192 réponses à ce sujet

[keesio74]

Sutekh wrote...

[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.

Yup I did exactly this also. Zevran also had his dalish leather boots and dalish gloves you give him as a gift. I actually extended this beyond gear. For example I invested points in shapeshifter for Morrigan because that is what she is (even though I find it somewhat useless). But in any case I don't find any harm in being flexible. The ones who want full customization should be allowed it and the people like myself, we'll play my our own custom rules

[FKA_Servo]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

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.

Nice.

It seems pretty clear that here, the characters personalities are well defined by the things that you mentioned. The character, thus defined, then chooses the outfit that suits them best, rather than just slapping on any generic armor you strip off a bandit.

They can do both or neither, for all I care. If they nix inventory and equipping protagonists entirely, I won't miss it, because that's not my priority, and the justification they give for it appeals to me. If they add it, fine. It's not like I'll be mad - I'll probably enjoy it. In any event, around we go.

Ideally, I think that each companion should have several possible looks appropriate to their character. But I like that the NPC companions have some individuality. If they could do both, it would be great. We'll see what happens.

EDIT For clarification, and to alleviate boredom.

Modifié par TommyServo, 13 avril 2012 - 09:36 .

[Massakkolia]

bEVEsthda wrote...

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.

So which one of those you think I am?:innocent:

Seriously though, DA:O is my favorite game and I much prefer it over DA2. Yet both games have their strengths and weaknesses and neither of those games, in my opinion, had the NPC customization right. I don't see what issues you could have with what they are planning to do with DA3. You get to customize, though within the style of the NPC in question.

Also, I don't appreciate you alluding that I want to limit customization. I want to increase it, but I would prefer it to be concentrated on the player character. The NPC customization doesn't particularly bother me, so no, I'm not screaming for its abolishment. I do, however, think that person's style reflects their personality and that part of character development is lost the moment you put heavy armour or a chantry robe on Morrigan.

Modifié par Ria, 13 avril 2012 - 09:08 .

[FKA_Servo]

Ria wrote...
So which one of those you think I am?:innocent:

Seriously though, DA:O is my favorite game and I much prefer it over DA2. Yet both games have their strengths and weaknesses and neither of those games, in my opinion, had the NPC customization right. I don't see what issues you could have with what they are planning to do with DA3. You get to customize, though within the style of the NPC in question.

Also, I don't appreciate you alluding that I want to limit customization. I want to increase it, but I would prefer it to be concentrated on the player character. The NPC customization doesn't particularly bother me, so no, I'm not screaming for its abolishment. I do, however, think that person's style reflects their personality and that part of character development is lost the moment you put heavy armour or a chantry robe on Morrigan.

This is all really good, particularly the second paragraph, and especially the bolded part.

I like that my companions are their own people. Customization - in all senses, from wardrobe, casual appearances, to dialog choices, whatever - should be focused on the PC.

I want more than one look for my companions, but I want whatever they wear to fit their character and their aesthetic.

Here's hoping they pull it off.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Ria wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

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.

So which one of those you think I am?:innocent:

Seriously though, DA:O is my favorite game and I much prefer it over DA2. Yet both games have their strengths and weaknesses and neither of those games, in my opinion, had the NPC customization right. I don't see what issues you could have with what they are planning to do with DA3. You get to customize, though within the style of the NPC in question.

Also, I don't appreciate you alluding that I want to limit customization. I want to increase it, but I would prefer it to be concentrated on the player character. The NPC customization doesn't particularly bother me, so no, I'm not screaming for its abolishment. I do, however, think that person's style reflects their personality and that part of character development is lost the moment you put heavy armour or a chantry robe on Morrigan.

So don't put heavy armor on Morrigan, no one is forcing you to do that in a single player game. Why do those who have a thing for iconic looks feel the need to limit it for everyone else as well? This is the part I don't understand, it's like they're so elitist in that their prefered visual style is so correct that they need to ****** in everyone else's cheerios.

[bEVEsthda]

Ria wrote...

Bevesthda wrote...
<SNIP>
...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.

So which one of those you think I am?:innocent:

Seriously though, DA:O is my favorite game and I much prefer it over DA2. Yet both games have their strengths and weaknesses and neither of those games, in my opinion, had the NPC customization right. I don't see what issues you could have with what they are planning to do with DA3. You get to customize, though within the style of the NPC in question.

Also, I don't appreciate you alluding that I want to limit customization. I want to increase it, but I would prefer it to be concentrated on the player character. The NPC customization doesn't particularly bother me, so no, I'm not screaming for its abolishment. I do, however, think that person's style reflects their personality and that part of character development is lost the moment you put heavy armour or a chantry robe on Morrigan.

You might not be anybody of those. And in fact I didn't make that comment by assuming you were or to imply so. Oddly enough, that interpretation (while obvious) only strikes me now. I assumed you were one who had seen the argument, for some clouded reason saw merit in it, and repeated it. That is what I assumed. And my own post aimed at invalidating that argument.

As for heavy armour on Morrigan, no one forces you to do that. - There, that is all it should take.

As for issues with what they're planning for DA3, you have to read my earlier post, where I state I have hopes after PAX. It's not enough, I suspect, and I might dislike it. But one feature doesn't make or break a game.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 13 avril 2012 - 09:19 .

[Sutekh]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

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.

Actually, clothing is part of personality, assuming people have a choice. It speaks of background and preferences, since it's the very first thing we see when meeting someone, the very first communication. It's very true in cRPGs where the availability of outfits is limited.

No to justify wearing the same outfit for seven years, though, which leads to another problem (character never evolves, also, realism), but a general style is very telling, personality-wise. So, respecting a "look" is as much roleplaying as tweaking equipment, only not on the same level, and has nothing to do with eye-candy.

Again, not to say people shouldn't have the choice, because they should, but drawing an imaginary line between "deep RPG" and "shallow eye-candy" on that matter is not only unfair, it's simply not true (and a wee bit elitist, btw).

[Cutlasskiwi]

berelinde wrote...

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.

A very good point. I like the iconic looks for followers but yeah, Hawke did not look unique or special until later in the game.  

[Maria Caliban]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

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.

Just to let you know you made me smile just now....................................

Allthough I do not know if you're just being snarky or really mean that. But none the less .

I skipped through the rest of that dialogue, reloaded, ran back to the house, got the shield, ran back to the Keep, added Aveline to my party, equipped her with the shield, and then did the conversation over again.

No, I'm not being snarky.

[FKA_Servo]

Cutlasskiwi wrote...

berelinde wrote...

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.

A very good point. I like the iconic looks for followers but yeah, Hawke did not look unique or special until later in the game.  

All this makes the DLC items absolutely worth it as a mage. The outcast's (apostate's? Whichever one is black) gear, and later Malcom's Bequest, just look so good.

[Massakkolia]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

So don't put heavy armor on Morrigan, no one is forcing you to do that in a single player game. Why do those who have a thing for iconic looks feel the need to limit it for everyone else as well? This is the part I don't understand, it's like they're so elitist in that their prefered visual style is so correct that they need to ****** in everyone else's cheerios.

As many have pointed out, myself included, a sense of style is a part of personality. Not the most important part but still it has a message. Even those people who claim not to care about what they wear have made a choice, which communicates nonchalance towards fashion and shows they value other things. Clothing can be a signal of profession, hobbies or other aspects of that person's life.

For a writer or a designer, character's appearance is part of making him or her known to readers, viewers or players. Style is part of character development. It's something that gives each character independence and even depth. It's not a superficial thing. 

Edit: So what I'm saying is that by putting something on Morrigan that completely conflicts with her personality you're misusing your player agency by attacking what makes her the person she is. As I repeatedly said before, it's not a big deal for me because it doesn't happen in my game. But I do understand that game developers want to maintain the integrity of the companions.

Modifié par Ria, 13 avril 2012 - 09:50 .

[Chris Priestly]

Is this what you're discussing?

[berelinde]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Is this what you're discussing?

That depends. Will the protagonist have a class-based "iconic look" too? One that's different from palace guards/random mercenaries/circle mages/etc.? 

[brushyourteeth]

Thank you, Evil Ser.

I like the new style. Hope it works out.

B., didn't you notice that each Act you could collect a different completed epic set of armor for your Hawke? Not to mention the other random armors you could buy... Bioware left the customization and the signature look up to you. If it annoyed you that you had to wait till Act 3 for the Champion armor, well... whatever.

Modifié par brushyourteeth, 13 avril 2012 - 09:59 .

[berelinde]

BYT: The mage gear looked pretty much like what everybody else was wearing, so no big draw there. I don't remember ever seeing the Act 2 stuff in game (for any class) because by the time you got it, almost everything you found was better. The DLC stuff, especially mage sets in the first item pack, was pretty good, though.

[MasterLu]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
This is the part I don't understand, it's like they're so elitist in that their prefered visual style is so correct that they need to ****** in everyone else's cheerios.

Wow, this quote coming form you is priceless, considering you wrote this just a couple of posts above:

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
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.

You're the one dripping with elitism.

And before you ask, yes, I own and I've played everything BW-related as it was being released since the original BG. So bloody what? bah. It just pisses me off when people don't accept discourse and discussion and then justify that by saying anyone who does't share their views is at fault.

[Uccio]

bEVEsthda wrote...

...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?

I wondered exactly this when I heard the "they are allways all the same, iconic look cures it" argument. Made me go a bit wtf?

[hussey 92]

It kind of feels like biowares twisting my arm back saying "no only we get to decide what people look like" (not actual quote)

The upgrade idea looks ok, but it also feels like we're all limited to the same upgrades. It's kind of a let down when you compare it to Origins were you could equip whatever you wanted to any companions

[hussey 92]

Maria Caliban wrote...

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.

.

Origins gives you almost complete control over companions.  Many games do not do this.  So why does Origins have to be like the many games that don't

[Maria Caliban]

hussey 92 wrote...

Origins gives you almost complete control over companions.  Many games do not do this.  So why does Origins have to be like the many games that don't

Origins... doesn't? I mean, it didn't so it obviously doesn't.

I'm not sure what you're asking me here.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 13 avril 2012 - 10:51 .

[Dessalines]

Yes, Virginia, people are not "elitist", because they understand why a company wants an iconic look for their games. An "iconic" look is copywrighted protected. It is why Disney can sue anyone who uses Disney character, even when they alter them a big and use different colors. If it is close enough to the original that someone can mistaken it for the original, then a person is violating a copywright. It is the same reason why comic book companies do not change their character's costumes every other issue. There is nothing wrong with this.
This is a good compromise.

[Uzzy]

Iconic look and armour that stays useful throughout the game, as well as customisation options. Having both wouldn't be too hard, and should satisfy most people. You want Isabela to run around in a tunic and fight with daggers? Cool, she'd be good at that all through the game. Someone else might stick Isabela in some chain armour and have her be an archer. Both options should be equally valid.

Options, not restrictions.

[hussey 92]

Uzzy wrote...


Options, not restrictions.

^exactly^