192 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

hussey 92 wrote...

Some weapons are better for different fights, thats why its good to have the freedom to use what ever weapon you want.  
And maybe you'll want to give Sten a shield, which requires him to have a one handed weapon

And maybe you hand Sten a shield and he says, 'No.'

That sounds much better.

[hussey 92]

Maria Caliban wrote...

hussey 92 wrote...

Some weapons are better for different fights, thats why its good to have the freedom to use what ever weapon you want.  
And maybe you'll want to give Sten a shield, which requires him to have a one handed weapon

And maybe you hand Sten a shield and he says, 'No.'

That sounds much better.

and maybe I want to give him the champion class and he says no
and maybe I want him to wear the Juggarnut Armor and he says no
and maybe I want to improve his constitution and he says no

[hoorayforicecream]

hussey 92 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

hussey 92 wrote...

Some weapons are better for different fights, thats why its good to have the freedom to use what ever weapon you want.  
And maybe you'll want to give Sten a shield, which requires him to have a one handed weapon

And maybe you hand Sten a shield and he says, 'No.'

That sounds much better.

and maybe I want to give him the champion class and he says no
and maybe I want him to wear the Juggarnut Armor and he says no
and maybe I want to improve his constitution and he says no

That was her point. DAO did not do it right.

[Sutekh]

hussey 92 wrote...

Some weapons are better for different fights, thats why its good to have the freedom to use what ever weapon you want.  
And maybe you'll want to give Sten a shield, which requires him to have a one handed weapon

So you're more concerned with the practicalities, and others are more concerned with roleplaying and story.

Personally, I'd rather have Sten using Asala than the Better Sword in the World because it clashes too much with his characterization and off goes immersion, but if others don't mind doing so, why not? To each their own. 

Modifié par Sutekh, 13 avril 2012 - 07:47 .

[Zanallen]

Sutekh wrote...

So you're more concerned with the practicalities, and others are more concerned with roleplaying and story.

Personally, I'd rather have Sten using Asala than the Better Sword in the World because it clashes too much with his characterization and off goes immersion, but if others don't mind doing so, why not? To each their own. 

Because then you are forced to choose between that sense of character and being at all useful in a fight. For example, I really liked Atton's starter outfit in KotOR 2. I thought it fit his character and looked a hundred times better than most of the armors in that game. However, if I wanted to actually use him I had to give him new stuff because his starter outfit is absolutely worthless stat-wise.

[hussey 92]

Sutekh wrote...

hussey 92 wrote...

Some weapons are better for different fights, thats why its good to have the freedom to use what ever weapon you want.  
And maybe you'll want to give Sten a shield, which requires him to have a one handed weapon

So you're more concerned about the practicalities, and others are more concerned with roleplaying and story.

Personally, I'd rather have Sten using Asala than the Better Sword in the World because it clashes too much with his characterization and off goes immersion, but if others don't mind doing so, why not? To each their own. 

I enjoy both the practicalties and the roleplaying part.  Personally, I normally have Sten use Asala the whole game, it's just great to have the option to use something else.  

And I like looking at other peoples playthroughs and seeing what armour and weapons their using.  It kind of sucks when everyonoes playthroughs look the same

Modifié par hussey 92, 13 avril 2012 - 07:54 .

[hussey 92]

Modifié par hussey 92, 13 avril 2012 - 07:53 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

Zanallen wrote...

hussey 92 wrote...

Asala was a huge contribution to Sten (it was his soul) but you could still unequip that

And one could argue that switching his weapon breaks his character. What possible reason would Sten have for using a sword other than Asala after you retrieve it? It is his soul. He can't return to Qunari lands without it. Yet he is willing to just use any ol' weapon you give him? Preposterous.

Easily fixed:

Make it so that once he retrieves the weapon it stays equipped on him and levels up with him. Optionally it could stay within the inventory and only displays when you select him via the inventory. Valen Shadowbreath was like that for NWN and you could not remove his armor or weapon from his inventory but you could equip him with different armor and weapons.

hoorayforicecream wrote...

hussey 92 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

hussey 92 wrote...

Some weapons are better for different fights, thats why its good to have the freedom to use what ever weapon you want.  
And maybe you'll want to give Sten a shield, which requires him to have a one handed weapon

And maybe you hand Sten a shield and he says, 'No.' 

That sounds much better.

and maybe I want to give him the champion class and he says no
and maybe I want him to wear the Juggarnut Armor and he says no
and maybe I want to improve his constitution and he says no

That was her point. DAO did not do it right.

What didn't it do right? The solution is up above and appeared in another Bioware game years before. Bioware could easily do it again.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 13 avril 2012 - 08:17 .

[Maria Caliban]

I don't think the difference is between role-players and storytellers. I think the difference is between people who see companions as tools to beat the game and those who see companions as a game unto themselves.

There are those who like a complex alchemy system that takes lots of player time to function. There are those who like detailed/realistic inventory systems that you have to manage yourself.

I like complex, detailed companion interactions. That Isabela will abandon you unless you have a high enough friendship/rivalry with her is something I like. That Viconia and Keldorn would come to blows is something I like. That Dak'kon uses his sword, and only his sword, and it gets better as you raise his approval is something I like.

Sten ended up in a prison cell because he fell into a rage at the loss of his sword. He later treats this deeply meaningful sword as nothing special. I can sell it to a passing merchant for a few coins and he doesn't acknowledge the act.

I hate that.

At least Aveline comments on you getting rid of her husband's shield.

[FKA_Servo]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

uhm, sorry to but in here but didn't DA2 had some weapons that leveled up with you? I guess BW fixed that with DA2.

For "story" purposes in the sense they mean, it was just Bianca. The item packs had leveling weapons, but they don't really count here.

[Maria Caliban]

I didn't sell Aveline's shield. I kept it in the house storage simply because it seemed wrong to get rid of it.

Then she accused me of selling it and... it hurt my feelings.

[John Epler]

Cryocore wrote...

John Epler wrote...
It had flaws - we're proud of what we accomplished, but that's a far cry from 'IT'S PERFECT AND FLAWLESS AND A MASTERPIECE'.

and what did you accomplish? You made a demonstrably inferior game (Sales, critical receptions, fan reception).
You alienated a vast number of long time fans, and STILL fail to own up to the fact that its a worse game made for non core fans.
I fully expect biowEAr to slip in to the mire of the various formerly brilliant developers that were homogonised and bean counted in to failure and eventual closure.
BioWare was the greatest developer in the RPG space for a long time imo. This new entity is just another develop by numbers studio being run in to the ground by a controlling interest that has no interest in anything more than mass appeal and sale figures.

DAII is a comparitively awful game compared to EVERY RPG previously made by BioWare.

So what exactly did you accomplish with DA2?

imo everybody involved in making DA2 should apologise to the lon time fans as you obviously have no interest in making rich and deep RPGs anymore. Pandering to non RPG gamers and sacrificing core RPG mechanics is no accomplishment. 

Rather than blindly defending it maybe, just maybe somebody should just admit the faults and stop deflecting. If you really are interested in regaining lost trust... try some actual honesty. 

No, we're not going to apologize to you. The most you'll get is 'we're sorry you didn't enjoy the game', and as soon as I say that someone's going to take it and say 'LOOK, BIOWARE BLAMES US FOR NOT LIKING IT! HOW OUT OF TOUCH ARE THEY!'

Dragon Age 2 accomplished some things that we wanted it to accomplish, and failed to accomplish others. That's unfortunate, and obviously we'd rather it had accomplished everything we wanted, but it didn't. We'll look at it, look at what went well and what didn't, adjust and try to ensure that the next one falls more heavily into the former category than the latter. We'd love it if all of our fans enjoy our games - but that's not going to happen.

If you're expecting anything more than this, well, you're going to continue to be disappointed. We've acknowledged it has flaws, we've discussed (in as great of detail as we can at this stage) how we're planning to address them, and we've tried our best to remain in contact with the fans.

[Sutekh]

Zanallen wrote...

Because then you are forced to choose between that sense of character and being at all useful in a fight. For example, I really liked Atton's starter outfit in KotOR 2. I thought it fit his character and looked a hundred times better than most of the armors in that game. However, if I wanted to actually use him I had to give him new stuff because his starter outfit is absolutely worthless stat-wise.

Well... Maybe I'm really, really strong-willed (which I'm really, really not), but it was never a problem for me. Morrigan remained in Morrigan's outfit, Sten had Asala, Zevran had leather armor, Alistair had Cailan's armor (but Duncan's shield) and Oghren ended in Legion outfit, in all my playthroughs (I once dressed Wynne in Tevinter robes, but it was pure petty revenge on my part). In a way, I myself gave them iconic looks .  If that made them weakier, then I could always compensate during combat with tactics and attention. I never felt forced to go against what I felt was the "right" outfit. Of course, all those armors and weapons weren't terrible either. I honestly don't know what I would've done if they had been.

This said, the iconic look in DA2 doesn't bother me much either, because companions don't live with you as opposed to the one big happy vagrant family we have in DAO. So, they feel much more independant, and I feel even less justified RPing-wise in tempering with their look.

My point was that if some people are happier tweaking armors and equipment, then why not? It doesn't bother me much, since I don't even have to watch them play, even though I think it's sometimes  a bit iconoclastic and really clashes with the story / characterization / roleplaying.

hussey 92 wrote...

And I like looking at other peoples playthroughs and seeing what armour and weapons their using.  It kind of sucks when everyonoes playthroughs look the same

And I cringe when I watch some vids with Morrigan or Zevran in massive armor (yes, I know, I'm contradicting myself, but still). And not everyone's playthrough look the same because not everyone PC look the same.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Sutekh wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

Because then you are forced to choose between that sense of character and being at all useful in a fight. For example, I really liked Atton's starter outfit in KotOR 2. I thought it fit his character and looked a hundred times better than most of the armors in that game. However, if I wanted to actually use him I had to give him new stuff because his starter outfit is absolutely worthless stat-wise.

Well... Maybe I'm really, really strong-willed (which I'm really, really not), but it was never a problem for me. Morrigan remained in Morrigan's outfit, Sten had Asala, Zevran had leather armor, Alistair had Cailan's armor (but Duncan's shield) and Oghren ended in Legion outfit, in all my playthroughs (I once dressed Wynne in Tevinter robes, but it was pure petty revenge on my part). In a way, I myself gave them iconic looks .  If that made them weakier, then I could always compensate during combat with tactics and attention. I never felt forced to go against what I felt was the "right" outfit. Of course, all those armors and weapons weren't terrible either. I honestly don't know what I would've done if they had been.

This said, the iconic look in DA2 doesn't bother me much either, because companions don't live with you as opposed to the one big happy vagrant family we have in DAO. So, they feel much more independant, and I feel even less justified RPing-wise in tempering with their look.

My point was that if some people are happier tweaking armors and equipment, then why not? It doesn't bother me much, since I don't even have to watch them play, even though I think it's sometimes  a bit iconoclastic and really clashes with the story / characterization / roleplaying.

hussey 92 wrote...

And I like looking at other peoples playthroughs and seeing what armour and weapons their using.  It kind of sucks when everyonoes playthroughs look the same

And I cringe when I watch some vids with Morrigan or Zevran in massive armor (yes, I know, I'm contradicting myself, but still). And not everyone's playthrough look the same because not everyone PC look the same.

And really the whole crux is having that choice there for those that do enjoy customizing their party. Forcing one "iconic" look for companions make make a small portion of the community happy but theres quite a few people that all it does is ****** them off.

[bEVEsthda]

In a party based cRPG, the PLAYER (not the character/protagonist) typically controls the entire party.

That is why we switch weapons, switch targets, move around, level up, etc all the characters.
And of course that was also why we equipped them. And that is how I like it. Normal customization. Did it ever affect unique or "iconic" looks? Of course not.  And that is how it was, with no debate whatsoever about it, ever.

...All the way up to the point when someone decided it would be so cool if the characters would be easily recognizable, by anybody, in all kinds of totally peripheral situations. Iconic look = typical marketing religion.
And then we get some very weird and illogical explanations. Some developer was supposedly "bothered" by "everybody" equipping their members in certain similar ways. It lacked "variety" we heard. Well, it's we, the gamers, who are playing the game. Quit hanging over our shoulders if you're so "bothered". Let us decide how our gameplays look to us. And how exactly would "Iconic" looks help against this perceived problem? Now EVERYBODY will have ALL characters dressed EXACTLY THE SAME WAY ALL THE TIME, so that is variety?

The problem with marketing is that it mainly concern itself with how the 'product' is visible, is recognized, the momentary impact of a marketing flash.The perception.

Playing a game doesn't have much to do with that. On the contrary, it concerns itself very much with to fully, hands on, experience the content. Consume the actual beef. In every detail. You risk sooo much by screwing with that for shallow marketing reasons.

I don't know, of course, but I have a strong suspicion most things which were disastrous for DA2, originated from some kind of marketing point of view. Marketing is fine. Necessary even. But you have to be clever about it. Maybe I only tend to see the completely headless examples, the inexplicable, the utterly braindead, but I've never regarded EA marketing as clever.

I have some hopes on this after PAX, though.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 13 avril 2012 - 08:51 .

[Massakkolia]

motomotogirl wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

I wouldn't mind at all. But then again, I also wouldn't mind if they took away the ability to customize a companion's skills either. For me, the companions aren't my character. I don't feel the need to customize them or even really control them.

You're a role-player; I like to play a part in the creation of the story to an extent, and that includes having some say in what the companions look like and how skilled they are and in what way.  I don't see myself as the player character; I see him as the main character in a story I'm helping to create.

With luck, both playing styles can be accomodated.

But Dragon Age is a role playing game, right? Shouldn't it emphasize the player character's customization and influence on the world? In an RPG the player is pointed to a certain role and she influences the world through that role. DA is not a sim game series where you can play as a god like being. Bioware should increase the player agency within the context of the player character and let NPCs act as they please. The PC should be able to change companions' world views (or hell, their sense of style) but only through persuasive discussion or shared experiences.

However, DA2 did fail in creating believable companion looks mainly because there was no variation. It reeked of laziness rather than distinctiveness. I do not want the companions wear exactly the same outfit (or a couple, at most) throughout the game, especially when the game timeline spans over many years. Companions didn't have a certain style, they had a certain outfit, the only one. Simply put, it was a bad design decision. 

What they are planning for DA3 seems very promising and it sounds like it should please also those who like to play paper dolls with their companion characters. If they manage to build each character a distinctive style with customizing options, I'll be very pleased. If the NPCs just switch their own clothing on a whim, I'm fine with that too. As long as there's switching, preferrably a lot of it.

[hoorayforicecream]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

And really the whole crux is having that choice there for those that do enjoy customizing their party. Forcing one "iconic" look for companions make make a small portion of the community happy but theres quite a few people that all it does is ****** them off.

Building for generic looks also limits the design space for characters. There'd be no Bianca or chest hair for Varric. There'd be no boots for Isabela. And none of the companions in PS:Torment would work the same either. Would you be ok with changing Vhailor's armor? I certainly wouldn't.

There's a tradeoff when it comes to iconic looks and not. I look at the customization that Mike Laidlaw showed in the PAX East DA panel and I think "yes, that looks good", since it can work with the more unique-looking character designs like a one-armed swordsman or a floating skull, while full generic customization wouldn't.

[bEVEsthda]

Ria wrote...
But Dragon Age is a role playing game, right? Shouldn't it emphasize the player character's customization and influence on the world? In an RPG the player is pointed to a certain role and she influences the world through that role. DA is not a sim game series where you can play as a god like being. Bioware should increase the player agency within the context of the player character and let NPCs act as they please. The PC should be able to change companions' world views (or hell, their sense of style) but only through persuasive discussion or shared experiences.

Role playing exists within a certain framework. It's always so. The game's gameplay and gamer's user interface is not inside this framework. How do you role-play leveling up?

The role play -argument, for limiting/abolishing customization, never existed before this DA2 issue. I don't know if it was brought here by people used to play single player squad games, EA-stealth posters, or just DA2 fans who will always invent anything to defend DA2's ways of doing everything.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 13 avril 2012 - 08:50 .

[Rawgrim]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

And really the whole crux is having that choice there for those that do enjoy customizing their party. Forcing one "iconic" look for companions make make a small portion of the community happy but theres quite a few people that all it does is ****** them off.

Building for generic looks also limits the design space for characters. There'd be no Bianca or chest hair for Varric. There'd be no boots for Isabela. And none of the companions in PS:Torment would work the same either. Would you be ok with changing Vhailor's armor? I certainly wouldn't.

There's a tradeoff when it comes to iconic looks and not. I look at the customization that Mike Laidlaw showed in the PAX East DA panel and I think "yes, that looks good", since it can work with the more unique-looking character designs like a one-armed swordsman or a floating skull, while full generic customization wouldn't.

Still it does leave the player with a bunch of armours he can`t use. In DA2, that led to me getting way too much money early, and through the rest of the game as well. Money was never an issue at all, since I couldn`t give (sometimes very vaulable and good) armours to companions. The same, in a way, goes for weapons as well. Varric couldn`t have a melee weapon equipped. And only Sebastian could use bows. That left alot of money unspent on ranged weapons for the group as well. Or melee weapons, for that matter, for the ranged Companions.

The way this can be fixed is to have less armours and stuff in the game itself. But then we are on a path wich makes the game less and less like an rpg. You get 10 armours in the game, for example, thats it. If that path is followed, more and more will be removed, untill all we have left are Feats and Perks and conversation options.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

And really the whole crux is having that choice there for those that do enjoy customizing their party. Forcing one "iconic" look for companions make make a small portion of the community happy but theres quite a few people that all it does is ****** them off.

Building for generic looks also limits the design space for characters. There'd be no Bianca or chest hair for Varric. There'd be no boots for Isabela. And none of the companions in PS:Torment would work the same either. Would you be ok with changing Vhailor's armor? I certainly wouldn't.

There's a tradeoff when it comes to iconic looks and not. I look at the customization that Mike Laidlaw showed in the PAX East DA panel and I think "yes, that looks good", since it can work with the more unique-looking character designs like a one-armed swordsman or a floating skull, while full generic customization wouldn't.

It's a piece of armor, it doesn't define their personality, the character writting, actions and dialog does that. Varric's cross bow wouldn't behave any differently if he were wearing studded leather rather than a cloth open shirt in the middle of a battle field.  Isabella would still be a w hore without having to look like one for 40 hours. Clothing ≠ personality

They could easily do both if they really put the effort in so those that need a "iconic look" to relate to the character can have their little visual eye candy, and those who want a deeper RPG can have that as well.

[berelinde]

The problem I have with iconic looks for followers is that the followers look great... and the protagonist does not. S/he looks just like Random Guard #38, in fact, down to the last rivet. That was one of the reasons I liked the DLC armor and the Champion gear. Nobody else in the game had it.

[GodWood]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Sten ended up in a prison cell because he fell into a rage at the loss of his sword. He later treats this deeply meaningful sword as nothing special. I can sell it to a passing merchant for a few coins and he doesn't acknowledge the act.

I hate that.

Then don't do it.

You can force roleplaying limitations on yourself without hindering the game for others.