791 réponses à ce sujet

[Monica21]

Salaya wrote...

 As much as some people like this direction for equipment, and being aware of the impact on gameplay, the idea of emphasize iconic looks over variety is the exemplifictaion of the "new" philosophy in Dragon Age: it's better to make a cool looking game than a game with good gameplay. This, of course, is completely subjective; but my point is that  now everything in the franchise looks like as some kind of bad-try-of jrpg (note that I love jrpgs).

You can have both. Just play Fallout 1. Your PC has an iconic outfit and the story is fantastic. And I don't think the art department's direction of iconic outfits impacts the writers. There are things that art does that impacts writing, but changing Varric's clothes isn't likely one of them.

[Giltspur]

I don't think Bioware is interesting in taking away your ability to customize how your character looks.  My evidence for that?  Laidlaw has said they want the NPC's to have multiple signature looks and that you'll get to decide on the one you want.

What they are taking away is the ability to have every piece of gear affect how your character looks.  You can still choose what your character looks like.  You just don't decide that by something into this slot or that one.  (Or so it seems.)

Here are some pros to Bioware's approach
(1) You can play the gear game without worrying about your character looking like crap.  I remember in DAO being annoyed that the best robe I had for Morrigan at one time was a generic-looking mage robe that was vastly inferior to her default robes.
(2) It allows characters to look different.  Notice how one robe looked the same on Morrigan, Wynne and Hawke?  That made Morrigan look like a generic mage with Morrigan's head on top.  So one the one hand, every piece of gear changes appearance.  But it does so in a way that's full of visual compromise.

Of the con is that it can seem a little weird that a chest piece doesn't change how someone's chest looks, for example.

At any rate, the emphasis on the iconic look is a concession to gamers caring about how their characters look.  You saw it in DAO with the number of people that left Morrigan in her default robes, the number of people that wouldn't equip headgear because it looked dumb and you see it in MMO's.  Lots of people want their characters to match.  In MMO's you saw sets go from being something hard to attain to everything, even cruddy quest gear, being part of a visual set.  And now it's getting to the stage where in WoW you'll be able to "transmogrify" a piece of gear to look like any other piece of gear you have in your inventory.  So after millions of gamers and hundreds of patches and more player feedback than any other game ever, that's where they are.  They're completely divorcing "stat twiddle" with gear from visual choices.

You seem to suggest BIoware wants to take visual choice away.  I suggest Bioware wants the visual choice to not be tied to a stat choice.  They're just different choices altogether.  You choose the stats at the inventory screen.   You choose the look at something like a closet or a "Shepard locker" or whatever.

[Range Rover]

Salaya wrote...

 As much as some people like this direction for equipment, and being aware of the impact on gameplay, the idea of emphasize iconic looks over variety is the exemplifictaion of the "new" philosophy in Dragon Age: it's better to make a cool looking game than a game with good gameplay. This, of course, is completely subjective; but my point is that  now everything in the franchise looks like as some kind of bad-try-of jrpg (note that I love jrpgs).

We can hear some of the explanations for the new directions on gameplay and art..., but at the end, I always feel that the only true reason is that they want to appeal wider audiences by negating the core elements of wcrpg. And I'm afraid that we have reached a point in wich the final product is far from being a wcrpg. Naturally, lots of people would disagree, since all the terms I use are vague and very subjective... but, in any case, I'm sure there is people who inditifies with me. 

I wish more people could grasp the beauty of playing wcrpgs, but not this way. Over sized boobs, flashy animations and incredibly dull gameplay, are not the only ways to seduce more public. 

 Which reminds me of my copy of Disgaea 4 I pucked up yesterday, time to fire up the ole PS3. Been glued to my 360 lately.

[billy the squid]

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.

So are you attempting to market the future product based upon and iconic image of characters which remain largely unknown outside the genre, rather than the core product competencies which appeals to a market segment?

Many of the examples you have given have become iconic because the IP was successful, by appealing to a segment which adored it and associated those characters with a successful IP. I don't think their iconic style made the IP a success.

Modifié par billy the squid, 07 septembre 2011 - 05:36 .

[Dubya75]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Dubya75 wrote...

Please explain how visual appearance influence gameplay?

Got nothing against you as you know, but it is an aspect of gameplay much like a selection of skills or moving up, down, left or right on the screen. It's a gameplay mechanic therefore it's adding or removing does influence gameplay. I think what you meant was how does it effect plot, because gameplay it does effect.

I have nothing against you either! (glad we got that out the way)

Still, I fail to understand how the appearance of an outfit on a character impacts gameplay other than provoking a feeling of approval or dislike from the gamer towards that character's appearance.
I don't like Merill's outfit. Does it impact the game at all or how it's played or how much enjoyment I get out of it? No.
Do I sometimes wish she didn't wear that gastly scarf? Of course, but the game still feels and plays exactly the same regardless.

[Stanley Woo]

[quote]RagingCyclone wrote...

@Stanley Woo...but there is one problem with some of those you mention (Superman, Spiderman, Green Lantern) in that they also have alter egos with differing looks. They are not static in always being the hero. Darth Vader is iconic because his suit is required for him to live.[/quote]
That's story, not iconic imagery. Iconic imagery is story-agnostic. You know who Darth Vader is and what he represents even if you don't know the movie (indeed, a friend of mine has never seen a Star Wars movie but can easily identify Darth Vader).

Even Optimus Prime has several looks including one being a gorilla.[/quote]
Optimus Primal. A slightly different character using a variation on the name, like Spider-Woman, Batgirl, Spider-Man 2099.

[quote]Part of the iconic look you are talking about implementing also makes that character static and not vibrant. I am all for an iconic look like Morrigan had. But for all intent and purposes in the game there are times even she would not wear those clothes. Say for instance high in the mountains going for the Urn of Sacred Ashes. [/quote]
Again, you're talking about story and trying to add realism where fiction and handwavium can rationalize characters wearing unrealistic attire. Look at Red Sonja and how unrealistic her chainmail bikini is, yet I don't think she ever dressed "appropriately"  for weather or combat. Spider-Man wears essentially a thin bodysuit and would get super sick after an early spring or late fall New York rain. But story-wise, clothes are always clean, don't get damaged, and is always appropriate attire, all except when story demands otherwise (Garrus in ME2, many Spider-Man stories, all the different Iron Man and Batman costume/armour variants, etc.).

[Dubya75]

billy the squid wrote...

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.

So are you attempting to market the future product based upon and iconic image of characters which remain largely unknown outside the genre, rather than the core product competencies which appeals to a market segment?

Many of the examples you have given have become iconic because the IP was successful, by appealing to a segment which adored it and associated those characters with a successful IP. I don't think their iconic style made the IP a success.

So...in which sentence does Woo state that the success of the IP is dependant on their choice to depict characters in their own iconic style? Just wondering as I've read through his post a number of times without coming across that.
What I did read however is that they CHOOSE to do it this way because they believe it will make the characters stand out more, which it obviously will.
Sure, not everyone is going to like it but there is no way to please everyone.
Instead they are doing what they think is right. Nothing wrong with that.

[bEVEsthda]

Dubya75 wrote...

I LIKE IT! I LIKE IT A LOT!
The thing that bothered me the most about Origins was the uniform look all the characters had. As boring as watching paint dry!
This was fixed in DA2. Woohoo! (no pun intended Mr Woo)
What I think BioWare is doing in DA3 is make different VISIBLE outfits available for all characters within their individual styles. Sweet!

And I don't like it.  So the division remains. Funny thing is that it seem to still be along the lines of who liked DA2 or not. I think it supports my own notion that the dislike of DA2 is more founded upon the style of game it is, more than it's supposed flaws (re-used areas & falling spawns).

[RagingCyclone]

@Dubya75...for me it's an impact of gameplay on immersion. In DA2 the effect was not bothersome for me because it was always in one locale. But in Origins it was problematic because, and take Morrigan's robes, it didn't make sense for me she would wear skimpy clothing tromping around the snow high in the mountains. Nor did it make sense to have heavy clothing in other areas where the temperature was warmer. For me the environment was a factor in what my characters were wearing as it helped in my immersion. It didn't make me like the character more or less, just helped me to grasp where they were and what they were doing.

[Uccio]

Dubya75 wrote...

Salaya wrote...

 As much as some people like this direction for equipment, and being aware of the impact on gameplay, the idea of emphasize iconic looks over variety is the exemplifictaion of the "new" philosophy in Dragon Age: it's better to make a cool looking game than a game with good gameplay. This, of course, is completely subjective; but my point is that  now everything in the franchise looks like as some kind of bad-try-of jrpg (note that I love jrpgs).

We can hear some of the explanations for the new directions on gameplay and art..., but at the end, I always feel that the only true reason is that they want to appeal wider audiences by negating the core elements of wcrpg. And I'm afraid that we have reached a point in wich the final product is far from being a wcrpg. Naturally, lots of people would disagree, since all the terms I use are vague and very subjective... but, in any case, I'm sure there is people who inditifies with me. 

I wish more people could grasp the beauty of playing wcrpgs, but not this way. Over sized boobs, flashy animations and incredibly dull gameplay, are not the only ways to seduce more public. 

Please explain how visual appearance influence gameplay?
In my experience, the appearance of my characters has no impact on gameplay at all, only stats of armor and weapons impact combat, but the rest of the gameplay? It really makes no difference.

For me it is a matter of taste. I have never played WoW just because the cartoonish characters.

[Dubya75]

Ukki wrote...

Dubya75 wrote...

Salaya wrote...

 As much as some people like this direction for equipment, and being aware of the impact on gameplay, the idea of emphasize iconic looks over variety is the exemplifictaion of the "new" philosophy in Dragon Age: it's better to make a cool looking game than a game with good gameplay. This, of course, is completely subjective; but my point is that  now everything in the franchise looks like as some kind of bad-try-of jrpg (note that I love jrpgs).

We can hear some of the explanations for the new directions on gameplay and art..., but at the end, I always feel that the only true reason is that they want to appeal wider audiences by negating the core elements of wcrpg. And I'm afraid that we have reached a point in wich the final product is far from being a wcrpg. Naturally, lots of people would disagree, since all the terms I use are vague and very subjective... but, in any case, I'm sure there is people who inditifies with me. 

I wish more people could grasp the beauty of playing wcrpgs, but not this way. Over sized boobs, flashy animations and incredibly dull gameplay, are not the only ways to seduce more public. 

Please explain how visual appearance influence gameplay?
In my experience, the appearance of my characters has no impact on gameplay at all, only stats of armor and weapons impact combat, but the rest of the gameplay? It really makes no difference.

For me it is a matter of taste. I have never played WoW just because the cartoonish characters.

A very good example! Good thing BioWare is not changing the current art style of Dragon Age, so we can continue enjoying the visuals as we did in DA2!

[Stanley Woo]

DamnThoseDisplayNames wrote...
And third - Minsc, Edwin and Jan-turnip-Janses had portraits, some VO and generic dolls. How are they less iconic than those bare footed elves, huh?

How often did those portraits change based on how you equipped those characters? When were their faces obscured by armour, a hood or a mask? If any of those characters were posed differently, would their silhouettes be enogh for you to identify the character?

I would guess that you wouldn't recognize them if they wore something different or had their hair a different way. those characters were iconic because their appearance didn't change and you saw the same image of them all the time.

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

Salaya wrote...
I wish more people could grasp the beauty of playing wcrpgs, but not this way. Over sized boobs, flashy animations and incredibly dull gameplay, are not the only ways to seduce more public. 

Sister, you be strong and well. You post good.

Stanley Woo wrote...
Again, you're talking about story and trying to add realism where
fiction and handwavium can rationalize characters wearing unrealistic
attire. Look at Red Sonja and how unrealistic her chainmail bikini is..

They can, if the whole setting is unrealistic and sur. Everyone weared ridiciolus stuff in movies with Arnold. 

And by the way, when did Bioware actually went the way of surrealitstic fantasy and handwa-?..
ooh, wait.

you saw the same image of them all the time.

DAO faces did't change either. Did't have any problems with that.

Modifié par DamnThoseDisplayNames, 07 septembre 2011 - 05:49 .

[bEVEsthda]

Giltspur wrote...

...
You seem to suggest BIoware wants to take visual choice away.  I suggest Bioware wants the visual choice to not be tied to a stat choice.  They're just different choices altogether.  You choose the stats at the inventory screen.   You choose the look at something like a closet or a "Shepard locker" or whatever.

And I'm sorry, but I still feel this is wrong. Moving away from realism and into a world of symbolics, is absolutely not what I want in a RPG.

[Pasquale1234]

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.

Great points, Mr. Woo, but ....

Is the tradeoff of limiting player choice for *all* of the companions really worth it?

I LOVE the idea of iconic looks for antagonists and other important characters in the stories.  Meredith, Flemeth, Orsino, Elthina, the Viscount - these are characters also benefit greatly from iconic looks without limiting any choices the players might like to have.

[Wulfram]

Minsc and Jaheira had different portraits in BG2 to BG1.  We managed, I think.

Hell, James Bond and Doctor Who manage to be pretty iconic while changing actors.

[RagingCyclone]

[quote]Stanley Woo wrote...

[quote]RagingCyclone wrote...

@Stanley Woo...but there is one problem with some of those you mention (Superman, Spiderman, Green Lantern) in that they also have alter egos with differing looks. They are not static in always being the hero. Darth Vader is iconic because his suit is required for him to live.[/quote]
That's story, not iconic imagery. Iconic imagery is story-agnostic. You know who Darth Vader is and what he represents even if you don't know the movie (indeed, a friend of mine has never seen a Star Wars movie but can easily identify Darth Vader).

Even Optimus Prime has several looks including one being a gorilla.[/quote]
Optimus Primal. A slightly different character using a variation on the name, like Spider-Woman, Batgirl, Spider-Man 2099.

[quote]Part of the iconic look you are talking about implementing also makes that character static and not vibrant. I am all for an iconic look like Morrigan had. But for all intent and purposes in the game there are times even she would not wear those clothes. Say for instance high in the mountains going for the Urn of Sacred Ashes. [/quote]
Again, you're talking about story and trying to add realism where fiction and handwavium can rationalize characters wearing unrealistic attire. Look at Red Sonja and how unrealistic her chainmail bikini is, yet I don't think she ever dressed "appropriately"  for weather or combat. Spider-Man wears essentially a thin bodysuit and would get super sick after an early spring or late fall New York rain. But story-wise, clothes are always clean, don't get damaged, and is always appropriate attire, all except when story demands otherwise (Garrus in ME2, many Spider-Man stories, all the different Iron Man and Batman costume/armour variants, etc.).

[/quote]


But when you are talking about locking that iconic look in the game that is based on the story...it impacts the story. If the story is the driving force for playing the game, the iconic look is good to start, but refer to my post about Han Solo, he has an iconic look, but for story purposes changes. So I guess it comes to which is more important? The story you are trying to tell, or the look you want to market? I have no clue who Red Sonja is, so apparently that look ovderrode the story. All the others you mention I do know, but they have good stories to interest me in them.

Modifié par RagingCyclone, 07 septembre 2011 - 05:50 .

[San Diego Thief]

A characters icon grows depending on what armor you see them wearing in the game. If you have a basic rogue, they become much more of an assassin in your mind when you see them wearing black leather armor and carrying around a shortsword or knife that you looted from a corpse. Similarly, if someone wanted to roleplay as an archer, you get more immersed in the game if you see them with a huge longbow hanging off their back.

Bioware removing this customization is almost like going to a voiced character - it just hurts replayability and doesn't allow the player to dictate how they want to play the game

Modifié par San Diego Thief, 07 septembre 2011 - 05:50 .

[Salaya]

Dubya75 wrote...

my absurd ramblings

Please explain how visual appearance influence gameplay?
In my experience, the appearance of my characters has no impact on gameplay at all, only stats of armor and weapons impact combat, but the rest of the gameplay? It really makes no difference.

Appearence as itself does not affect gameplay. But giving more importance to appearence over gameplay is a different matter: that Dragon Age 2 finds more important to give us iconic outfits over the variety of free equipment affects gameplay. If that effect is negative or not is something to discuss; but the line "We want characters to look iconic" fits perfectly in the armor-set system of DA2.

[Dragoonlordz]

In the end the result was sacrificing a gameplay mechanic/feature and system for mere PR/marketing visual appearence. I don't like that trade off personally. Having the option or lack of selecting armour in game for companions has no real affect on story progression as I can just as easily roleplay/imagine Isabella choosing to wear something weird herself or heavy or different. Therefore it really is about marketing and marketing alone imho.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 07 septembre 2011 - 05:58 .

[Stanley Woo]

Dubya75 wrote...
So...in which sentence does Woo state that the success of the IP is dependant on their choice to depict characters in their own iconic style? Just wondering as I've read through his post a number of times without coming across that.
What I did read however is that they CHOOSE to do it this way because they believe it will make the characters stand out more, which it obviously will.
Sure, not everyone is going to like it but there is no way to please everyone.
Instead they are doing what they think is right. Nothing wrong with that.

Precisely. Please don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to state that what we're doing is "right" or even "the only way" to do things. I'm only talking about what having iconic characters mean and how we currently define them and use them. What we do in the future remains to be seen, but I personally see a lot of value in having iconic character appearances, and have used other highly-recognizable characters from well-known properties to illustrate my points.

You are free to disagree with me, just as you are free to like or dislike anything you choose in a game. My opinion is not necessarily yours, and what matters to me in a game is not necessarily what matters to you. It should go without saying that I am not excluding, dismissing, or belittling anyone's opinion or argument when I participate in a discussion, I merely try to offer a different point of view based on my experience in the industry and with the game we are discussing (Dragon Age II).