791 réponses à ce sujet

[Cutlass Jack]

Stanley Woo wrote...

If--and this is a hypothetical if--we decide to remove the PC choices entirely and force players to play the default PC, then that is a decision we will have made after many discussions and meetings, weighing the pros and cons, and there would be a damn good reason (or a host of damn good reasons) for it. Because the internet would flip if we ever announced that! I can't predict the future and neither can you, but as I'm closer to the process and the development team, I would hazard a guess that your hypothetical situation is, at best, highly unlikely for the foreseeable future.

Unless your damn good reason is 'Being dead to Cutlass Jack'  I'd suggest not going that route. Though it would be flattering.

[Maria Caliban]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Surely a recognizable Hawke is even more important than party members?

This question has been asked a lot, but not when talking about NPCs. Many people have asked this in relation to the prevalence of manShep and manHawke in our marketing and why can't we ever see femShep or ladyHawke on the game box or in advertisements or promo videos. This is changing, however, with the recent contest to vote on iconic femShep.

That's always made me ambivalent about non-visually-customizable PC's in RPGs.

I like it when RPGs are the story of a specific person dealing with a specific problem that's relevant to them. One of the reasons I like Planescape: Torment is that it's a story that could be about only one person in the entire universe. Alternatively, Dragon Age: Origin's story would fit anyone who doesn't want Darkspawn to destroy Thedas (that would be most anyone in Thedas.)

I appreciate that Hawke has a background that connects her to Kirkwall in a obvious sense (my family is nobility there) and thematic sense (I or my sister are a mage), which requires a human PC.

My problem with the pre-defined PC is, yeah, 9 times out of 10, it's going to be a straight, white dude. If I want to play a woman or someone who isn't white, I need a game that gives me character customization.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Players enjoy customizing their PC since it's "their" character, the one that represents them in the game (to varying degrees, depending on their play style).

Thank you for that caveat, Stan.

[Xewaka]

There is a clear, unfallible, unarguable reason why flexible companion looks are better than the so-called "iconic" looks.
Exhibit A:



I rest my case.

[elearon1]

::shudders:: How is this better?

[FieryDove]

Xewaka wrote...

There is a clear, unfallible, unarguable reason why flexible companion looks are better than the so-called "iconic" looks.
Exhibit A:

(snip)

I rest my case.

Haha, that was great. I know what Sten was thinking too.

"The cookies are not worth THIS!*

[Uccio]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Putting ham into one sammich doesn't make ham automatically available in a future sammich. you still have to physically put the ham into the sammich... unless you've made some kinda magic ham-sammich-making machine. Games aren't Lego, you can't just take out Part A and slot in Part B to make a new game. Yes, having a feature in a previous game certainly makes it easier to build for the next game, but each game is its own project with its own set of slots and parts. Sure, we could just slot in a new game after ripping out parts of the old one, but then folks would complain about it being too derivative. And since some of Dragon Age II was based on feedback from DAO, it just makes sense to do some new things! And we are always trying to do things better, so things would kinda have to change, wouldn't you say?

Thank you for getting back to me Stanley. I think I understand the process of game making but I assume you guys did not make DA2 from the first code line on but took parts of Origins in it and modified them? In regards of customer feedback was the iconic look feedback so overhelmingly larger that you decided to go for it, or was it just the "vision"?
I also very much appreciate your and your teams efferts in doing things better, so please don´t take this as a negative comment.

Stanley Woo wrote...

You've got two. David Gaider joined the discussion.

You're right, these are only one game characters, just as Superman is just a guy in tights and a police box is obviously out of date and Master Chief is just one of 33 survivors of the "Spartan-II" program and a yellow Volkswagen Beetle is just a yellow Volkswagen Beetle. The more you associate a given thing--a hairstyle, an accessory, a colour, a symbol, a shape, a word, a voice--with a character or setting, the more iconic it is.

Black Ray-Bans and the suits for the MIB, the salt shaker shape and plunger arm of the Daleks, Peter Cullen's voice for Optimus Prime, David Caruso's "Shades of Justice", the sound of the TARDIS. Iconic doesn't necessarily equate to importance or priority. Iconic is recognizable, associative, representative.

I get your point but I still don´t see how it applies to a rpg characters.

I get the feeling that "Iconic look" and "streamlining" are just other words for cutting down expenses, cutting the corners if you will. It doesn´t require much to see how there is a tendency to move the game into ME universe which I see a mistake being made. DA series usually have been responding to a unique need for customers who require certain aspects from a game which ME does not do. There sure are people who don´t mind but for me it seems that there are also a lot of people who do mind. Does the profit margin of DA allow that, remains to be seen. As a life long fan of Bioware (yes, I got BG´s and other games too) I feel that this genre does not allow too much "vision" atleast if you intend to keep the core fan base happy.

This situation reminds me of my previous employment wery much. I used to work in this company on a mid management level.  Our company produced, lets say, product A. This product was high end product and our company dominated 5% of the market at the top of the pyramid, being the best one there is, world wide (no kidding here). We were doing fine, profit came in relative well. At point the management team of the company had also a vision. They wanted to grab larger part of the market by entering to the lover B and C levels. This would mean larger sales but also it require "streamlining" aka dumbing down features, raw materials and parts. Cutting costs in production while increasing profit plainly.

In paper it sounds wonderful but there is a major danger there. Being the top cat in the branch means that customers are used to high quality. This high quality and service was the competitive edge we had against our rivals.

At times I voiced my concern about the plan but was brushed aside and one vp even told me to "shut it". So I did. What then happened, after moving own production to sub contractors and buying parts with the lovest bid the result started to come clear. For a moment we were able to push our products to wider markets and compete with cheaper manufacturers. But, the crash was invitable. Since we were known for the high quality our customer were used to, they also expected it from the low level products. This of course was not possible since those items did not have the quality part nor the quality manufacturing. So agry feedback and quality issues started to flow back to the company. Distributos and even end users contacted me complaining issues and I tried to assure that we were on top of things. In the mean time our management team still clinged to the idea of keeping the "wider markets, low costs, high profit" idea, dismissing the obvious reports as just bad managent, of low level operatives. Needles to say, from the day I was told to shut it (I wrote to my calender that day; "hey ho, here we go".) to four year later the company went belly up. Now the management team responsible for these decisions had already evacuated in lifeboats long ago leaving the rest of us to watch the company to sink.

I don´t claim to now anything about Bioware, I haven´t done any research on it. But, I am a fan/customer and I feel that this direction seems dangerously familiar. Only this time I am watching it from this point. I really do hope it is not so. People base their decision many times on feelings more than logical conclusions. Respect is easy to loose but dam hard to get back in the eyes of customers.

Have a nice day. 


ps. english is not my mother tongue so please forgive me if there seems to be blunt or inconsistent issues in my post. Fast typing you see.

Modifié par Ukki, 08 septembre 2011 - 01:10 .

[Cyberarmy]

Yeah we can led them to their deaths, but we cannot make them wear what we want...

And superheroes become iconic with their styles and ideas not with their absurd "uniforms"

Please don't compare mediviel based armor characterisation to a super human(alien?) being who can eat bullets but still wearing his underpants ON his trousers ...

Modifié par Cyberarmy, 08 septembre 2011 - 08:48 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Stanley Woo wrote...

We are, and your "distinctive look" is the same as our "iconic look." Somewhere along the way, people started ascribing much more importance to the word and blew the argument way out of proportion. I was never talking about our characters as pop culture icons known to everyone in the world instantly. I was always refering to them being distinctive within our franchise.

From what I'd been reading of dev comments, in particular the superhero comparisons here and cosplay comparisons in the Art Style thread, I think it was becoming very very easy to (mis)construe that the point of iconic/distinctive armour is intended to be some kind of visual aid in order for us to recognise our own party members. To me, and I'm sure other fans, it sounds really really weird, if not vaguely insulting, to have it implied that if we saw, for instance, an Alistair cosplayer (or indeed any DA:O cosplayer excepting Morrigan), we'd have no idea who he was meant to be purely because he has no 'iconic' armour.

It's like NPCs all suddenly became invisible from the neck (or, in Oghren's case, the beard) down, and nametags or coloured ribbons are needed for us to identify who's who. I'm fairly sure this was never the intent of the dev comments, but that's how they can be read.

Saying "We want iconic/distinct companion armour because the NPCs are grown up individuals capable of dressing and feeding themselves," is different to "We want iconic/distinct companion armour because how would anyone know that's Morrigan if you can't see her sideboob?" I mean, come on, give us some credit. Your fans aren't always the brightest bunch, but most of us possess basic facial recognition skills. XD Some of us even remember what we dressed our NPCs in and have absolutely zero problems knowing Sten is over there in the Juggernaut armour, Wynne is over there in the ridiculous mage cowl, and Alistair is off that way in nothing but a barbarian helm.

"What's it to you, how Isabela appears in my game?" Absolutely nothing. Over a dozen people put in a lot of work to make Isabela a certain way, we present her in a certain way, and you are more than free to change the way she looks or acts or what she says. Once the game leaves our office, we have very little control over how you play it. If you can manage it, we would have nothing to say should you change her outfit, name, personality, voice, or what have you. On the other hand, if we chose not to allow NPC customization, we're not going to help you change her. You'll have to do it on your own, as that is not an officially supported feature, kind of like BG multiplayer or NWN persistent worlds. You can do it, and we're not going to whinge about it, but we're not going to help you do it.

Hah! Not that I expected differently, but thank you.

Surely a recognizable Hawke is even more important than party members?

This question has been asked a lot, but not when talking about NPCs. Many people have asked this in relation to the prevalence of manShep and manHawke in our marketing and why can't we ever see femShep or ladyHawke on the game box or in advertisements or promo videos. This is changing, however, with the recent contest to vote on iconic femShep.

And thank the Powers That Be for some female protag marketing love.

But on the subject of recognisable Hawke, DA2 did do this. The trailer had m!Hawke in the Champion Armour, and the pieces became available as Act 3 collectables so you could get that Iconic PC Feeling. The pre-game combat training forced you to play in some semblance of this armour. The default preset face was even what you get in the trailer (possibly due to people asking for the m!Warden Sacred Ashes trailer being a preset?).

I have to admit that I spurned the iconic Hawke armour and opted for statistically weaker gear, because I don't like dressing my Hawke in visually marketed stuff. I found myself to be rather peeved there were no other complete armour sets with comparable AR, and felt like the game was subtly pushing me to wear the Champion garb to survive higher levels. Maybe I'm weird.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 08 septembre 2011 - 09:53 .

[Uccio]

Whats with the beard on Hawke anyway? Does the dev team consist of bearded dudes or what? And that red marker line of his face, wut?

[alex90c]

Yeah, I thought Hawke looked like a bellend right from the start, and that was before I even got the game.

[Sanguinerin]

I understand how the developers (and some players) can want a distinctive look for the companions. I found that all of the companions did actually look fantastic. I also found that Morrigan's look was quite wonderful as well. However, those "looks" aren't what made them stand out to me.

My favorite characters are Alistair, Leliana, and Wynne. None of them had a "look" like Morrigan, but I loved them all anyway. The characters were memorable because of their personalities. They were so well done, and I loved them so much, that I would love to have see and hear more from them in future content, but I remember them for that quality of character, not what they looked like.

It was great that I could put Leliana back in her Chantry robes when entering a city, and that I could put Morrigan into something that doesn't draw the public eye toward her. I loved that commoners' clothes and nobles' clothing dropped from enemies, and I made use of those items throughout the entirety of the game. It was great that while out in hostile territory, my characters could wear their armor, but in town or around the camp, they could become a little more casual.

They weren't distinctive in appearances, but they changed (or could be).

Making the companions in DAII set in one look throughout the entirety of the game just made them feel stagnant to a certain degree. I would be lying if I said that because none of the characters changed appearances, that they never changed at all. That's just not the case.

However, the whole notion that this one look will make them stand out and become memorable just isn't something that I like very much. A well-written character will stand out on their own merit rather than having to have one, sole appearance that defines them.

As for a compromise? I'm fine with any option that lets the player change the companions, even if it's just to a certain extent. While I prefer DAO, ME2 doesn't bother me. I can use the appearance packs and the loyalty clothes to change my characters around each time that I take them out, and they still all have a unique look. Granted, I would prefer an actual new costume (more so like the appearance packs) rather than a re-coloring (such as the loyalty costumes), but the fact that they all aren't all trapped in one set appearance is what helps them out to me.

Even NPCs in Mass Effect sometimes seem to change, especially if it's appropriate for the situation. Captain Anderson has his Alliance formal uniform on the Presidium, but later on he's seen in those same casuals as the Normandy crew. Someone as seemingly minor as Helena Blake wears a red and white dress on the Citadel, and a black and orange dress on Amaranthine.

Saemus Dumar got to change more than my companions. The first time we see him, he's in those teal nobles clothes. The next time we see him, he's wearing the reddish-orange nobles clothes. If that was just an oversight, then it's well-appreciated. I felt like those reddish-orange clothes made him look far more dignified and... I don't want to say less innocent exactly, but perhaps more aware is what I'm looking for? The bright almost solid teal outfit just made him appear more naive, younger. While he seemed to have grown a bit after coming up to him in those new clothes.

The developers may not have intended that at all for Saemus, but for me, that change helped me define something about him.

With Dragon Age II, I just didn't want to play it again until finally downloading the "no restrictions" mod as well as ishmaeltheforsaken's armor mod. I love the latter because I can use the original look if I so choose, but they aren't always trapped in it, much like Morrigan. Morrigan's way will probably always be my preferred way.

[Xewaka]

elearon1 wrote...
::shudders:: How is this better?

Because it is a high amusement point in the game, allowed only because of the companion customization flexibility integrated into the gameplay. We're allowed a situational gag on an optional resolution for a quest which works beautifully.

[astreqwerty]

At the end of the day relying on character looks to provide an iconic protagonist/companion etc is a weakness on the developers part especially in the case of rpgs. A character should be remarkable (and iconic for the matter) due to exeptional characterization and backstory and thats a fact

[ipgd]

Xewaka wrote...

There is a clear, unfallible, unarguable reason why flexible companion looks are better than the so-called "iconic" looks.
Exhibit A:



I rest my case.

There would be nothing stopping them from making unique suits for this kind of scene, in the same way they waste all that time modeling half-naked Miranda and Jacob for their 20 second sex scenes.

Even easier if it's already in the game for default NPCs -- fitting one armor mesh onto unique companion bodies isn't that much.

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Mr Laidlaw never made a compromise. A compromise would be how Morrigan was handled in DA:O. That way both the "iconic look" and the ability to use armor found in loot could be used. But no. Mr Laidlaw prefered the way DA2 was handled and refuses anything that remotely reminds him of DA:O. At best we get a second retextured companion armor. How about DLCs with more retextures? I am not interested in ME2 with swords and magic.

Really? Really? Do we have to use this kind of ridiculous exaggeration? Do we have to selectively ignore all of the efforts they make to make a better game until DA3 is literally a carbon copy of DAO? Do we have to ignore all of their stated reasons for doing things in order to substitute conspiracy theories that assume the worst of its employees' character?

Let's see my incredible, scientifically exact magic chart:



Yes, the reintroduction of stat customization probably "remotely reminds" Laidlaw of DAO, because the system as proposed is functionally identical to DAO's. This is a quantifiable step back towards DAO. But, of course, because we must be angry little tots with a binding obligation to fling our peas no matter what Daddy Bioware tries to do, stat customization never mattered, being able to put Oghren in Chasind armor is the end all be all of RPGs, and nothing will be good enough until they throw everything away and bring back DAO's engine in its totality.

Modifié par ipgd, 08 septembre 2011 - 01:20 .

[Collider]

I like the iconic looks. Sometimes the look they choose is bad (Miranda), but other than that?
Everything's great.
I hate playing dress up with my companions.

[Maconbar]

astreqwerty wrote...

At the end of the day relying on character looks to provide an iconic protagonist/companion etc is a weakness on the developers part especially in the case of rpgs. A character should be remarkable (and iconic for the matter) due to exeptional characterization and backstory and thats a fact

And there is nothing in providing a distinctive look for a companion that prevents BW from writing a remarkable character. At most the look reflects something about the character.

[PanosSmirnakos]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

PanosSmirnakos wrote...

I must be in the minority of old-school RPG fans who found the iconic armory/outfits of companions in DA II as one of the few changes which was positive. For example in DA:O, I could not imagine Morrigan to wear something else than her "witch of the wilds" style of robes or Wynne to wear something else than "circle of magi" style of robes... and you get the point. I always tried to find gear which was close to the personality of each companion or find a mod which was about about a unique outfit for a certain companion, so the iconic looks of DA II party saved me the trouble and time to do that... As long as my character has total freedom to choose my own armory / weaponry, I'm satisfied.

Yes, but DAO accommodated you.  Because you couldn't imagine why Morrigan would dress differently, you were allowed to keep her in her iconic robes.

Those of us who could imagine a reason for that, though (or those who just didn't care about the reason) were also allowed to play the game.

Forcing everyone to play the game the same way necessarily alienates some of the players.

Maybe poor choice of words by me about the imagination thing. It's more about personal aesthetics, the unique model of the outfit (I don't want companions to wear the same armor as random NPC #308) and the original concept of the character which I liked very much as it was, the reasons I didn't change Morrigan's iconic type of robes in my example. Anyway, I think this feature is so secondary, which I can't understand all the frustration about it. You can still customize your hero and that's what it really matters for a RPG. I want a good non-linear story, meaningful choices, deep characters, well designed enviroments and interesting and tactical battles for my RPG. Things which DA II didn't have and I hope DA III is going to have. All the other as I said, are secondary and extras for me. I have a preference over iconic looks for companions, but I won't be disappointed if this is not the case for DA III.

Modifié par PanosSmirnakos, 08 septembre 2011 - 01:34 .

[ipgd]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Yeah, it wasn’t funny the first time (and one need only call Bioware ‘daddy’ if you bend over for them as often as ipgd does).

I'm so glad you can make this substantive contribution to this discussion by earnestly refuting my central argument instead of ignoring everything said to make irrelevant personal insults without once addressing the actual issue at hand.

If you are going to repeatedly respond to all of my posts, you could at least try insulting the validity of my arguments. Then we would at least have something to talk about.

Modifié par ipgd, 08 septembre 2011 - 01:33 .

[Reno_Tarshil]

Why?

...


...


...


Just cause.

[AloraKast]

You'll have to excuse me, cuz it's way too early to be up and yet I am (damn work) and so I've not the energy nor the will to really get all hot and bothered by this. Which is a long way to say I merely got into the first 2 pages of this thread and already am feeling tired.

Thou I would like to say this:

Stanley, I've been trying to understand your viewpoint on the whole iconic characters topic and I suppose in a way I do. Thou it's NOT such a huge issue for me, at least not taken to the levels you seem to be talking about (i.e. unique and esily recognizable armours, weapon sets, etc.). I am of the mind that if, in my travels, I come across all this wonderful and class specific armour/weapons (or even not class restricted but which would make more sense on one class over the other, i.e. daggers for rogues), well, I would really like to have the option to equip that awesome armour/weapon on my character as well as my companions. I've got a generous and sharing kind of soul, what can I say. *nod*

To me, the ability to do that, to see my character as well as my companions in different outfits, sometimes not necessarily matching or even substandard, especially in the beginning of our adventures, well, it just adds to be realism of the experience, makes it more believable, more immersive for me. It makes SENSE for my character and companions to be in normal or perhaps even rabble like outfits at the beginning and I'm ok with that because I know that as I progress in my adventure, I will come across better and better stuff that I can distribute among my party thus making them more powerful and able to take on greater challenges. It's a kind of reward based min-game within the adventure itself. But it just makes SENSE to me.

And I've also been trying to understand your (as well as the general) "realism vs fantasy" argument. And I'm just not getting it. Just because the adventure setting is fantasy or sci-fi based, does not mean we get to not bother with realism, that we get to toss that out the window and we get a free pass to get away with anything. It almost feels "lazy" or "rushed" or "skipped over". I firmly believe that attention to detail is very important in creating a wonderful, amazing, immersive game experience. It can rank up there, right beside a really great story and engaging characters. Focus on the details, make things believable and you will create a wondrous atmosphere that can and will suck your players right in to the adventure... and they will keep coming back for more.

So seeing my companions in DA2 wearing the very same clothes 7 years after I met them... well, it just seems silly to me... and unbelievable... and I guess I lose a piece of my "engagement" or "involvement" in the game experience as a whole. Collect enough of those lost pieces and I'm left with a disappointing, mediocre and ultimately forgettable experience, instead of the energized and totally obsessed experience that it really ought to be.

I hope I've made some sense and better yet, hope I presented my point well enough for you to get what I'm trying to convey here. I understand you hold a different view on this issue and hey, I suppose that's where things stand for the moment because you are part of the group of folks that actually creates those adventures/experiences. Hopefully other points of view to those you guys hold can also be taken into consideration in creating the next adventure.

Before I head off, I would like to point out one more thing. When we're talking about iconic characters, why do we have to take it to that level (i.e. unique armours/weapon sets)? I mean, show me a picture of an unmodded Alistair and sure as heck, I shall recognize him (I mean, that hair, the tone/colour, the wee, wee bit of shadow and that playful, goofy and ready grin well, most of the time, cuz there ARE times for seriousness, few and far between as they are). Show me a picture of an unmodded Zevran and someone turn on the AC, cuz it suddently got hot in here (the DA:O version of course, I have NO idea what that travesty in DA2 was) *swoon*. No matter what armour/weapon set they shall be sporting, I shall recognize them. All I ask is that you give players the option to toggle helmet/head gear, because I really need to be able to see a character's eyes/face when interacting with them - I connect better with them that way - and with a helmet obscuring even a part of their eyes/face, it becomes more difficult to form that connection. Ah, my poor, poor Shepard in ME2 had to go into battle sans helmet. *sniff*

[filetemo]

Collider wrote...

I hate playing dress up with my companions.

the furious answers to this statement will probably get this thread locked