791 réponses à ce sujet

[Collider]

I think one static appearance is preferable to the often generic appearances that armor customization offers. I also prefer generally that the designers/writers decide what look suits (besides obvious out of character fanservice like Miranda) the companion rather than relying on the player.

They did not handle the time skips perfectly in DA2 - I thought the lack of changing appearance for the companions had to do with that rather than anything else.

I also think that one static appearance tells a story, despite being static. It does not feel like the same can be said about many of the default appearances for customizable companion armor games like DA:O or Mass Effect 1. Ashley's generic phoenix armor definitely does not tell a story.

[Maconbar]

Ramus Quaritch wrote...

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.

But was DA:O really that much of a successor to BG?

[Cutlass Jack]

Kothoses Rothenkisal wrote...

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.

I hope people going down the "But they never change clothes in ten years!!!" route do realize that its an entirely separate discussion than iconic appearances. The lack of change in looks is the fault of development time, not a purposeful design decision. I'm sure they'd would have loved to have their appearances change timejumps and other reasons if they had time for it.

It was one of the major ways that doing a 'framed narrative timeskipping' story was a bad idea when working under a limited development schedule. But has nothing really to do with Iconic. Hopefully they'll handle it smarter next time around.

Modifié par Cutlass Jack, 08 septembre 2011 - 02:52 .

[alex90c]

Monica21 wrote...

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.

I find that "they can dress themselves" argument BS. Hell, why don't we just go all the way with the Mass Effect-isation and make it impossible to even control our companions during quests?

What I love in RPGs is getting a metric sh!tton of equipment/armour/accessories/whatever and being able to equip my party.

...of course, that's just my view. So before people pile on the "hurdurhur its subjective" because people here think they can actually debate, I know it is.

[KnightofPhoenix]

alex90c wrote...

I find that "they can dress themselves" argument BS. Hell, why don't we just go all the way with the Mass Effect-isation and make it impossible to even control our companions during quests?

Honestly, I wouldn't mind, personally. It's not going to happen though.

I would vastly prefer it if party members are not always available and are restrcited depending on choice / beliefs  or quests. And that romances are very restrictive. In essence, i support all measures that give companions more independence and them acting on that independence, if it's implemented properly.

[MerinTB]

Yrkoon wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
(Planescape: Torment would like to have a word with those who say that).

 Most. Worn. Out. Comparison. Ever. 

Merin's Law.

[Monica21]

alex90c wrote...
I find that "they can dress themselves" argument BS. Hell, why don't we just go all the way with the Mass Effect-isation and make it impossible to even control our companions during quests?

What I love in RPGs is getting a metric sh!tton of equipment/armour/accessories/whatever and being able to equip my party.

...of course, that's just my view. So before people pile on the "hurdurhur its subjective" because people here think they can actually debate, I know it is.

BS why? You're not in a party camp. When you arrange your party you're essentially doing the RPG equivalent of going over to your friend's house and asking if they can come out to play. You don't then toss them clothes and say, "Well, you'd better wear this instead." 

[elearon1]

alex90c wrote...
So before people pile on the "hurdurhur its subjective" because people here think they can actually debate, I know it is.

So the better approach is to preemptively insult everyone?  

Really, there is no debate here ... there are merely preferences being reitterated a dozen slightly (very slightly) different ways.  

You prefer a metric ton of crap to drop on your characters - I find that tedious.  I prefer characters to have a unique look - you have no taste.  You see how easy that is?  

What kind of concession are you actually looking for here?  The Devs to say it is okay that you like the game your way - they've already said that.  They have also said they are settled on a design direction and they are going to stick with it ... so there really isn't anything to argue. 

You want to boil it down to the bare minimum?  People: "Why the emphasis on iconic looks?"  Devs: "We like it that way".  The entire thread in a nutshell. 

[Monica21]

elearon1 wrote...
You want to boil it down to the bare minimum?  People: "Why the emphasis on iconic looks?"  Devs: "We like it that way".  The entire thread in a nutshell. 

+1

[MerinTB]

Monica21 wrote...

elearon1 wrote...
You want to boil it down to the bare minimum?  People: "Why the emphasis on iconic looks?"  Devs: "We like it that way".  The entire thread in a nutshell. 

+1

While I personally disagree with the decision (even if it isn't a big deal to me either way)...

Yeah, it's basically this.

[Maconbar]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

alex90c wrote...

I find that "they can dress themselves" argument BS. Hell, why don't we just go all the way with the Mass Effect-isation and make it impossible to even control our companions during quests?

Honestly, I wouldn't mind, personally. It's not going to happen though.

I would vastly prefer it if party members are not always available and are restrcited depending on choice / beliefs  or quests. And that romances are very restrictive. In essence, i support all measures that give companions more independence and them acting on that independence, if it's implemented properly.

I would generally agree with this type approach, but then I have always had the view that companions have more in common with regular NPCs than they do with a player character. However, I do want to retain control over the companions during fights.

[alex90c]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Honestly, I wouldn't mind, personally. It's not going to happen though.

I would vastly prefer it if party members are not always available and are restrcited depending on choice / beliefs or quests. And that romances are very restrictive. In essence, i support all measures that give companions more independence and them acting on that independence, if it's implemented properly.

When implemented properly, then yes I find it easier to accept. But the way it is now feels like how Hawke as a character was in DA2 - just this horrible middle-ground where (in the case of the protagonist) you're expected to create your character's personality but then at the same time they're partially predetermined which can kinda screw with that. What if you want your Hawke to be buddies with Carver? Nuh-uh. What if you think Bethany is a tosser? Nah, you gotta be chummy.

Same with this iconic outfits crap, what you said would have actually been pretty cool to implement, say Hawke goes on another one of his "dubious" quests, Aveline won't be able to tag along due to her being a part of the guard or because she personally refuses to take part in such a thing.

Monica21 wrote...

BS why? You're not in a party camp. When you arrange your party you're essentially doing the RPG equivalent of going over to your friend's house and asking if they can come out to play. You don't then toss them clothes and say, "Well, you'd better wear this instead."

I just see it as gameplay/____ segregation kind of thing. When I play an RPG I like playing dress up, and iconic! outfits don't let me do that. It's a thing I found a bit of a letdown in JE too, first the preset appearances of the protag and then the fact you couldn't even change outfits.

elearon1 wrote...

So the better approach is to preemptively insult everyone?

I know what BSN is like, people are that predictable I could just anticipate someone pulling out crap like that when I already know what I'm saying is subjective/not objectively verifiable/whatever.

Really, there is no debate here ... there are merely preferences being reitterated a dozen slightly (very slightly) different ways.

You prefer a metric ton of crap to drop on your characters - I find that tedious. I prefer characters to have a unique look - you have no taste. You see how easy that is?

I wasn't speaking literally obviously. Getting bombarded with torn trousers in DA2 was just annoying. But that could have easily been rectified by trimming most of the junk out of the game.

What kind of concession are you actually looking for here? The Devs to say it is okay that you like the game your way - they've already said that. They have also said they are settled on a design direction and they are going to stick with it ... so there really isn't anything to argue.

You want to boil it down to the bare minimum? People: "Why the emphasis on iconic looks?" Devs: "We like it that way". The entire thread in a nutshell.

I'm not looking for some kind of concession - I know what Bioware wants to do, I reluctantly accept that, I'm just giving my opinion.

[elearon1]

simfamSP wrote...

But you don't have to post your law every time the game get's mentioned do you? Just for me? If not for him?
Please? it breaks my heart everytime I see your law, it does...

He's trying to make it a meme.  It's about as bad as that man-giraffe-dog thing.

[Maria Caliban]

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

hoorayforicecream isn't around so I'll just leave this here for you.

[Maconbar]

Monica21 wrote...

alex90c wrote...
I find that "they can dress themselves" argument BS. Hell, why don't we just go all the way with the Mass Effect-isation and make it impossible to even control our companions during quests?

What I love in RPGs is getting a metric sh!tton of equipment/armour/accessories/whatever and being able to equip my party.

...of course, that's just my view. So before people pile on the "hurdurhur its subjective" because people here think they can actually debate, I know it is.

BS why? You're not in a party camp. When you arrange your party you're essentially doing the RPG equivalent of going over to your friend's house and asking if they can come out to play. You don't then toss them clothes and say, "Well, you'd better wear this instead." 

You should try that sometime, it could be fun.

[Jsixgun]

I like Bioware's ideas for companions personally.

[ipgd]

Fandango9641 wrote...

That I feel compelled to say I’m not surprised that the point of my earlier jab was lost on you says a lot about us both I think. In any case, this post perfectly encapsulates the attitude that upsets me so and its one that marks you out as someone not to be taken seriously. Indeed, it’s your forum self in microcosm; the kind of matter of fact apologist who will happily make excuses for truncated development cycles and half measures, so long as his needs are met. It’s no surprise for sure, but I’ll say again that it does you (and more importantly, the community) no credit at all.

It is not an excuse. It's a fact. They had less time. I think they should have spent more time on DA2, but for whatever reason that is privy to neither of us, they did not. My unsubstantiated guess is that the deadline was set by EA and was not negotiable by Bioware, or they would have otherwise moved it, because the game obviously needed more time and I have no reason to believe Bioware's devs would insist on such a tight schedule. I do have reason to believe EA would insist on such a tight schedule. Your unsubstantiated guess can be that Bioware is an evil, unfeeling money machine working independantly to maliciously crush our wallets with bad games, but as these are unsubstantiated guesses, there is nothing worth arguing about.

Modifié par ipgd, 08 septembre 2011 - 03:24 .

[MerinTB]

elearon1 wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

But you don't have to post your law every time the game get's mentioned do you? Just for me? If not for him?
Please? it breaks my heart everytime I see your law, it does...

He's trying to make it a meme.  It's about as bad as that man-giraffe-dog thing.

It's more a reaction to always seeing PS:T invoked as if it ends any argument because, it in and of itself, disproves something.  That everyone will just accept that PS:T is proof of something.

And having two words to say, to point to, instead of pasting several paragraphs everytime I see that, I think saves time for everyone.

But, sure, I'm not adverse to it becoming a meme.  Even with a different name.  I don't need credit for it - I'm sure I'm not the first to say it.  What I want is people to stop using fallacious arguments.

[Monica21]

Maconbar wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

alex90c wrote...
I find that "they can dress themselves" argument BS. Hell, why don't we just go all the way with the Mass Effect-isation and make it impossible to even control our companions during quests?

What I love in RPGs is getting a metric sh!tton of equipment/armour/accessories/whatever and being able to equip my party.

...of course, that's just my view. So before people pile on the "hurdurhur its subjective" because people here think they can actually debate, I know it is.

BS why? You're not in a party camp. When you arrange your party you're essentially doing the RPG equivalent of going over to your friend's house and asking if they can come out to play. You don't then toss them clothes and say, "Well, you'd better wear this instead." 

You should try that sometime, it could be fun.

I could totally have a more appropriate wing-girl if I did that. 

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

Exactly. Moreso, she's a duelist and swashbuckler. Her fighting style involves parries and acrobatics while fighting herds of minions. Not taking hits.

Bs. Duelist is someone who duels - fights only one enemy. You can't survive being a duelist when tweny templars in full plate mail jump on you from the rooftop. There is no way to dodge each and every strike when one is outnumbered so hard, at least some blows shall land. Armor is essential for survival, and that's why people invented it.
Meyh. Applying common sense and real fighting styles to that character is useless no matter what exactly you want to prove - be it her thongs are stupid or that she is a "rogue".