791 réponses à ce sujet

[bEVEsthda]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

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.

We've had several whole threads. I've not seen a single reason for iconic looks.
Just "Superman is recognizable" . You've not given any either. So beware of throwing words as "lunacy" about.

[tmp7704]

Zanallen wrote...

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.

But they would.

They wouldn't look exactly like you're used to seeing them looking, but they'd be the exact same character -- face, voice, personality et al.

[PsychoBlonde]

tmp7704 wrote...

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.

Recognizable close-up when they're holding still and you know the roster so you can figure out the less-obvious ones by process of elimination, yes.  Instantly recognizable from 150' away in the middle of combat?  Not so much, although that can depend on a lot of things.  Almost all of the enemies in Mass Effect looked EXACTLY the same:  A bright red triangle around some tiny black dot in the distance.

Depending on how you do it, one of the major benefits of iconic details is that you can change other things and people can still recognize the character.  From what I understand this was one of the major issues with changing the appearance of Dante in the more recent Devil May Cry: nobody can look at him and identify him as Dante any more.  Even if you didn't like how OldDante looked, at least you could tell it was HIM.

Comic book artists do this SO well that people usually aren't aware of it.  You'll know you've hit it when people can look at a character who, in fact, doesn't look all that much like an earlier version, and their instant reaction is "Is that X?!  It sure looks like X!"

[ipgd]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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

Once again, not everyone is you. People experience things outside of your head. People have opinions that are not yours. Stating your opinions as if they are universally agreeable facts is not accurate.

[Weltenschlange]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Wow, how did this discussion turn so ugly so quickly? Let's back up the pain train, people, and remember to be excellent to each other.

Right on, dude!

-------

I don't see the need to have the same discussion over and over again on this forum.

IMO the concept recently outlined by Mike Laidlaw is a good way to reconcile the iconic looks (which are apparently here to stay) with the traditional CRPG loot mechanics (so we finally have a use for all the equipment).

*cough*pleasemakethecompanion'sweaponsiconictoo*cough*

What?

[Wulfram]

Zanallen wrote...

Put Wolverine in Ironman's suit and he is no longer really Wolverine.

But was he still Wolverine in the movies?  Which didn't put him in his iconic costume?

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Then why do the party members approve or disapprove of choices you make?

They don't.  They approve of disapprove of Hawke's choices.

The player doesn't exist within the game's reality, so it wouldn't make any sense for the characters to be aware of his decisions.

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Instantly recognizable from 150' away in the middle of combat?

What does that have to do with iconic companions when there is no tactical view anymore, and you can switch to any just by clicking his portrait? Also, I dressed that guy myself dammit, I sure would recognize him even if he is as small as pixel, people kinda look out for their characters to change their positions and strategy, huh?

[Zanallen]

DA3 should be like Bushido Blade and implement one hit kills with a system for glancing blows. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but it would be pretty interesting.

[ipgd]

bEVEsthda wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

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.

We've had several whole threads. I've not seen a single reason for iconic looks.
Just "Superman is recognizable" . You've not given any either. So beware of throwing words as "lunacy" about.

I've explained several reasons to you, personally, at great length, in multiple threads. You have replied to these posts, so I know you have read them. That you do not agree with these reasons do not mean these reasons do not exist.

Fandango9641 wrote...

No, no it really doesn’t (it just necessitates a little bit more in the way of development).

Creating individual bodies for every companion under a swappable armor system is prohibitively resource intensive. Fitting armor models is a lot of work. It's possible, in the strictest technical sense, but it would certainly come at the expense of some other area of development at that point -- so where do you propose they take that from? Would you rather have less time spent on environments, fewer programmers, less money in the writing department? What is worth cutting so they can spend more resources on tedious model resizing?

[FieryDove]

Ivers0803 wrote...

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?

Define normal person?

Do you tell your friend what spell/talent to take at lvl up? Do you tell your friend to attack that, move over there, cast a heal or throw fireball? Do you tell your friend what rings to wear? Do you tell your friend to equip this longsword instead of that one? No?

Do you tell your companions in Bioware RPG's...yes. These are party based games. But equip this breastplate and have it show is now oh noes!!

Sigh

[Sylvius the Mad]

Zjarcal wrote...

On a related note, iconic looks make it easier to make pony versions of the DA characters (or ME, see my avi), hence why the iconic look is pure win.

I can't tell who that pony represents.

[Zanallen]

Wulfram wrote...

But was he still Wolverine in the movies?  Which didn't put him in his iconic costume?

Wolverine's look in the movies is one often seen in the comics.

[Wulfram]

Zanallen wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

But was he still Wolverine in the movies?  Which didn't put him in his iconic costume?

Wolverine's look in the movies is one often seen in the comics.

If even the comics realise that the Iconic yellow spandex look is unnecessary, that only reinforces my point.

[PsychoBlonde]

Weltenschlange wrote...

*cough*pleasemakethecompanion'sweaponsiconictoo*cough*

Yeah, Bianca was sweet.  Having similar weapons for all the NPC's would be cool, too.

I'd like it if companions had more than one unique talent tree, too, or if their unique tree was less "it's the duelist tree only with funny names" and more "they can do totally different stuff from the PC".  I'd find this to be more fun when playing with the characters that had the same class as the PC, also, because they always wound up feeling like PC 2.0 to me, only they suck because they can't get a second specialization tree and all the awesome stuff that comes with it.

That's not to say that the Origins model where the NPC's had ALL the options for their class was bad either.  Just, if they're going to stick more with the talent trees, I'd rather have more uniqueness per companion.

You know what would be REALLY nice?  If characters had distinctive racial traits--and not just a +1 or +2 here or there to stats--those are pointless when your stats can wind up in the 100 range.  If you played a big scary 2-handed warrior in Origins, you could easily wind up with appreciably more strength than Sten had or could get.  Yet he's supposed to be this enormous brute.  Make Qunari strong.  (And maybe extra willpower, too.)  Make the elves have stronger magic (or whatever they're supposed to have.)  Dwarves should be tough and cunning as all get out.  Even if the PC can't be a different race than human, the non-human followers should have a niche that's at least RELATED to their race.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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?

Moreover, since our impressions of their personalities can differ so much even from one playthrough to the next, I think it's beneficial to allow the player to set that appearance.  That makes the character more memorable for that player.

Memories aren't shared.  That's not how memories work.

I remember several different Lelianas from DAO.  She wasn't always the same person, and she didn't always dress the same way.  And that freedom to play the game differently each time I play it is pat of what makes DAO such a great game.

That DA2 doesn't let me deviate from the designers' vision, even temporarily, is a huge strike against it.

[Zanallen]

Wulfram wrote...

If even the comics realise that the Iconic yellow spandex look is unnecessary, that only reinforces my point.

Not really. Even out of his X-Men uniform, Wolverine's outfits maintain elements of his iconic looks. Just like even when Superman is Clark Kent, his suit is usually blue with a red tie. Or when Scott Summers is out of costume he maintains his ruby quartz shades. Their alternate costumes that they were, as the story dictates, retain elements of their iconic appearances and are thus instantly recognizable.

[tmp7704]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Recognizable close-up when they're holding still and you know the roster so you can figure out the less-obvious ones by process of elimination, yes.  Instantly recognizable from 150' away in the middle of combat?  Not so much, although that can depend on a lot of things.

That's true, although i'd question the real utility of the latter -- not only fights generally tend to happen in much tighter spaces than that, but it also requires to ignore the names floating over characters' heads which do much better job at identifying them than any outfit, iconic or not.

Comic book artists do this SO well that people usually aren't aware of it.  You'll know you've hit it when people can look at a character who, in fact, doesn't look all that much like an earlier version, and their instant reaction is "Is that X?!  It sure looks like X!"

As i understand it, the 'iconic appearances' in comics may be there largely because it'd be otherwise difficult to make the characters easily recognizable through just the facial features -- large character cast, lack of fidelity, difference of individual drawing styles you mention etc. But at the same time, i think games have advanced well past that point, and the level of detail they routinely provide nowadays is high enough they don't really need to rely on such approach.

[Monica21]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Wow, how did this discussion turn so ugly so quickly? Let's back up the pain train, people, and remember to be excellent to each other.

/guitar riff

"Strange things are afoot at the Circle K."

Edited to add that I really don't give a damn what my companions are wearing as long as I'm invested in the story, the characters, and their motivations. Customizable companion armors do not make a game inherently better.

Modifié par Monica21, 07 septembre 2011 - 10:35 .

[mesmerizedish]

bEVEsthda wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

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.

We've had several whole threads. I've not seen a single reason for iconic looks.
Just "Superman is recognizable" . You've not given any either. So beware of throwing words as "lunacy" about.

So Superman being recognizable is not a good thing?

This why I use words like "lunacy."

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Then why do the party members approve or disapprove of choices you make?

They don't.  They approve of disapprove of Hawke's choices.

The player doesn't exist within the game's reality, so it wouldn't make any sense for the characters to be aware of his decisions.

Context, please. When the poster I was quoting says "I AM THE PARTY" when talking about how he can make ALL of the choices for the party, then why is that aspect out of the player's control?

That said, it makes me think you'd be satisfied if they just allowed the player to create his or her own followers whole cloth and be given complete control of them, allowing the player to eschew the given ones entirely.

[PsychoBlonde]

Wulfram wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

But was he still Wolverine in the movies?  Which didn't put him in his iconic costume?

Wolverine's look in the movies is one often seen in the comics.

If even the comics realise that the Iconic yellow spandex look is unnecessary, that only reinforces my point.

It's all in the sideburns.  Iconic looks mean different things in different media--and in different situations.  Trope subversions are so common that many are tropes in and of themselves--they are all tools to be used.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Denying that visual characterization is ever useful is just lunacy.

It is if you don't think characterisation of the companions in the developer's job.

I'd rather develop the companions myself.

Does anyone know of a new CRPG where the player can create the entire party?  Anyone?