791 réponses à ce sujet

[FieryDove]

RagingCyclone wrote...

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.

Yes!

Let people wear something I chose as fitting at the time.

No more bare skin/high heels in hostile environments/combats (ME2) No pants in battle (DA2). It is getting rather...odd. Iconic over some semblance of believeability .

Modifié par FieryDove, 07 septembre 2011 - 05:56 .

[Dubya75]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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.

I am very greatful for it, remembering how tedious it was in Origins to filter through hundreds of bits of armor trying to dress my characters in the best possible (stat-wise) armor.
Good riddens I say!

[Dubya75]

FieryDove wrote...

RagingCyclone wrote...

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.

Yes!

Let people wear something I chose as fitting at the time.

No more bare skin/high heels in hostile environments/combats (ME2) No pants in battle (DA2). It is getting rather...odd. Iconic over some semblance of believeability .

Yeah it is getting rather silly, isn't it! Conan should buy himself a suit of armor that covers him top to toe in shiny metal! Oh wait, he won't be Conan anymore if he did that...

[blaidfiste]

Stanley Woo wrote...

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.

Man, what I wouldn't give for a bald, glowing eyed Sarevok in his BG armor.  The infinity engine was limited but DA2's isn't.  I fully support the iconic party look.

[Dragoonlordz]

Dubya75 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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.

I am very greatful for it, remembering how tedious it was in Origins to filter through hundreds of bits of armor trying to dress my characters in the best possible (stat-wise) armor.
Good riddens I say!

Just because there is a choice you can make, noone put gun to your head and forced you to make it.

Tedious to you was fun to me. Same reason planet visiting was tedious to some in ME and fun for me, replaced with planet scanning was tedious to me but fun for others. But removal of a feature that you were not forced to use in the first place just for marketing purposes is just wrong imho.

[Range Rover]

Dubya75 wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

RagingCyclone wrote...

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.

Yes!

Let people wear something I chose as fitting at the time.

No more bare skin/high heels in hostile environments/combats (ME2) No pants in battle (DA2). It is getting rather...odd. Iconic over some semblance of believeability .

Yeah it is getting rather silly, isn't it! Conan should buy himself a suit of armor that covers him top to toe in shiny metal! Oh wait, he won't be Conan anymore if he did that...

 Maybe his "man UGZ " keep his whole body warm?

[FieryDove]

Dubya75 wrote...

Yeah it is getting rather silly, isn't it! Conan should buy himself a suit of armor that covers him top to toe in shiny metal! Oh wait, he won't be Conan anymore if he did that...

Conan in movies didn't need too, plot armor and all...in the game Conan he did wear armor. Shocking.

My prediction remains the same.

DA3 Complaints-

I don't want to play a Movie!
You put too much movie in my GAME!

[Anomaly-]

Even if they allow us to customize our gear while keeping some unique look, I still don't like the way this 'x number of outfits to choose from' is going. That reminds me too much of Hawke in DA2. You would basically get 3 or 4 complete 'sets' throughout the game, which are pretty much impossible to miss if you do the quests. You were really never rewarded for going off the beaten path, exploring and finding any rare and unique items. All you would find were the same 17 'rings of fire'. This takes away a significant aspect of gameplay I enjoy. Loot and exploration are one of the biggest interests for me in an RPG. I can't help but think the x number of outfits for companions will create the same dilemma.

[filetemo]

the problem is, DA2 companions are not iconic. Not by looks, not by personality.

DA:O companions were so much better written, they are much more iconic,charismatic and rememberable than any DA2 companion.

DA2 companions are pretty forgettable, with fixed looks or not.

That's like saying I will never change clothes to retain an iconic look. If I'm a boring individual who does not stand in any way, wearing the same clothes only makes me predictable and boring

[Dragoonlordz]

Dubya75 wrote...

Yeah it is getting rather silly, isn't it! Conan should buy himself a suit of armor that covers him top to toe in shiny metal! Oh wait, he won't be Conan anymore if he did that...

Sarcasm doesn't translate so well with written words so I'll assume your being sarcastic. Conan is Conan whether he wore nothing but fur lined underwear and bandana or a tutu. Conan is Conan through dialogue and and story not whether or not he decides to wear a suit of armour.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 07 septembre 2011 - 06:08 .

[Aliuex]

Wulfram wrote...

Doctor Who manage to be pretty iconic while changing actors.

I would say that this supports the inclusion of iconic outfits. Each individual Doctor has his own iconic look. One wears bowties, the other a scarf, another wears celery, etc. It makes them individualistic, and you can identify each simply by seeing the clothes. Doctor Who also has the benefit of an iconic setpiece (the TARDIS) coherently tying all the doctors together.

[Stanley Woo]

RagingCyclone wrote...
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.

Again, go back to one of my earlier posts. We could have done any number of things, including having NPC and PC clothing change based on whatever: which Act you're in, what area you're in, whether you're in their home base, what you equip them with. the same way you could have had tuna for lunch instead of pizza, or could have studied architecture instead of political science, or could have purchased Nike brand shoes instead of Reebok, or could have made that paper 14 pages instead of 12, or could have coloured something blue instead of red. Instead, for whatever reason, you chose to do something else.

For us, decisions are usually resource based--how do we get the most from our time and effort? All of those different NPC appearances take time and effort to implement, time and effort that has to come from somewhere. Zots were very limited in Dragon Age II, not just time-wise but for what we wanted to do with the game. We could have made the NPC body builds way more generic and allowed any armour to fit them. That certainly solves the problem of way more work but also makes the NPCs more generic. We could have spent the time and effort in making all of our armour appearances compatible with every NPC body, but some other level or animation or plot may have gotten far less attention. We could have added fewer followers, but come on! Our characters are pretty awesome, and people generally want to see more of them, not fewer!

Somewhere along the line, we decided to go with iconic/static NPC appearances and divert our zots elsewhere. Right, wrong, agree, disagree--it doesn't change what happened for Dragon Age II. Will it be different for future products? Only time (and what we decide to do withour zots) will tell.

[RagingCyclone]

Dubya75 wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

RagingCyclone wrote...

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.

Yes!

Let people wear something I chose as fitting at the time.

No more bare skin/high heels in hostile environments/combats (ME2) No pants in battle (DA2). It is getting rather...odd. Iconic over some semblance of believeability .

Yeah it is getting rather silly, isn't it! Conan should buy himself a suit of armor that covers him top to toe in shiny metal! Oh wait, he won't be Conan anymore if he did that...

Funny, there was a movie with Arnold Swarzenegger where he was Conan...he wore lots of different clothing...and I think even shiny metal...but they still called him Conan.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but in marketing he had the typical look, but in the movie that told the story he changed appearance several times. And that's really the point behind an iconic look...marketing. It's even the reason for using the word iconic. The look does not make the character, the story does. The look may get you to buy the game, see the movie, read the book, etc but it does not define the character.

[filetemo]

Dubya75 wrote...



Yeah it is getting rather silly, isn't it! Conan should buy himself a suit of armor that covers him top to toe in shiny metal! Oh wait, he won't be Conan anymore if he did that...

there's hundreds of comic books with conan using all kinds of armor and he's still conan. By his behavior and personality. Not all conans were drawn by Buscema and co.

[bEVEsthda]

Dubya75 wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

RagingCyclone wrote...

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.

Yes!

Let people wear something I chose as fitting at the time.

No more bare skin/high heels in hostile environments/combats (ME2) No pants in battle (DA2). It is getting rather...odd. Iconic over some semblance of believeability .

Yeah it is getting rather silly, isn't it! Conan should buy himself a suit of armor that covers him top to toe in shiny metal! Oh wait, he won't be Conan anymore if he did that...

It's all about the fictional universe it takes place in. You're so totally right! He wouldn't be Conan anymore. In these created worlds the aestethics is part of the art and story. It makes sense with thong armour because it's part of the style and mood of Conan's world. As for realism it's also far more realistic that people commonly think. If we move back to the ancient Greeks and earlier, people in the warm regions went into battle basically naked, except for armor details on arms, legs and head.

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

Stanley Woo wrote...
For us, decisions are usually resource based--how do we get the most from our time and effort? All of those different NPC appearances take time and effort to implement

Jesus, how is that the more technologically advanced games become, the more they degrade? Now it happened that making diffirent looks for companions and beautiful and unique armor suits is just too much of an effort.
Let's all go Nintendo and do the Mario thing. God.

[Dubya75]

I give up. Some people refuse to see the benefits to what BioWare is doing here.
I just hope it doesn't cause them (bioware) to compromise on their vision for the franchise.
And I'm outa here!

[kingjezza]

Does having fully customisable companions really make them any less iconic, is Isabella really more iconic than Leliana simply because you can't change her gear, I would suggest not.

Actually Isabella's big ****** are about the most iconic thing about her, It's the only thing that really stands out and I remember about her anyway.

Modifié par kingjezza, 07 septembre 2011 - 06:15 .

[FieryDove]

Stanley Woo wrote...

[Zots were very limited in Dragon Age II, not just time-wise but for what we wanted to do with the game. We could have made the NPC body builds way more generic and allowed any armour to fit them. That certainly solves the problem of way more work but also makes the NPCs more generic. We could have spent the time and effort in making all of our armour appearances compatible with every NPC body, but some other level or animation or plot may have gotten far less attention. We could have added fewer followers, but come on! Our characters are pretty awesome, and people generally want to see more of them, not fewer!

So if I put Izzy in a leather armor to give her some protection that would have made her generic? I just can't fathom this line of thinking. Zots I understand. This not so much.

EA Please give BW unlimited Zots (And jelly babies).

[Stanley Woo]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

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

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

That's not really for us to say, is it? We do what we do out of necessity based on zots, overall vision, and what we would like to see in the game. Game vision isn't stated in terms of "NPC appearance doesn't change," but in more vaguer concepts like "iconic characters" and "engaging combat," stuff like that. as long as we work towards those goals, their actual implementation can change (though too much change during development and you end up using WAY more zots). Only you the audience can determine for yourselves whether you like the feature or don't. You don't have our limitations and you don't have to make those hard decisions or schedule those people. You can just enjoy the game (or not).

[Wulfram]

If wikipedia is to be believed, the original Robert E. Howard Conan tended to wear the typical dress of whereever he happens to be rather than the now "iconic" loincloth.

[RagingCyclone]

Stanley Woo wrote...

RagingCyclone wrote...
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.

Again, go back to one of my earlier posts. We could have done any number of things, including having NPC and PC clothing change based on whatever: which Act you're in, what area you're in, whether you're in their home base, what you equip them with. the same way you could have had tuna for lunch instead of pizza, or could have studied architecture instead of political science, or could have purchased Nike brand shoes instead of Reebok, or could have made that paper 14 pages instead of 12, or could have coloured something blue instead of red. Instead, for whatever reason, you chose to do something else.

For us, decisions are usually resource based--how do we get the most from our time and effort? All of those different NPC appearances take time and effort to implement, time and effort that has to come from somewhere. Zots were very limited in Dragon Age II, not just time-wise but for what we wanted to do with the game. We could have made the NPC body builds way more generic and allowed any armour to fit them. That certainly solves the problem of way more work but also makes the NPCs more generic. We could have spent the time and effort in making all of our armour appearances compatible with every NPC body, but some other level or animation or plot may have gotten far less attention. We could have added fewer followers, but come on! Our characters are pretty awesome, and people generally want to see more of them, not fewer!

Somewhere along the line, we decided to go with iconic/static NPC appearances and divert our zots elsewhere. Right, wrong, agree, disagree--it doesn't change what happened for Dragon Age II. Will it be different for future products? Only time (and what we decide to do withour zots) will tell.

This I understand, and I have stated that for DA2 having the same outfit I could rationalize because the game progressed in the same locale. Origins was far more reaching in the locales, so the same outfit didnt make sense to me as a player, Whichever direction you guys take I know will be based on what is available and the best general direction. I would just like to see the option available if possible because of the story elements. Lately there is a feeling that the iconic look has become more important than the story, or a possible general feeling as of late. IE Marketing dictates what happens to the story or plot of the game. I do not think that will be the case as was evidenced in Legacy.

I know I may be in the minority on this, but I could accept a more generic body type if the story demanded it and a character like Mandalor or Kreia in KOTOR:The Sith Lords where the look was locked for them but not all npc's.

In any case what direction you guys and gals take, thank you for taking the time to address us in the forums. I know I have not said it before, or had the opportunity, but dialogues like this are appreciated.

[hoorayforicecream]

FieryDove wrote...

So if I put Izzy in a leather armor to give her some protection that would have made her generic? I just can't fathom this line of thinking. Zots I understand. This not so much.

If you put her in armor that is generic, then her look would have been generic, just like Leliana (who does sport a generic body look). If Isabela is to armor up, I would much prefer her to put on armor that's distinctly Isabela, and not just generic armor.

[TheJediSaint]

I think the iconic looks for DA2 work better than they did for ME2. I never had issues with fridge-logic stemming from a character's outfit, even with Isabela. Yes, she wears no pants going into battle. However she's supposed to be a very savvy pirate-ninja girl who is really hard to hit, and thus favors freedom of movement over protection.

So I don't think there's anything wrong with Bioware's attempts at creating iconic looks for important characters, at least as far as DA2 is concerned. Which is not to say that I want their outfits to be completely static. I would like to see a character's look change as the story progresses as a way of "showing" their development.

I really am not that concerned about customizing companion appearances myself. At least in my opinion, I would rather have a companions appearance designed by a professional artist rather than force me to play paper-doll with them.