791 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

I know what you're going for.  I just don't see why you think it's a good thing.

Frankly, even if I were playing Superman, in a single-player game I'd like to experiment with Superman being different.  And in a game like DA2 where we're already asked to make so many decisions for the companion characters, being unable to make this one, even when it would have positive gameplay consequences, is an absurd restriction.

[PsychoBlonde]

David Gaider wrote...

I find it more likely that a lack of customizability in other areas added to this could make one feel restricted, perhaps, and I believe Mike has already spoken of plans to find some middle ground when it comes to companions and equipment-- but going back to generic bodies for all NPC's isn't in the cards. 

But the valuable Paper Doll demographic will BOYCOTT TEH GAME!!!!!

The thing that strikes me as funniest about this discussion is that I found most of the armor in Origins so mercilessly ugly that I pretty much picked one unique armor set per character, slapped them in it, and called it a day.  Alistair wore the Warden Commander armor, Sten wore the Blood Dragon Armor, Oghren wore the Legion of the Dead armor, Leliana wore Wade's Dragonskin Armor (or the Superior if I wasn't playing a rogue myself), etc.  The only characters I would slap in whatever I had available (Wynne, Zevran, sometimes Morrigan), I almost never used, and Shale/Dog looked pretty much the same no matter what.  Since my favorite party was me, Sten, Shale and the Dog, being able to accessorize my companions didn't really matter much to me anyway.

So what was the primary difference customization-wise between Origins and DA2 as far as I was concerned?  In DA2 *some* of the armor my character could wear wasn't UGLY AS SIN.  I consider that an IMPROVEMENT in customization of appearances. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

alex90c wrote...

gameplay/lore segregation

Also known as a complete lack of coherence.  Without a coherent setting, roleplaying is impossible, because the characters' knowledge of the world around them isn't available to us.

Like your Shepard example, is one shot dangerous, or am I only in danger if I allow someone to empty a clip at me?  Shouldn't that distinction affect behaviour?

But it can't, because we don't know which version of reality will apply.

[bEVEsthda]

David Gaider wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...
Yes, but why do you want it? The question remains unanswered. I, at least, already understood what iconic look is. I do not see it as desirable for these party crpgs though. And while you did answer what you want to achieve, you still didn't answer why.

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).

I find it more likely that a lack of customizability in other areas added to this could make one feel restricted, perhaps, and I believe Mike has already spoken of plans to find some middle ground when it comes to companions and equipment-- but going back to generic bodies for all NPC's isn't in the cards. Doing that would lose something that we consider valuable (subjective as that may be), and I believe there are other avenues where we'd like to focus on efforts with regards to choice and customizeability in the game as a whole. Perhaps Mike will speak more on that in time.

What is it to you, and everybody else who prefers the iconic look, how the characters look in my game?

(But I do see the point on resources and not going back to generic bodies. However, I have also used associative modelling myself, already twelve years ago, so it's not a spanking new technology which could solve your problems. But I can also see that you may not be there today, were you can do that for DA3.)

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 07 septembre 2011 - 08:04 .

[ipgd]

Fandango9641 wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Let Ukki ask his question (this is the right place afterall)!

That is the answer the developers have always given to any person who suggests majority opinion should dictate how they build their games.

Well then wind your neck in and let the Bioware answer Ukki’s question.

They already have. Numerous times. He could go find any one of those threads where a poster has raised an identical question and received an identical answer if mine just isn't good enough for him without a fancy Bioware tag.

[just_me]

Dragoonlordz wrote...
So which is Merrills iconic look? Which will be the iconic Merrill after costume / outfit pack 5,6 or 7?

Well... both.
Both outfits are unique to Merill noone else can wear them and a lot of people who played through DA2 (maybe multiple times) will probably recognize that these are Merill's armors even if they can't see her face...
And which extra cost was involved to get that appearance? All you had to do was romance her... it's not from a DLC

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

But we have said why. We want our major characters to have their own distinctive look.

You can do that without forcing that look on us throughout the whole game.

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).

I find it more likely that a lack of customizability in other areas added to this could make one feel restricted, perhaps, and I believe Mike has already spoken of plans to find some middle ground when it comes to companions and equipment-- but going back to generic bodies for all NPC's isn't in the cards. Doing that would lose something that we consider valuable (subjective as that may be), and I believe there are other avenues where we'd like to focus on efforts with regards to choice and customizeability in the game as a whole. Perhaps Mike will speak more on that in time.

Based on what we know so far, the team has made a terrible collective decision on companion appearance.

[Sylvius the Mad]

bEVEsthda wrote...

(But I do see the point on resources and not going back to generic bodies.)

I don't see the resource argument at all.  Generic bodies with the same armour for everyone should be cheaper to build, because you wouldn't need different models and animation rigs for all of the characters.

And I'll say it again: No graphical improvement since NWN has been worth the development cost.  Not one.

[Dragoonlordz]

In the end it simply comes down to they want "iconic" themed style looks... I want choices and customisation in both stats and appearences. It's their game, they're one's making it but I reserve the right to not like that direction. On it's own this one aspect is not enough for me to not purchase a game but it is something that can put put in a pro/con list before purchase next title. For me it happens to fall into the con section personally.

Once that con list adds up enough then obviously all those things I don't like will put me off the following or next game. Unfortuantly for me these days that con list is getting larger and larger with what Bioware are producing but such is life, developers change directions all the time as they did between DAO and DA2. While other developers titles are adding more pros from my personal preference of RPG games and less cons.

With Bioware they don't make the greatest RPGs to me, they make some really good ones and some not very good ones, they don't have the greatest stories to me but they have some good and some bad ones and I am not loyal to Bioware or even a fan of Bioware, but I do like and am a fan of some of their games and some not.

In the end what they produce with DA3 will result in my purchase or not but at this stage all I can do is state what I would like and what I do not in order to try to avoid too many cons adding up in the list which puts me off DA3 and this just happens to be one of those cons, the removal of party statistical [and visual] customisation of companions.

[alex90c]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

alex90c wrote...

gameplay/lore segregation

Also known as a complete lack of coherence.  Without a coherent setting, roleplaying is impossible, because the characters' knowledge of the world around them isn't available to us.

Like your Shepard example, is one shot dangerous, or am I only in danger if I allow someone to empty a clip at me?  Shouldn't that distinction affect behaviour?

But it can't, because we don't know which version of reality will apply.

Well I never said it was a good thing, I was just making a matter of fact statement.

Personally though, I just overlook it and accept it.

[David Gaider]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But we have said why. We want our major characters to have their own distinctive look.

You want them to have a completely customizeable look. While I get that, that's not compatible with what we want. We cannot implement it both ways. As Mike said elsewhere, having the ability to gain the stats of equipment without a visual change is one option-- and there are others. A toggle is not an option.

Based on what we know so far, the team has made a terrible collective decision on companion appearance.

Well, for one, you don't know the entirety of what we're going to do with companion appearances just yet. I'll assume that whatever we do, however, that you won't like it as it's pretty clear that you stand on the far end of the spectrum of people who value customizeability over everything. Which is great, and games that do that are great. But games can be great (and great RPG"s) without doing that, and that's what we're doing. I think that's pretty clear.

[Nerdage]

Disappointed if being able to just put armour on companions and see it is really off the table completely, I don't think their appearances need to be completely pre-made to make them recognizable, in-game or otherwise. Granted a character that has a pre-defined look graces a poster better but do they need to be *that* recognizable? You don't need everyone and their dog on the street to know what the companion characters look like, it's only really the players who have to be able to recognize companions, and they'll do just fine anyway.

I doubt anyone who'd played origins saw sister nightingale in DA2 and didn't instantly know who she was, even with the redesign (not to mention wearing a completely new armour model), the head and the voice were enough to make her instantly recognizable. Then if / when you see her again in the game, she looks different again, but she's still recognizable! I don't see why that's not enough. Seems like if a character's so forgettable the player can't even recognize them without the game artifically singling them out then there's a deeper problem.

If it is just about having iconic looking characters to advertise the game, make that the antagonist. I'm all for them having their preset looks, and they make for more iconic characters anyway. Even though his look changes through the game I find the final enemy in Jade Empire (not going to name names) at least as recognizable as any of the companions and their 'iconic' looks.

Ranting aside, I'm anxious to see the next system in action. I have my preference, and if that's really not an option then that's too bad, but I'll try not and judge a system I know next to nothing about (from now on) just because it wouldn't be my first choice.

Modifié par nerdage, 07 septembre 2011 - 08:14 .

[Dragoonlordz]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

I find it more likely that a lack of customizability in other areas added to this could make one feel restricted, perhaps, and I believe Mike has already spoken of plans to find some middle ground when it comes to companions and equipment-- but going back to generic bodies for all NPC's isn't in the cards. 

So what was the primary difference customization-wise between Origins and DA2 as far as I was concerned?  In DA2 *some* of the armor my character could wear wasn't UGLY AS SIN.  I consider that an IMPROVEMENT in customization of appearances. 

Is not customisation of appearences. Thats character and armour design and nothing to do with having the ability to wear ot not which is the customisation part being discussed.

[Dubya75]

David Gaider wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...
Yes, but why do you want it? The question remains unanswered. I, at least, already understood what iconic look is. I do not see it as desirable for these party crpgs though. And while you did answer what you want to achieve, you still didn't answer why.

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).

I find it more likely that a lack of customizability in other areas added to this could make one feel restricted, perhaps, and I believe Mike has already spoken of plans to find some middle ground when it comes to companions and equipment-- but going back to generic bodies for all NPC's isn't in the cards. Doing that would lose something that we consider valuable (subjective as that may be), and I believe there are other avenues where we'd like to focus on efforts with regards to choice and customizeability in the game as a whole. Perhaps Mike will speak more on that in time.

Good news as far as I'm concerned!

[Uccio]

ipgd wrote...

Ukki wrote...

Hello David,

So the question in this point would be then are these people more numerous than people who prefer the Origins model from the DA fanbase and how much it affects their future as DA customers. As much I have had discussion about DAO and 2 among fellow gameplayers there have been much more support for the Origins way than DA2. I know it is subjective but still I feel it is a important aspect.

It doesn't matter whether more people prefer the Origins model or not. Bioware is the one making the game, not us. The only reason they need to justify a change is if that is the kind of game they want to make. If you don't like it, you don't have to give them your money.

Right, it doesnt. At the end it matters in such way that changing the game too much might have monetary result which is something companies usually pay attention alot, even Bioware.

[ipgd]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

And I'll say it again: No graphical improvement since NWN has been worth the development cost.  Not one.

Some people care about things Sylvius the Mad doesn't. If graphical improvements were objectively worthless to everyone these advancements would have never been made.

[Nerevar-as]

David Gaider wrote...

Well, for one, you don't know the entirety of what we're going to do with companion appearances just yet. I'll assume that whatever we do, however, that you won't like it as it's pretty clear that you stand on the far end of the spectrum of people who value customizeability over everything. Which is great, and games that do that are great. But games can be great (and great RPG"s) without doing that, and that's what we're doing. I think that's pretty clear.

Is it possible to give an unique look to each armor class for each character? Changing stats without changing looks just seems a throwback to the past, and not one I missed. 

Anyway, I hope these characters are never in a situation where they must hide in a crowd.

OT, but I thought Optimus Primal was NOT Optimus Prime.

[Il Divo]

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, 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.).

I fully support the idea of iconic appearances, especially if you guys still allow the players to have stat customization, similar to the KotOR 2 approach with Kreia. Just please, for the sake of your beloved fans, don't mention Red Sonja in a positive manner. I still have nightmares about that film.

Modifié par Il Divo, 07 septembre 2011 - 08:12 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

Well, for one, you don't know the entirety of what we're going to do with companion appearances just yet.

This is why I said "based on what we know".

I'll assume that whatever we do, however, that you won't like it as it's pretty clear that you stand on the far end of the spectrum of people who value customizeability over everything.

I wouldn't ask for control over companion appearance if I wasn't already given control over their skills, weapons, tactics, and behaviour.  Since I'm already asked to decide for them what they do and where they do it and what tools they employ and what abilities they acquire, it's simply doesn't make any sense that this small detail is denied us.

I understand some of the benefits you think the iconic look provides you.  For one, it makes it easier to design cutscenes, because you know exactly what each character will be wearing, so animating that scene and framing the shots doesn't require you make any allowances for different armour types (my modded DA2 often has Fenris's pauldrons clipping through his face when he gestures).

And at least you're consistent.  Insisting that every player experience Isabela in the same way so as to preserve her character design is exactly the same sort of rejection of "Death of Author" theory as you espouse in your defense of the voiced protagonist when you insist that there was always a pre-determined tone for each line even when the characters weren't voiced.

Unfortunately, your internally consistent position is, I think, wrong.

[Willybot]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Willybot wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Ukki wrote...

Hello David,

So the question in this point would be then are these people more numerous than people who prefer the Origins model from the DA fanbase and how much it affects their future as DA customers. As much I have had discussion about DAO and 2 among fellow gameplayers there have been much more support for the Origins way than DA2. I know it is subjective but still I feel it is a important aspect.

It doesn't matter whether more people prefer the Origins model or not. Bioware is the one making the game, not us. The only reason they need to justify a change is if that is the kind of game they want to make. If you don't like it, you don't have to give them your money.

Pretty much ^this in the end. Those who disapprove of their decisions when making the game can take the same actions they may have done when DA2 came out: not purchase the game, pass on their feedback to others, etc. No matter what we say on these boards, it is ultimately Bioware's decision to make whatever they wish; just as it's our decision what to do with their product when they're done.

Let Ukki ask his question (this is the right place afterall)!

There must be a misunderstanding. I never implied that such questions could or should never be asked. The devs usually don't like to repost answers to questions that have been addressed, especially if done os in the same thread. All I did was reiterate what the devs have said multiple times in the recent past. To sum up:
-This is their game to make, not by the democratic process
-Iconic characters are the direction they are going to continue
-They may or may not implement an alternate appearance system

Nothing in my post indicated that anyone did not have the right to ask the question again.

[Uccio]

ipgd wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Let Ukki ask his question (this is the right place afterall)!

That is the answer the developers have always given to any person who suggests majority opinion should dictate how they build their games.

I am not dictating anything. Bioware does what it wants with its product. I was merely interested in the drive behind this decision since what I have seen so far is that DAO has beaten DA2 in sales so why so many drastic changes. Usually in market of selling things the one which sell is usually a keeper to the point there is no use of reviving. I just feel that DA with main O- features was not yet there.

[bEVEsthda]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Is it possible to give an unique look to each armor class for each character? Changing stats without changing looks just seems a throwback to the past, and not one I missed. 

Anyway, I hope these characters are never in a situation where they must hide in a crowd.

In a general way, everything is perfectly possible. But one would have to think that Bioware is already quite bound, in terms of ready assets and tools they have to use to make DA3.

[PsychoBlonde]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

alex90c wrote...

gameplay/lore segregation

Also known as a complete lack of coherence.  Without a coherent setting, roleplaying is impossible, because the characters' knowledge of the world around them isn't available to us.

Like your Shepard example, is one shot dangerous, or am I only in danger if I allow someone to empty a clip at me?  Shouldn't that distinction affect behaviour?

But it can't, because we don't know which version of reality will apply.

This bugs me, too.  I know it's hard to write a coherent story when one of the classes (Mage!) should, by the lore, get radically different reactions from just about everybody you meet just on the merit of obviously being  a mage.  If they don't, it just makes it look like everyone you ever meet is a stupid, oblivious hypocrite.  Sure it's harder to write and consumes zots.  So you should take that into account at the very beginning when you say "hey, wouldn't it be awesome if Mages were a threat to the general populace?!"  That question should be immediately followed-up by "are we going to write completely different dialog just for the Mage class then?" or "Are we going to not let the PC be a mage, then?" or at the very least "so the people who think mages are dangerous are smoking crack, then?" or as a very last resort "so the PC is a special kind of non-dangerous-appearing mage then?"

There are SOME things it makes sense to segregate.  Such as, you don't have NPC's saying, in conversation, "I am going to gift to you this ancient sword of my people, which does Nature damage, has a 12% bonus to crit chance, and occasionally procs a bleeding curse".  Segregating the actual math from the story is okay.  (Granted, you don't want this to happen to the extent of, "here is the ancient valuable relic, which your inventory says is actually not valuable at all and can only be sold for a miniscule amount of money".)  If they claim it's a fantastic something, it should actually BE at least reasonably fantastic.

Personally, I'd prefer even if things like "OMG MAGES CAN KILL EVERYBODY AND RULE US FOR A THOUSAND YEARS!" is backed up in gameplay, with mages in combat just being DEVASTATING.  Instead, they're merely annoying, and that's largely because the crappy line-of-sight system lets them drop that irritating lightning sphere on you even when they're around the corner and down the hall.  My rogue PC was vastly more devastating in combat than my mage.  Took me 15 minutes of plinking and running to down the Arishok on my mage, and that was on CASUAL difficulty.  My rogue took him down in TWO HITS on HARD.  And what about demons?  I downed them by the dozens, even those backstabbing rage demon bastards.  Don't see why everyone is freaking out about them all the time.

It even ties back into the iconic issue.  How Heroic is the PC (and the other characters in the game)?  Are they regular people with maybe a bit of extra ability/training, or are they gods among insects?  Half the time it seems to be one way, half the time the other way.  Or, third possibility, is the continnuum of power such that to the insects they look like gods and to the actual gods they look like bugs?  That last seems more likely given the story so far, but we haven't yet seen any of the really powerful stuff in action yet--or when we do, the gameplay undercuts it horribly.  Why did we need an army to go up against the Archdemon?  My party hacked its way through an entire city full of darkspawn and murderized the thing without assistance.  So it seemed like we "needed" the "army" not to fight the horde of darkspawn, but to trip the story flag that let us actually go fight the Archdemon at all.

Iconic looks don't matter much when you haven't got the iconic *feel* sorted out.

[Stanley Woo]

Ukki wrote...

I have to say I still don´t get it. As bEVEsthda wrote (below) the reason for the change is not clear. Since the character customization was already in Origins it should have been relative easy to implement to the DA2.

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?

I admit I am not sofware designer (I´m a business major) but I do feel that such a change from a already popular game model was in my books a jump in the dark. Iconic look itself is a bit vague since none of the characters in the game have such history as, for example, spiderman has. These are so far one game only characters. To make this clear I´m not trying to ****** up wind here, I´m just honestly curious since we have a member of dev team here in the discussion.

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.