791 réponses à ce sujet

[FieryDove]

Stanley Woo wrote...

 Iconic doesn't necessarily equate to importance or priority. Iconic is recognizable, associative, representative.

Oh I agree it can also be:





or

[Dragoonlordz]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Stats alone don't make a game more fun however, it just makes it easier/harder.

Ideally having the ability to use stats to make the game easier or harder and having the fun aspect of visual change is surely better for the player. Though admittedly the fun aspect is subjective but from reading here seems the only thing people really hated was the design of armour which is not customisation issue in itself or the seporate parts to an outfit having to switch each part.

So replace section parts based outfits with entire top and bottom combined outfits in huge numbers to replace huge choice the player had before for example if was around 40 sets of armour in DAO but were parts changable so ended up with around 80-120 parts etc then in DA3 have 30-40 complete armour sets (top and bottom combined outfits x 30-40  for each companion of which can be looted or plot given but needs to have a large amount of sets through game), each with complete new look as have done with these item packs outfits for DA2. But also stats and runes and upgrades on each of the 30-40x5 outfit/armour sets so they can be used in certain situations.

The trinkets, necklaces, weapons and so on the same way with regard to upgrading and stats and large amount loot wise to find, only these other things such as rings, amulets and weapons etc are interchangable aka not set restricted basically these are seporate peices unlike the outfit sets which are (combined top and bottom) as one armour type out of 30-40x5.

Now granted in total would need to make 30-40 x 5 but given a 2-3 year development time period and how fast you have been throwing out these item packs for sale you could double or triple that amount of armour and wouldn't take you much of that time.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 07 septembre 2011 - 08:38 .

[dheer]

Stanley Woo wrote...
And we are always trying to do things better, so things would kinda have to change, wouldn't you say?

Of course. You have to replace the things that were broken. That was not the case in this instance, however. Morrigan had an iconic look and i could change her equipment and have it show in game. It accomplished your goal and gave me freedom over it as well. It didn't stop us from having other models or unique looks for companions (Dog and Shale) like some argue either.

[David Gaider]

Nerevar-as wrote...
Is it possible to give an unique look to each armor class for each character?

That is indeed on the table as a possibility, among other things. There are numerous permutations to a system that still gives us the look we're going for but offers more flexibility-- without simply going back to generic armor across the board.

[Cutlass Jack]

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

No, based on your opinion they have. Based on my opinion, they made a great decision.

Which is not to imply my opinion is any better (except to myself) but more to say your opinion is by no means absolute.

[PsychoBlonde]

I would like to posit that only non-hideous/whacktastic armor suits count as distinct suits. Unless you're doing some sort of insane machinima in which case mods are your friend.

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

Stanley Woo wrote...
Iconic doesn't necessarily equate to importance or priority. Iconic is recognizable, associative, representative.

You can make all armor recognizable, associative, and representative. It's just a question of good design.

Hey guys, CHITIN ARMOR!

Who thought Morrowind?
And that's how it actually works.

Yo guys, FULL DAEDRIC SET!
Who thought "Yeah, Divayth Fyr was a badass"?
See?

[esper]

Yes, but dog and shale you couldn't equip with normal armor.
They want the option to have all the companions to have non-generic race type bodies. Such as Anders being slimmer than human male or Isabella having larger breast or Aveline being more masculine than standard human female. Neither of these were animals or golems. If you removed Morrigans iconic robe, her body changed to normal human female which it wasn't before.

[Addai]

PsychoBlonde wrote...
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. 

And all you're saying here is that the same people who designed ugly armor in Origins should design companion armor that you can't change even if there IS something you prefer available in the game.

What's wrong with this picture?

[tmp7704]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Dragon Age II Flemeth--instantly recognizable. Dragon Age II Isabela--also instantly recognizable.

As opposed to..?

Let's do a quick test.



How long did it take you to recognize the character on this picture?

[Cutlass Jack]

tmp7704 wrote...

How long did it take you to recognize the character on this picture?

Well I think its an elf, but the footwear and gender are throwing me off.

[David Gaider]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
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.

I cannot account for the game you're playing in your own head, Sylvius. I can, however, account for the experience of the game as we intend it to be. If what you want is something different, that's great, but making a game for the sole purpose of allowing you to play an unintended version in your head is not our goal.

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

Super. Evidently we're not making a game for you, then.

[Dragoonlordz]

tmp7704 wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Dragon Age II Flemeth--instantly recognizable. Dragon Age II Isabela--also instantly recognizable.

As opposed to..?

Let's do a quick test.

How long did it take you to recognize the character on this picture?

What makes it at all recognisable is the tatoo on side of face and nothing else. The gender is an issue but due to tatoo is forgiven and can be looked past.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 07 septembre 2011 - 08:40 .

[bEVEsthda]

Stanley Woo wrote...

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.

So the vision you have for DA now is still the same (or maybe even more evolved) what we glimpsed in DA2? A comic book style fanastic-world with fantastic-characters, inspired by transformers, Superman, Green Lantern and FF-scapes? That would explain your curious obsession with iconic looks.
I find that quite depressing.   And if my notions on why DA2 was so disliked is on the button,..
I want something completely different, a pretension of realism and the lower key medieval fantasy world of BG and DA:O.
Oh well, you make your own bed...

[Gemini1179]

*Sigh* For all Bioware's hooawwing about "choice", they've taken one aspect of it directly out of the series. Iconic looks are great for starting attire, or companion specific armors later in the game, but it was the player's choice to keep or change it before, why has that needed to change?

The stock "Because we wanted it this way" answer just feels like such a cop out. It seems Bioware doesn't want to say "It's easier to sell companion attire DLC this way if we get you frustrated enough with one look on your companions." At least that would be honest.

The dedication of resources excuse strikes me as lame. If that was the issue, they could have removed any number of search-around-the-same-cave 'quantity' quests and rededicated some of those resources to alternate looks for the companions.

I also find it odd that so many devs come on this forum stating that they don't do things because a few people ask for it, but if I'm not mistaken, those who purely want iconic looks that they don't have to change ever seem to be in the minority.

I don't hate DA2. I am frustrated at the poorly executed attempt at 'innovation'.

I honestly loved the characters, the dialogue, the ability to change the general nature of your character between nice, sarcastic and tough.

Loved the Tactics improvement.

Was neither disappointed nor impressed by the dumbing down of the potions (I never used half the crap that was in DAO anyway.)

HATED the Junk Items.

Loved Legacy.

Disappointed in the general lack of armour suit bonuses for the various armor sets in the game.

Disappointed in the release day bugs. Don't tell me that number of them was acceptable.

Actually quite enjoyed the combat. I don't mind mixing a little button mashing in with my tactics.

Party banter rules again.


To conclude, I'd like to have more options for my companions in future games. I don't WANT them all wearing the same heavy armor, but I'd like each of them to have 3-5 options for outfits that I have some control over. Yes, I do like playing dress-up with my companions, so do many people.

Finally, in all truth, DA2 felt a lot like Iron Man 2. That movie was produced and release in less than a year and you can feel it as you watch the movie. There are some good things, there are some bad things, but overall, you feel like it could have been better if they just put more time into it. Same went for DA2.

[Atakuma]

tmp7704 wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Dragon Age II Flemeth--instantly recognizable. Dragon Age II Isabela--also instantly recognizable.

As opposed to..?

Let's do a quick test.



How long did it take you to recognize the character on this picture?

Without the tattoo it would just be a random elf.

[billy the squid]

David Gaider wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...
Is it possible to give an unique look to each armor class for each character?

That is indeed on the table as a possibility, among other things. There are numerous permutations to a system that still gives us the look we're going for but offers more flexibility-- without simply going back to generic armor across the board.

I would agree somewhat, I wouldn't mind seeing some generic armour removed over a more personalised system, so long as there is some visual indication that this character is wearing plate armour etc. It can be specific to him, or perhaps limit the armours to be equipped as an entire set if you had to. There are issues of art style on this front, but I will not bring them up so not to go off on a tangent.But, I would hate to see some of the named armour sets disappear or be limited to the central protagonist only.

Particularly as some of the designs and care that went into the descriptions of those items and armour seemed to add to the background of the setting in DAO.

Modifié par billy the squid, 07 septembre 2011 - 08:45 .

[Atakuma]

Gemini1179 wrote...

The stock "Because we wanted it this way" answer just feels like such a cop out. It seems Bioware doesn't want to say "It's easier to sell companion attire DLC this way if we get you frustrated enough with one look on your companions." At least that would be honest.

That argument doesn't really fly, because if that was their intent what has prevented them from doing it with DA2?

[ipgd]

tmp7704 wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Dragon Age II Flemeth--instantly recognizable. Dragon Age II Isabela--also instantly recognizable.

As opposed to..?

Let's do a quick test.



How long did it take you to recognize the character on this picture?

If it weren't for the tattoo and the fact we're on a Dragon Age forum right now, I doubt I'd immediately see Zevran. I'd probably see a LARPer.

[Harid]

Seems like I was right when I stated that Bioware was stating "We like it our way, deal with it."

Are you guys even reaching out outside of these forums to see if people like this idea, given it's contentious, even here? Do you even care?

Why do you care if I want to give Fenris a sword and a shield. or Aveline a great sword? How does it remotely affect you? One of the things you stated you disliked about Origins was everyone looking the same come endgame, and now you are creating a system where that is going to occur in everyone's game across the board.

[Harid]

Atakuma wrote...

Gemini1179 wrote...

The stock "Because we wanted it this way" answer just feels like such a cop out. It seems Bioware doesn't want to say "It's easier to sell companion attire DLC this way if we get you frustrated enough with one look on your companions." At least that would be honest.

That argument doesn't really fly, because if that was their intent what has prevented them from doing it with DA2?

Critical panning?

[Dormiglione]

Very interesting and good discussion. The iconic look has his pros and cons. I understand the decision, but i dont like it. Just 2 points that i would like to add.

1) 
 While the console player is restricted to the iconic look the pc player has mods. Im a console player, so im always a little bit jealous when i see what is possible with mods and angry that im restricted to have this mods.

2)
Going back to an interview march 2011
Its an interesting interview "Dragon Age 2 Afterthoughts" www.1up.com/features/dragon-age-2-afterthoughts
a snippet of the interview

Question 1UP:
For companions, while people tend to like their banter, I'm noticing a common sentiment: That people are a bit sad that they can't outfit their companion's armor anymore -- they can only upgrade it -- and it'd doubly odd that you can configure weapons and accessories, but not armor. What's behind that decision?

Answer Mike Laidlaw:
Well, really, what we were looking for was the idea of stronger and more iconic appearances for the followers. Ones that could change over time, like Aveline, serve as a great example of story-driven progression; her role in the world is, in a lot of ways, influencing her look. It also seemed something that would address a concern that we had coming out of Origins, where the vast majority of screenshots would have the party members looking almost identical. And so, you would lose the distinctiveness of stuff like the Chantry robes that Leliana wore when you first met her; or seeing Morrigan in any kind of Chantry robe just felt wrong to us. Or worse was seeing Wynne in any of those "of the Witch" outfits. ( Read the full answer in the interview)

Nothing else to add at this moment.

[tmp7704]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

What makes it at all recognisable is the tatoo on side of face and nothing else.

That's part of the point -- characters are still instantly recognizable thanks to facial features alone, which makes the necessity of 'iconic outfits' dubious.

But i think you are ignoring something else here -- the outfit of the character is just as instantly recognizable as "DA armour" as any of the 'iconic appearances' given to characters in DA2. Meaning if the concern of the designers is "we want people to instantly know it's a character from our IP... they already had that.