791 réponses à ce sujet

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

ipgd wrote...
Creating individual bodies for every companion under a swappable armor system is prohibitively resource intensive.

You know, armor has one interesting thing about it - it's thick.
It's always thick, and with underarmor below, it's so thick, that actually, even stacked women sometimes look pretty samy to thinner ones wearing it. So with some more realistic armor, problem would be only robes. Restrict mages to them, and you just need to add some polygons here and there if next Bioware's character is a sorceress with milkshakes.

Modifié par DamnThoseDisplayNames, 07 septembre 2011 - 10:40 .

[Stanley Woo]

bEVEsthda wrote...
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.

How about this: why do you capitalize the EVE in your screen name? And why have an avatar? Obviously this means something to you or you identify with some part of it. Here on BSN, now that I've been reading the thread, I recognize instantly where you are posting. "Hey, that EVE and that avatar appears. That must be bEVEsthda, whose name I get confused with Bethesda all the time." Bam, you've become, in some way, instantly recognizable and contextual to a certain place, character or viewpoint.

So why, on our forums, did you choose to represent yourself with something with such bad capitalization? I would prefer it if you capitalized your screen name correctly, just as I would prefer for hoorayforicecream to space out her name correctly. You spell out and correctly capitalize your name for official forms and at school and work, don't you? How difficult would it be to correctly capitalize and space your screen name for the BSN?

I mean, you could argue that it's your account and you should be able to do what you want with it. You could also give me various reasons why your screen name is the way it is. But I, Volus that I am, can not think of a single reason why you wouldn't capitalize and spell your screen name correctly here. Can you justify why I shouldn't be able to have your screen name appear exactly as I would like it on the forum? Because I take my English language very seriously.

If you would care to, I'd like to know just how you "marketing" or "presenting" yourself on this forum is, at its core, different from us wanting to "market" or "present" our characters a certain way. I would also be interested in hearing whether you would allow me to dictate your BSN avatar and sig block, because after all, it should be the audience's choice what to accept, right?

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

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.

I hadn't yet read this when I asked my previous question.

Yes, I would be happy with that.  That would be awesome.

Ideally, I'd even like to be able to use them as party spokesperson, in case speaking for the group was out of character for the PC.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 07 septembre 2011 - 10:47 .

[Tommy6860]

Stanley Woo wrote...

How often do you see Superman wearing a green costume? How about orange or yellow? when have you seen him dye his hair brown or blonde? Or grow his hair out? How often is he portrayed as a lean, wiry fellow rather than a muscular build?

Or something even more specific: Green Lantern. His costume is usually a certain shade of green, but very bold. it's not teal, not turquoise, not even olive. And even when possessed by Parallax, his mask remains the same.

Even Spider-Man, who has gone through several different costume changes, has a particular build and way of moving that defines the character. His colours are always bold (blue and red, black and white, red and gold, blue and white, etc.), so you don't see him in grey or pastels or depicted as having a bulky, muscular build.

That's what iconic means--to have a certain look that defines the character. Lara Croft wears a tight t-shirt, khaki shorts, carries two guns and has her hair in a single braid--instantly recognizable. Ronald McDonald--instantly recognizable. Dragon Age II Flemeth--instantly recognizable. Dragon Age II Isabela--also instantly recognizable. The blood smear across the nose of Hawke--instantly recognizable. Darth Vader, Master Chief, Optimus Prime, Predator, Tali, Daleks, RoboCop, Death's Hand--all instantly recognizable for who they are and what they represent for their respective brands.

That's what we're going for when we talk about iconic party members.

Your #2 point doesn't really have anything to do with iconic characters. It is trying to dictate to us where we spend our resources. The point you make is not impossible, nor is it necessarily difficult to include in a game, but given finite resources and time, where do we put people and what do we have them do? Your point #2 is not a bad idea, certainly, but in Dragon Age II, we decided to put those resources elsewhere.

Except that your comparing movie icons where you have no interaction with them or control of them, at all, the story doesn't change either as one is just engaged in the story viewing it, not partaking in it. I lose immersion with the static outfits my companions had in DA2. Anyway, those heroes do have alter-egos, no? I have no issue with iconic looks, but maybe only for the home base settings. Like Hawke being at home in comfy looking clothes, or Isa at The Hanged Man wearing hers. But, when Isa is in battle taking on waves of about 50 enemies, it looks jarring not seeing her have some protection (other than the stat change I can purchase for her garments), fighting them in the scant amount of outerwear she has, that never changes. Even the upgrades I purchase for her do not show any differences in looks which I would think would.

For example, it broke immersion for my rogue Hawke to be able to put on any various sets of rogue armors and change her looks, yet I couldn't change Isa's, though she's a rogue. Or, that my mage Hawke could use any robe for the mage she wanted, but Anders couldn't (and their body sizes were about the same).

Now, when I think of the armor usage in DA:O, I found that obtuse. I loved the fact that I could use different armors/outfits, but I didn't like that any outfits fit on any character class. I cannot tell you how jarring it was to be able to have Sten be able to wear Ohgren's armor, when their physical sizes were glaringly disproportionate. Or have a mage be able to wear warrior armor. I don't mind limitation as long as it fits credibility, but not set-in-stone looks that do not change.

I'd say allow some sets to use for companions at least, it isn't that hard anyway.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 07 septembre 2011 - 10:41 .

[PsychoBlonde]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

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.

As in Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 2, if you started a multiplayer game as the only player, yes.  Which was a perfectly acceptable way to play those games (I usually made 2 characters in BG2 because there wasn't a straight rogue you could take through the entire game, and the later-game traps PISSED ME OFF.)

In BG and BG2 you didn't get to assign much to NPC's, really.  They started with the stats they started with.  Spells were either automatic or had to be scribed.  You could pick, what, rogue skills, a few colors, change their portrait maybe, and pick their "epic level" abilities.

Personally I like the companions with lots of dialog better.

[mesmerizedish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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?

That's fine, and I'll bet you'd develop your companions to have relatively unique visuals. That is, how they look would be the result of in-character roleplaying decisions. And that's visual characterization.

You know this. I never accused you of lunacy

[Wulfram]

(Disclaimer: I don't know very much about comics)

I think the X-Men are a great example of how you can make characters instantly recognisable with mostly just the head.

Cyclops - Visor
Wolverine - Hair, sideburns (and the claws)
Storm - White hair
Rogue - White stripe in hair

edit:  Stick'em all in full plate armour, and you'd still recognise them.

Modifié par Wulfram, 07 septembre 2011 - 10:43 .

[tmp7704]

Stanley Woo wrote...

just as I would prefer for hoorayforicecream to space out her name correctly.

But spaces are delays, and you can't delay when you're about to hooray for the icecream. It's just uncouth.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Stanley Woo wrote...

So why, on our forums, did you choose to represent yourself with something with such bad capitalization? I would prefer it if you capitalized your screen name correctly, just as I would prefer for hoorayforicecream to space out her name correctly. You spell out and correctly capitalize your name for official forms and at school and work, don't you? How difficult would it be to correctly capitalize and space your screen name for the BSN?

If you had some sort of forum filter so that when hoorayforicecream posted the name was displayed for you as "Hooray for Ice Cream", and you wanted to use it because you disliked the original name, I don't think hoorayforicecream would have any reason to complain, because what you're doing doesn't affect her.  It affects only you, so you should be allowed to percieve her name however you like.

BioWare's position appears to be that because bEVEsthda spells his name as he does, you should be forced to tolerate it, reagrdless of your capitalisation preferences.

And that's just silly.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 07 septembre 2011 - 10:43 .

[ipgd]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Ha, I figured you would make the case for less in the way of added value on behalf of your beloved Bioware.

Answer the question. What would you have them cut? They do not have unlimited time or funds. Framing suggestions as if they do is unrealistic.

I would be perfectly fine with a system where each companion has his or her unique body model which armor deforms to. However, I am also cognizant of the fact this is way more resource intensive than any other method and that I don't think it warrants diverting resources from areas that are way more important than the entire issue of companion armor.

What’s with that and how on earth do you know what is ‘prohibitively resource intensive’ anyway?

Because I know how the armor fitting works and it's incredibly time consuming and tedious?

Here, Ish. Come tell this guy how time consuming and tedious it is with your sick modding messiah credentials.

[mesmerizedish]

tmp7704 wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

just as I would prefer for hoorayforicecream to space out her name correctly.

But spaces are delays, and you can't delay when you're about to hooray for the icecream. It's just uncouth.

[Willybot]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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?

Define "new". Storm of Zehire, an expansion of NWN2 let you do this and it came out at the end of '08.

[FieryDove]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

  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.

That would need a lot of work. With all this resource talk going around I don't see it.

It was not that good as-is trying to pidgeon hole companions as it worked in DA2 for many. People who wanted a healer or at least some healing took Anders. Many would have preferred Merril I think given that choice. As it stands only players that can access mods can fix things like that.

I would much prefer to have companions in my party I like than feeling forced to take because of set/rigid roles.

Just my random thoughts.

ipgd wrote...

Answer the question. What would you have them cut? .

60-70 waves from DA2 would have worked for some. (Many?)

Modifié par FieryDove, 07 septembre 2011 - 10:53 .

[bEVEsthda]

ipgd wrote...

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.

Except for Bioware wants, you wants, (and those are reasons of sorts, of course) I really don't think I've seen any reason. What's it to you and David Gaider, what my party members look like in my game?

What I've seen you go on about a great deal, is the unique body and the resource cost of adapting generic apparel for them. It doesn't have to be like that. There are other possibilities. But insofar as that notion was correct, I'm buying that. And I've said so several times in at least three threads. In terms of resource management it makes sense, because as I've already said in this thread, even I can imagine better things to spend on. It now seems from answers by Stanley Woo that Bioware are indeed in that position - that it will cost to make armour suits fit unique bodies.
For that reason I'm prepared to grudgingly tolerate M.Laidlaws proposal. (While I also suggest Bioware look into associative modeling tools and consider how they might import models from them into their development environment).

What still concerns me is their vision of what sort of game DA3 is to be. And a suspicion that this is really the kernel of matters. The fixation on iconic looks could mean something there.

[Zanallen]

Wulfram wrote...

(Disclaimer: I don't know very much about comics)

I think the X-Men are a great example of how you can make characters instantly recognisable with mostly just the head.

Cyclops - Visor
Wolverine - Hair, sideburns (and the claws)
Storm - White hair
Rogue - White stripe in hair

edit:  Stick'em all in full plate armour, and you'd still recognise them.

Don't forget the different body builds and sizes. A very important part about Wolverine is that he is short and burly. He is a small, vicious man...Like a wolverine is a small vicious animal. Cyclops is taller and less heavily muscled. Having swappable armors would require these two very different men to have the same generic body.

[mesmerizedish]

ipgd wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

What’s with that and how on earth do you know what is ‘prohibitively resource intensive’ anyway?

Because I know how the armor fitting works and it's incredibly time consuming and tedious?

Here, Ish. Come tell this guy how time consuming and tedious it is with your sick modding messiah credentials.

It's very time-consuming and tedious.

You know what would be awesome? If there were, like, some magic button that just fitted a mesh to the body shape and proportion I want. That would be totes awesome.

There is no such button. Going from human to elf is actually simpler than going from Hawke to Isabela. In general, the actual shape is close enough that I can get away with just modifying proportions (which still has to be done by hand around the elf body, because, hey, no magic button).

Giving armor more room in the chest around an otherwise similar body shape/size would require hand-deformation of specific polys. And it has to be symmetrical.

Do this for every companion. For ever armor set. It becomes prohibitively resource intensive. It's the reason why Origins only had a single mesh for any given armor weight. They had to make each mesh three times so it would fit on any of three races.

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 07 septembre 2011 - 10:51 .

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

By the way, instead ruling out armor-for-diffirent-races like elves and dwarves universaly, it can be part of the gameplay. In Wizardry 8, Fairies were too small to wear regular armor, so you had to create specific one from rare components, and there are small gameplay neatos like putting gloves from a doll on your fairy-characters. They also had innate armor bonus, magic resistances, mana regeneration and were best casters overall. That's another example of how you make your characters special with simple RPG-mechanics twist.

Modifié par DamnThoseDisplayNames, 07 septembre 2011 - 10:54 .

[ipgd]

DamnThoseDisplayNames wrote...

ipgd wrote...
Creating individual bodies for every companion under a swappable armor system is prohibitively resource intensive.

You know, armor has one interesting thing about it - it's thick.
It's always thick, and with underarmor below, it's so thick, that actually, even stacked women sometimes look pretty samy to thinner ones wearing it. So with some more realistic armor, problem would be only robes. Restrict mages to them, and you just need to add some polygons here and there if next Bioware's character is a sorceress with milkshakes.

Then people complain about not being able to put Alistair in robes.

Not to mention, I want Bioware to take companion bodies way further than they actually have. You don't think it would be strange to have Sten magically size down to human height if you switched him from a hypothetical iconic armor model to a generic one? Because I want height differentials within races, I want hugely fat characters who could never fit into a set of armor in the first place, I want child characters, I want characters who are missing limbs, etc. They've been relatively conservative with diverging from the default body models even with the direction ME2 and DA2 took, but I want a system where it would necessarily be extremely jarring for a character's body to morph into a generic default.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

What’s with that and how on earth do you know what is ‘prohibitively resource intensive’ anyway?

Because I know how the armor fitting works and it's incredibly time consuming and tedious?

Here, Ish. Come tell this guy how time consuming and tedious it is with your sick modding messiah credentials.

It's very time-consuming and tedious.

You know what would be awesome? If there were, like, some magic button that just fitted a mesh to the body shape and proportion I want. That would be totes awesome.

There is no such button. Going from human to elf is actually simpler than going from Hawke to Isabela. In general, the actual shape is close enough that I can get away with just modifying proportions (which still has to be done by hand around the elf body, because, hey, no magic button).

Giving armor more room in the chest around an otherwise similar body shape/size would require hand-deformation of specific polys. And it has to be symmetrical.

Do this for every companion. For ever armor set. It becomes prohibitively resource intensive. It's the reason why Origins only had a single mesh for any given armor weight. They had to make each mesh three times so it would fit on any of three races.

This is why they should have default body shapes.

[PsychoBlonde]

DamnThoseDisplayNames wrote...

ipgd wrote...
Creating individual bodies for every companion under a swappable armor system is prohibitively resource intensive.

You know, armor has one interesting thing about it - it's thick.
It's always thick, and with underarmor below, it's so thick, that actually, even stacked women sometimes look pretty samy to thinner ones wearing it. So with some more realistic armor, problem would be only robes. Restrict mages to them, and you just need to add some polygons here and there if next Bioware's character is a sorceress with milkshakes.

Erm, this depends on the armor.  Granted, any suit of armor is going to be thicker than, say, spandex, but I've worn armor that's thinner and more form-fitting than my street clothes.  (I wear bulky clothes most of the time.)  One of the other things about armor is that it HAS to fit.  Ill-fitting blue jeans might make you look paunchy.  Ill-fitting armor will get you killed.

It also tends to be heaviest just in the parts of the body where people vary the most, and it also breaks up the human form and makes direct visual comparisons more difficult.  This is why football players can tend to look kind of similar on first glance even though the different positions are played by guys with completely different body types.  If you see them standing next to each other, you can TELL.

Even street clothes can be pretty concealing in this manner.

[Xewaka]

I wouldn't mind the "iconic" look so much if it didn't come paired with stunted character building options. Having skill trees randomly missing from companions and no true inventory configuration capability (as the gross of stat customizability was in chestpiece/gloves/boots/headwear slots, unavailable for companions) coupled with the so called "iconic looks" (of which I couldn't care less, as I tend to focus on the face for character recognition) means said iconic looks receive the flak for the sudden cut of options from the predeccessor.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Willybot wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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

Define "new". Storm of Zehire, an expansion of NWN2 let you do this and it came out at the end of '08.

Excellent example.

I was thinking, however, more of a standalone game.

This is actually what I thought Drakensang was when I bought it.  I was disappointed when it turned out to be a single PC + joinable companions game just like so many others.

[Wulfram]

Zanallen wrote...

Don't forget the different body builds and sizes. A very important part about Wolverine is that he is short and burly. He is a small, vicious man...Like a wolverine is a small vicious animal. Cyclops is taller and less heavily muscled. Having swappable armors would require these two very different men to have the same generic body.

They managed to make all the armour equippable by 7 highly distinct builds in Origins.

[Tommy6860]

FieryDove wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

  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.

That would need a lot of work. With all this resource talk going around I don't see it.

It was not that good as-is trying to pidgeon hole companions as it worked in DA2 for many. People who wanted a healer or at least some healing took Anders. Many would have preferred Merril I think given that choice. As it stands only players that can access mods can fix things like that.

I would much prefer to have companions in my party I like than feeling forced to take because of set/rigid roles.

Just my random thoughts.

This^. I cannot say how many times who I would rather have had in my party, but couldn't because of said pidgeon holed companions. IF I wanted or felt an affinity to a certain companion of a certain class, I would rather be able to build that character as you so describe fo the needs of battles, outsiode of character interaction..

[ipgd]

bEVEsthda wrote...

ipgd wrote...

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.

Except for Bioware wants, you wants, (and those are reasons of sorts, of course) I really don't think I've seen any reason. What's it to you and David Gaider, what my party members look like in my game?

I've also explained to you how the existence of a generic body model system affects the design process. i.e., that characters like Jack or Fenris wouldn't have been designed with tattoos in the first place if the mechanical system dictated that they had to swap into a generic body model when wearing non-unique armors. We could never have a fat character, never have a character with a mutant third arm growing out of his chest, etc. That's an element of design taken off the table that prevents the full gamut of visual characterization from being realized.

You could say "I think being able to customize armor is more important than visual characterization" and I would shut up. But you repeatedly say things like "NOBODY HAS TOLD ME ANY REASONS, NOT ONE" and "HAVING CUSTOMIZABLE ARMOR DOESN'T AFFECT YOU AT ALL WHY WON'T YOU LET ME HAVE IT !?!!" and I start having an aneurysm. You can disagree with someone without asserting that they have no position whatsoever.