization for companions armours but iconic looks and stuff i dont buy either...i dont want iconic i want role playing

[mesmerizedish]

bEVEsthda wrote...

I don't think it's useful or good.
The only point I see is if they intend to do movies (which they do) or comics (which they apparently also intend to do).
And I would suspect that's basically it. Some marketing dude has had his spin...

Denying that visual characterization is ever useful is just lunacy. But once you're at the point that you're willing to make such a declaration, there's really nothing anyone can say to you.

[Mr.House]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

A toggle is not an option.

I'm smart enough not to call for a toggle.

But something like the Diversified Followers Armour mod for DA2 allows the player to keep the iconic look if they like it, modifiy it slightly if they want to, or discard it in favour of generic armour.

That's the approach you should use if you want to provide players with iconic looks.

Like this?



*credit to Ish for the awesome mod*

[Atakuma]

I just hope that gaining new outfits will be more story based like Aveline's guard captain armor, rather than having them appear magically after knocking boots.

[Wulfram]

Set companion looks seems like it's "iconic" of a more general attitude of seeing player choice as a bad thing which gets in the way of the story. Fitting in with things like the set background and the removal of player control over what the PC says.

edit: when for me it's why I play games rather than just watch TV and read books.

Modifié par Wulfram, 07 septembre 2011 - 10:13 .

[Ivers0803]

astreqwerty wrote...

this is not to be negotiated..i dont get why they cant add customization for companions armours but iconic looks and stuff i dont buy either...i dont want iconic i want role playing

So you want to roleplay someone who tells their friends what to wear? A normal person choses what they wear. So doesn't it benefit roleplaying if the companions wear armor that they as characters want to wear, as well as armor that complements the personality of said character?

[mesmerizedish]

DamnThoseDisplayNames wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

It's a tool. It's useful. It's (in general) good.

You contradict yourself here. Tool is a tool, it's useful, how much good it brings depends solely on how you use it. We have some examples already, which did't "amaze" or "supermangreenlantern" me.

I never contradict myself.

Whether or not they "amazed" or "supermangreenlanterned" you doesn't really matter. Because, believe it or not, the effect things have on you is not representative of the effect things have.

[ipgd]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

A toggle is not an option.

I'm smart enough not to call for a toggle.

But something like the Diversified Followers Armour mod for DA2 allows the player to keep the iconic look if they like it, modifiy it slightly if they want to, or discard it in favour of generic armour.

That's the approach you should use if you want to provide players with iconic looks.

The existence of a system where a follower can be switched into a generic body model does negatively affect the implementation of any unique body/armor model, insofar as it restricts the followers' body types so that they cannot significantly diverge from the default model without being immediately jarring when swapped from unique>generic body.

When a system potentially introduces problems like that that will be jarring to people, even if not necessarily you, it's best left in the hands of modders. And you will have that functionality eventually through mods if you are one of the people who is willing to deal with body morphing, but Bioware would have trouble implementing this themselves, because it either a) restricts how far they can actually go with the mesh or doesn't restrict how far they can go with the mesh, but introduces an entirely new class of people who are right pissed about something that will likely be eagerly labeled "lazy" and "jarring" and "immersion-ruining". Anything they do is not going to be an optional mod that only people who specifically want this functionality have to download, they will have to contend with these other people.

edit: (speaking of modding, toolset pls ty.)

Modifié par ipgd, 07 septembre 2011 - 10:16 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

True, but you also don't need to prevent me from playing an unintended version in my head, and that's what you've started doing.

That you can't account for the game in my head doesn't matter.  The problem is that you want to control what game it is I'm playing.

I disagree. They are creating the game they wish to make. You are complaining that the game they wish to make does not allow you to play the game you wish to play. Nowhere in this are they trying to control what game you're playing, only the game they wish to make.

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

I'm not sure I can address this without descending into some kind of "no you didn't!/yes you did!" argument.

The only time we get to the "we like it our way" answer is when what someone wants is something diametrically opposed to what we intend to do. If that's the case, okay-- there's no other answer that we can give then, is there?

Perhaps not, but I don't think this actually happens very often.

For example, I was the game's rules to treat all of the characters equally.  But, apparently players like to see really big damage numbers pop up when they hit things.  BioWare, in DA2, caters to that preference by offering a wildly asymmetrical damage mechanic.

But that wasn't the only solution.  Instead, the combat designers could have provided a symmetrical mechanic (what I want) where the damage numbers are adjusted behind the scenes so that they look bigger in the combat feedback (I explained this in great detail to Fernando a few weeks ago).  This would provide the bigger numbers demanded, but without breaking friendly fire like DA2 did (even on Normal I am constantly one-shotting Isabela).

The only reason there would be an irreconcilable difference between your (BioWare's) and mine on companion appearance is if you think it's somehow important that all players be forced to use the iconic appearance, even if they don't want to.

No one benefits from that, though, so it would be lunacy for you to want it.