791 réponses à ce sujet

[filetemo]

Collider wrote...

I hate playing dress up with my companions.

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

Modifié par filetemo, 08 septembre 2011 - 01:39 .

[Maconbar]

Fandango9641 wrote...

ipgd wrote...

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.

I'm sorry, but poking fun at your little pro-Bioware, anti-choice tantrum does make a point no? In any case, I'm for the inclusion of iconic bodies and visual customisation in Dragon Age 3. Follow? 

Except that what you said wasn't just "poking a little fun".

[Cyberarmy]

[quote]Collider wrote...

I hate playing dress up with my companions. [/quote]


[/quote]

I love playing dress up with my companions.

[Tommy6860]

Morroian wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

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.

No offence but I can't see how it would break immersion, breaking immersion is usually due to some jarring event. You know from the beginning you can't change her outfit, do you suddenly forget you can't in the middle of a game?

No, it breaks immersion when the enemies are in battle gears (you know, armors and the like), while they can take hits, Isa does the same thing, but almost in her skivvies. See what I mean?

[ipgd]

Fandango9641 wrote...

I'm sorry, but poking fun at your little pro-Bioware, anti-choice tantrum does make a point no?

No, it doesn't. It doesn't even have the benefit of being clever, or relevant to, well, just about anything at all. The quality of my character is not the point of the debate. My character is wholly irrelevant to the debate. The only thing you are accomplishing here is wasting bandwith.

And, I mean, honestly. I can appreciate a sick burn here and there, a snarky undertone to an otherwise substantial debate, but you're just... bad at this. I'm not even insulted, I'm embarrassed for you. This stuff is really weak and completely bereft of any finesse or wit. The worst you've accomplished with these sad attempts at affront is make me mildly annoyed that I've wasted the time required to read your posts, which isn't very much to go on for someone whose entire schtick seems to be built on aggression and rudeness and not much else to buoy the post. You're going to need something else to make this work because your personal insults alone aren't cutting it.

Modifié par ipgd, 08 septembre 2011 - 01:56 .

[Beerfish]

As with most things in video games it's a trade off.

Distinct bodies vs customization and all bodies being the same. (And yes I'm sure there is some game out there somewhere with all sorts of body sliders and still all sorts of outfits.)

Wanting to have one or the other is fine and dandy, once the argument about these decisions being important rpg elements comes into being I roll my eyes. As has been stated in this thread and various others there are tons of ropgs called the beacons of rpgdom that had little to no customization and iconic characters. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Ramus Quaritch]

Stanley Woo wrote...

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.

Put resources elsewhere?  Where?  Was it making the same small, boring city with only a few, repetitive dungeons?  Or was it making an incomplete third act?  There wasn't a finite amount of time to develop Dragon Age 2.  There was too little time to develop DA2.  it was rushed, plain and simple.

Modifié par Ramus Quaritch, 08 septembre 2011 - 02:11 .

[ipgd]

Ramus Quaritch wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

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.

Put resources elsewhere?  Where?  Was it making the same small, boring city with only a few, repetitive dungeons  Or making an incomplete third act?  There wasn't a finite amount of time to develop Dragon Age 2.  There was too little time to develop DA2.  it was rushed, plain and simple.

Time is a resource. And, yes, they obviously had a lot less of it for DA2. I doubt they had control over that release date.

Modifié par ipgd, 08 septembre 2011 - 02:09 .

[Collider]

filetemo wrote...

Collider wrote...

I hate playing dress up with my companions.

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

Most excellent.

[syllogi]

ipgd wrote...

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.

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.

That would take *some* of the sting out of a lack of choice for companion appearances, but based on what we were given in DA2, I doubt that they will exert even the little effort it would take to make scenes like the escapes from Fort Drakon or Rescue the Queen.  Right now it seems like making Dragon Age games cheaply, fast, and with a lack of attention to detail and quality, is what I should expect.

ipgd wrote...

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:

*snip*

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.

Why should we believe any new promises concerning DA3, when many of the promises made before DA2 came out were not kept, even ones made only weeks before the game came out?  

And plenty of people are cool with changes, as long as they are made in good faith.  I enjoy Mass Effect 2 more than Mass Effect 1, even though I am an elitist RPG snob, because I am able to appreciate a well made, high quality game.  When the Dragon Age team puts out one of those again, I'll be the first person back on the bandwagon.  Until then, I'm going to take anything Mike Laidlaw says about "this time being different" with a huge grain of salt.  Boulder sized.

[Ramus Quaritch]

The reason I did not mind the "iconic looks" in ME2 was the setting and style of gameplay. I think that science fiction settings that involve shooting guns are inherently harder to make as rpgs and more like shooters. Turn based shooters? Not as enjoyable. Medieval or Fantasy settings are inherently more like rpg's because swords, archery, and magic are more friendly to the RPG and turn-based combat system. When Mass Effect 2 went to iconic looks, I did not mind as much because I knew it was more action oriented. When Dragon Age 2 went in that direction, I did not (and still do not) approve of that because I instinctively think of Medieval/fantasy settings as the RPG setting. DA2 going away from the RPG genre as a whole just did not sit well with me.

Never mind the fact that the Dragon Age series was supposed to be the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate.

[Zjarcal]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

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.

No offence but I can't see how it would break immersion, breaking immersion is usually due to some jarring event. You know from the beginning you can't change her outfit, do you suddenly forget you can't in the middle of a game?

No, it breaks immersion when the enemies are in battle gears (you know, armors and the like), while they can take hits, Isa does the same thing, but almost in her skivvies. See what I mean?

That is true indeed.

But I will say, when it comes to logic in combat, the DA series has never managed to immerse me. I mean, we can take arrows to our head and keep fighting while we still have them on our head. Swords can go right through our armors and through our backs and we keep going. We can be set on fire and keep on... etc.

So while I do get what you mean there, to me it was just another equally illogical bit that didn't really affect me because everything about the combat was already illogical.

The way I make some sense of it is that in the case of Isabela, she's simply extremely good at avoiding hits (which is the focus of her specialization, raising her defense), so her fighting half naked wouldn't be much of a problem.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 08 septembre 2011 - 02:19 .

[astreqwerty]

Imho characterwise da2 didnt provide a memorable cast rather than a forgetable parade of one dimensional stubborn charlatans(excluding isabela, varic and maybe merril but her parts were done so badly leaving much to the imagination of the player)..when considering their looks no charchter struck me as a remarkable iconic figure exept maybe aveline whose persona turned out to be full of ****ty cliches
Off topic: someone mentioned flemeth in their posts. Again for me flemeth as presented in dao is easily the most distinctive character from the whole franchise..

[Collider]

Isabela's outfit doesn't bother me. It's in her character, and she's a rogue and is not supposed to be taking hits to begin with.

[Yrkoon]

David Gaider wrote...


But we have said why. We want our major characters to have their own distinctive look. I can certainly see why there might be people who see little value in that, but I believe it would be a mistake to suggest that nobody sees value in it... or that in order for a CRPG to qualify as such party appearances must be customizeable (Planescape: Torment would like to have a word with those who say that).

 Most. Worn. Out. Comparison. Ever. 

The only reason static companion appearances worked in Torment  was because Torment is not a combat-heavy RPG.    It is Far from it.    But I'm game.     Make us an RPG that's 80% dialogue,  20% combat, and 100%  Mindblowingly Unique, and  I won't  *care* about  companion gear customization. Nor will I   claim  that the game isn't an  RPG.

  And Planescape Torment's characters weren't distinctive looking  because of their apparel anyway.  They were distinctive looking  because of what they were  (a floating skull, a succubus with wings, a tiefling with a tail, a  mechanical Cube with 6 arms, an Empty Suit of Armor.....)

Modifié par Yrkoon, 08 septembre 2011 - 02:50 .

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

Most. Worn. Out. Comparison. Ever.

Man, just the idea that they compare their decisions to Planescape after a game like DA2 just makes me rage inside.

[FieryDove]

ipgd wrote...

Time is a resource. And, yes, they obviously had a lot less of it for DA2. I doubt they had control over that release date.

Then they need to gain control. Can't the Dr's do anything for DA? (Other than repeated PR speak?)

If not then maybe they could borrow some *assuming control* from the ME team and gain another 9 months or so if needed on the da games. Just a thought.

Collider wrote...

Isabela's outfit doesn't bother me. It's in her character, and she's a rogue and is not supposed to be taking hits to begin with.

It bothers me in battles since she does take hits (and die). I would have loved to give her some armor just for battles. Or at least pants. Wait I can already do that...cool.

[ipgd]

Yrkoon wrote...

  And Planescape Torment's characters weren't distinctive looking  because of their apparel anyway.  They were distinctive looking  because of what they were  (a floating skull, a succubus with wings, a tiefling with a tail, a Cube with 6 arms....)

Unique companion models are not just about apparel. Without restricted armor, they can't make companions' bodies radically divergent from the default model [when the resource demands of unique bodies + swappable armor is accounted for]. They haven't done something really divergent yet, besides Shale -- but they could. And without this method, they realistically cannot.

[syllogi]

Collider wrote...

Isabela's outfit doesn't bother me. It's in her character, and she's a rogue and is not supposed to be taking hits to begin with.

It bothers me that a character who is obviously concerned with her appearance would not change her clothes for over six years, unless you sleep with her, and even then, it's a minor change.  I could have dealt with casual and combat appearances a bit better, but still, they deliberately chose to make a game with significant time skips, and to create static character appearances that don't change over time.  It gives the impression that they didn't care about telling a story visually, at least not as much as they say they did.

Modifié par TeenZombie, 08 septembre 2011 - 02:39 .

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

I wanted that, too.

The artists looked at me with their sad eyes. "Do you really want us to create an entirely new torso with all those tattoos just for that one scene?"

"That's a stupid question. Of course I do."

"Sigh. Okay, what do you want to cut, then?

The correct answer there is "the release date".

Geez.

I really don't want to comment in this thread, but I might as well drop the pretense at this point.

If I'm going to keep saying - "Yes, this."

[Cutlass Jack]

Collider wrote...

Isabela's outfit doesn't bother me. It's in her character, and she's a rogue and is not supposed to be taking hits to begin with.

Exactly. Moreso, she's a duelist and swashbuckler. Her fighting style involves parries and acrobatics while fighting herds of minions. Not taking hits. (See any old Errol Flynn or Lancaster swashbuckler for details.)

That she does take damage is a quirk of the game mechanics. No attack fully misses, it just becomes a 'glancing blow' that does less damage. Which is why letting you change her gear on a game mechanic level, rather than visual, is sensible.

[Kothoses Rothenkisal]

AloraKast wrote...

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*

You know, you got me thinking here, if Iconic looks are the way things are going, and I can see the benifit of them, then maybe the answer lays in giving A the ability to modify part of that iconic look and B how about outfits that vary slightly over time.

Lets take Merril for example in DA 2, so we have our iconic look for the little Celtic darling, thats fine, so I find a nice suit of armour and I can give it her for the stats... ok so far I am still with you but only just (I love the little metagame of shuffling around gear to make sure my party not just my character are well equipped for the tasks ahead, it makes finding loot a little bit more exciting and compelling for me).

Anyway Merril never changed her clothes through the whole game, now if Bioware are going with the Argument of "realism" for iconic looks then why did Merrils clothes not alter as she spent more time away from her clan, surely she would adapt her attire to fit her surroundings, even if subconciously.  Its hard to buy into it as an immersion decision when there is no concession to the passage of time, I mean we are told Hawkes story takes place over 10 years but apart from his continual change in residence there is little to plot that by.

It strikes me that more and more Bioware are starting to think and feel the Mass Effect 2 style presentation is their strong point, now there is no denying the mass effect series are fantastic games, but a lot of people, my self included still enjoy the group based sprawling BG/Origins style RPG and that audience has essentially been told time and time again that we are wrong for enjoying that.

When it comes to iconic looks, why do the looks not just change over time, why do they stay as a constant thing, its not iconic at that point its just boring I am afraid.  The Phrase Iconic seems to have been pulled straight from George Lucas' beard and I think thats a sad loss, the way Bioware are going with Dragon Age I have no doubt it will end up a good game, but it wont be the game I was hoping it was, it wont be an origins followup and yes dammit thats what I want.  

While cinematic story telling is great and movie tropes in games are nice there is still a place for a good old fashioned dungeon crawling RPG, sadly it seems Bioware doesnt agree and so I hope that A Dragon Age 3 is a masterpiece of epic proportions so that I can ignore what has been lost and B I hope that anoher Dev picks up the mantle of old Bioware because while I have no doubt that new Bioware will produce great games, with the whole cliche catchprase PR speech they throw at me, about Iconic looks EPIC COMBAT and Awesome buttons I cant help but feel that the Bioware I grew up loving has passed on to become something new.  Over time I will probably grow to feel the same fondness for this new Bioware but for now I sit here and reflect on what has been lost, Im at that stage.

So if we are going down the Iconic look path, can we have iconic looks that change over time, I dont just mean blood splatters but subtle changes that reflect a characters growth with me through out the game, can we have iconic looks that shift a bit atleast based on what they are wearing and can we please have some level of customisation beyond unlocks.

[KnightofPhoenix]

ipgd wrote...
Unique companion models are not just about apparel. Without restricted armor, they can't make companions' bodies radically divergent from the default model [when the resource demands of unique bodies + swappable armor is accounted for]. They haven't done something really divergent yet, besides Shale -- but they could. And without this method, they realistically cannot.

Just like they could make varied alternate costumes that really show the flow of time or that are appropriate to a certain area / level (say a winter costume).

There is a lot of potential. Question is, will they?
I think that's the issue for most people, barring those who fundamentally reject the concept.

[Monica21]

Tommy6860 wrote...
No, it breaks immersion when the enemies are in battle gears (you know, armors and the like), while they can take hits, Isa does the same thing, but almost in her skivvies. See what I mean?

Everything about RPG combat is immersion-breaking. There's nothing realistic about being captured in a dragon's maw, shaken, tossed back to the ground, and then being able to get back up and fight again. (And that was an example from Origins.) Isabela's ability to fight in her pirate gear is the really the least of any issues I have with combat.

Not to mention that Isabela is a grown up with her own housing arrangements and can dress herself. I don't think she'd take too kindly to me dictating what she wears.