18 réponses à ce sujet

[Chris Priestly]

Dragon Age Lead Writer and author of the Dragon Age novels and comic David Gaider has written a new BioWare Blog entry on Follower Customization in Dragon Age.

Check out David's blog here

Modifié par Chris Priestly, 13 avril 2012 - 09:00 .

[David Gaider]

In another thread, I promised that I would do up such a post to provide more detail on Mike's PAX presentation (with regards to the follower armor customization). So hopefully this shines some light on it. Comments are welcome.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Borghal wrote...

Ugh... so now we have magical morphing armor pieces, or has Dragon Age gone Sci-fi and this is actually some kind of nano-armor?

The resulting visual style is of course cool and stylish and all that sells, but how is it justified from a game world logic standpoint?
Also, maybe it's just me, but when I put full plate armor of a certain style, I expect that character to be clad in such armor. But as these concepts show, put it on one person, you get an open helmet, but put it on someone else, you get a closed helmet. No consistency sucks :- /

It's a little weird, sure. However, I consider it to be no weirder than moving the same armor from Oghren to Sten, who would logically be -awfully- squished, so it falls into "acceptably gamey" on my personal radar.

[David Gaider]

Melissa Russell wrote...
Can we have a "default" look for each character?  I don't want to restrict any means of customization, but I'd love for there to be a certain distiguishable "look" for everyone to be familiar with before they start adding extra pieces.

If you look at the first pictures, I think that would be the "default" look for those followers. Yes, it could change after that point... but part of the idea is that no matter what armor pieces they end up wearing they will never stop looking like the character they are.

So if you put the Chasind Robes on Morrigan, they look a bit different from the same robes on Wynne. And there could be variations, based on a Chasind "look"... so you could end up with different versions that are black or red, shiny leather or padded cloth, with furry shoulders or golden epaulets, etc. Same with rogue armor on Varric as opposed to Isabela... Varric might continue to wear his jacket over top of such armor, or keep the front open. Or it might change the color/material of the jacket he wears. But it should still look like Varric.

Would that make it harder to identify the character? Ideally it shouldn't... I mean, people have no trouble remembering Morrigan when they see her being cosplayed at a convention floor, despite the fact the player might have changed her robes by Lothering and never looked back. So I guess it depends on how strong the identity remains between the various appearances.

[Mike Laidlaw]

eyesofastorm wrote...

 It's just a matter of equipping them with the next piece that the devs have decided that that character should be equipped with. That's my issue. If I'm interpreting this incorrectly, please tell me.

This might clear it up:

What it is: You could find any piece of plate, and put it on any follower (or yourself) that wears plate, and see a visual difference as a result. The visual difference is, however, tuned to the character, not globally shared.

What it is not: You find a piece of plate armor for Alistair and put it on him, but not on Sten.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

beermat77 wrote...

Makes sense for store brought armours.
Found armour should be character/size specific.
Eg Elven armour found while exploring wouldn't fit a character the size of sten

Logically, yes.  But this seems like a lot more tedious to implement than I imagine you are assuming.

Games are ultimately games, and short of turning Dragon Age (or even Bethesda games which don't make this distinction either) into a full-bore simulation such diversity in armor fitting is unrealistic.

Funnily, we did consider this. But I don't think we'll pursue it, as I think there's a thrill to putting on the new armor you found in the dragon's horde (or gullet, in our case), right then and there, rather than humping it to back to a smith to be refitted for your gender.

[John Epler]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

And yet they still look exactly the same, except the chest piece is a shinier metal or something. Some compromise there Bioware. /facepalm.

In fact, it'd be different - each character would have a sort of general 'theme', but different pieces would alter aspects of that theme. No, it's not 'this piece of armour looks the exact same on each character', but it gives the player the ability to customize aspects of their follower's appearance while still retaining a general 'look'.

Whether or not you see it as a compromise will, I suppose, depend on what aspects of the system were most important to you. We like the idea of having visually identifiable follower 'looks', but we also like giving the player the ability to alter aspects of that look.

[John Epler]

Borghal wrote...

John Epler wrote...


In fact, it'd be different - each character would have a sort of general 'theme', but different pieces would alter aspects of that theme. No, it's not 'this piece of armour looks the exact same on each character', but it gives the player the ability to customize aspects of their follower's appearance while still retaining a general 'look'.

Whether or not you see it as a compromise will, I suppose, depend on what aspects of the system were most important to you. We like the idea of having visually identifiable follower 'looks', but we also like giving the player the ability to alter aspects of that look.

So just to clarify, dressing everyone in full palte and making them look like a unit will NOT be possible? 
Not that that's anything I'd want to do, but I'm curious anyway. 

I think companions don't need to be so much visually unique. More important are their personalities, faces, voices and abilities.

Likely not, no. I think one of the things we want to come through is that your followers aren't just soldiers in the Protagonist Army. They have their own personalities, and they're with you because they believe in you - whoever you are.

I agree with the rest, but I think that the appearance can help tell part of the story. However, that doesn't mean that you can't have variation in that appearance  there are ways to fit a whole lot of variation into the same 'iconic look' - which, in this case, can be seen as less of a 'here's a specific look' and more of 'here's a visual theme, within which you have variation and customization'.

[Mike Laidlaw]

GearWolf wrote...

While in theory this concept seems great, wouldn't this result in less overall customization?
The designers would have to make each armor piece different for the male/female playable character
as well as alternates looks for each viable companion rather then focusing on a broad array of armor.

Yup.

But if you follow that argument to its end, and your only goal is to have the maximum customization possible it sounds like, "In order to have the widest variety of armor available to the main character, we have decided to cut female PCs," and that is obviously not acceptable.

So we build our systems, pick our battles and build accordingly, in this case, the changes are smaller than a new set of armor, but they are also more modular, which results in a much higher number of combinations than would be possible if full armor suits were created.

[Mike Laidlaw]

eyesofastorm wrote...

GearWolf wrote...

While in theory this concept seems great, wouldn't this result in less overall customization?
The designers would have to make each armor piece different for the male/female playable character
as well as alternates looks for each viable companion rather then focusing on a broad array of armor.

Exactly my point.  Your choice won't be whether to put your warrior in chain, scale, or plate but whether to put her in level 7 plate or level 8 plate.  It's not really even a choice, but a very faint illusion of choice and I suspect that the only people who will be or are happy about this "compromise" are the ones that were, at worst, ok with the way things were done in DA2.  

I'm confused. Are you assuming that our armors will not have any customization beyond "level?" Because, man, have I got some surprises for you, later.

[Mike Laidlaw]

eyesofastorm wrote...

But all of the combinations, be they in the millions, are essentially only cosmetic.  Is that correct?

I'm not sure what you mean. So far we've only talked about the cosmetic parts, but maybe you could tell me an armor system that isn't "only cosmetic" so I can compare/contrast?

[Mike Laidlaw]

eyesofastorm wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

But all of the combinations, be they in the millions, are essentially only cosmetic.  Is that correct?

I'm not sure what you mean. So far we've only talked about the cosmetic parts, but maybe you could tell me an armor system that isn't "only cosmetic" so I can compare/contrast?

Say what?  Ok.  A chainmail for example doesn't provide the same straight up protection that plate does, but it allows for more maneuverability.  It's a tradeoff... what I like to call a choice.  Not cosmetic at all.  

ps - Apologies if I didn't keep my snark levels low enough.  I REALLY tried.

Okay, so, what you're looking for is multiple types of armor that have different effects on the character, and that are viable choices for a single class to wear? So in D&D terms, I might not want to wear a suit of field plate because I have higher than a +1 DEX modifier and the heavy armor would cap it?

Our approach, generally speaking, has been to provide multiple armors as drops with different focuses, so a set of leathers with higher crit boosts, or a heavier set with more armor, that kind of thing. In an ideal world, we'd be able to build these sets so that their appearances match the kind of advantages they give. In an EVEN more ideal world, you'd be able to craft armor that looks like how you want, and has the stats you want, but that might be crazy talk.

Now, to dive a bit deeper, I had a really neat discussion with someone at PAX who was asking why we haven't just gotten rid of classes entirely and gone more the Skyrim route where you can wear any armor, use any weapon and so on.

It's certainly tempting, and it offers a lot of freedom to the player, BUT, I also think that it's potentially damaging to a game where you have a party. I see the composition of your party, both in terms of personality and in terms of class, to be a very real and very tactical choice, and one that's made more interesting and engaging by having some limitations in what each class can do, so that the mixing and matching of their abilities creates a combat alchemy that matches your playstyle, and your chosen class of character. I also feel that, since we give you full control over your party (and intend to return their armor slots, as per this post), we're really letting you play up to all three classes at once.

And you've done a great job at not being snarky. Appreciate it. Sorry you aren't digging what you're seeing in all cases.

[Mike Laidlaw]

eyesofastorm wrote...
That is almost perfect Mike.  So close.  The one problem and unforunately, it is a HUGE one for me, is that you guys are retaining too much control over the party composition... seemingly at this point.  If you want to designate a given NPC as a warrior, that's fine.  But from that point, you have to let me decide whether that warrior will be heavy and slow or light and fast or maybe not realy great at anything but good at everything if you understand my meaning.  And I realize I'm making assumptions, but I feel like the assumptions are valid based on the things I've read that were between the lines.  

So, you're looking for more variety within the class itself, be it through armor, skills, talent selection or what have you, and feel like there's a danger that if warriors are primarily plate wearers, there's no room for a dex-warrior?

Pretty valid concern, sure. I can tell you that I'd like to offer more variety in the "experience" of playing a warrior, but it may not go far enough for you if you really want the Dex warrior build, as I tend to think that if you want a dex-based melee character in lighter armor in the DA class system, you should be playing a rogue.

And yes, I understand that rogues are fundamentally different than warriors in a lot of people's minds, and that what you probably want is a kind of light-warrior/heavy rogue hybrid that sacrifices some of the rogue's stealth for heavier hits and some of the warrior's protection for mobility. Again, as noted above, I want to "broaden" the experience of playing the classes some, but they will still have hard lines between them. We may just end up not agreeing on where those lines should be drawn. Or maybe we will! Regardless, we will be doing our damndest to get that kind of information out before you have to even think about making a purchasing decision.

And thanks for taking the time to outline this. It's certainly food for thought.

[Mike Laidlaw]

aldien wrote...

What about not only considering the positive effect of an armor's attribute, but also, potentially having armor that can give you a negative effect? Make some of it have a trade-off?

Would it be possible to balance the armor with the abilities of the companion or PC? I love positive but I also enjoy the challenge of balancing my stats and not having every piece of armor suit every need. Just a thought.  Sorry if it doesn't make sense.

Makes total sense. Negatives can work just fine, as can staring at two armors with very different purposes and having to choose which of their benefits you can't get, because, presumably, layering just doesn't work with enchantments.

[Mike Laidlaw]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

With all due respect Mike that you seem so set on limiting player choice in that matter in regards to allowable armor is troubling. Especially after all the outcry in regards to static looks in DAII. I just don't see a reason for it from a design standpoint aside of forcing a particular style/look for companions. Or not having enough development time to do it.  It imo certainly doesn't add anything to the gameplay and rather takes things away along the lines of player agency and customization and choice on the whole.

What I feel it adds, on the follower front is recognizability and identity, two things which I think are important. I'm very aware that there are lots of folks (in this very thread, even), who would much, much rather have complete control over their party members' appearance than have them look distinct from one another, but there are others who feel that unique appearances for followers is a great thing, as it makes them more characterful, or simply prevents a party of warriors from looking same-ish.

I have to make a choice between those two, but it doesn't mean that I can't try to compromise, which is exactly what this proposal is attempting. It returns equipment to followers. It also provides visual feedback based on your actions, since their looks update based on what armor they're wearing.

But here's the thing: If them having unique looks doesn't hold any weight for you, then it simply doesn't, and I'm sorry that the decision isn't the ideal for your game experience. I really am.

Modifié par Mike Laidlaw, 14 avril 2012 - 01:01 .

[Mike Laidlaw]

Sabariel wrote...
A small, hopeful request... could mages in DA3 maybe be able to wear some type of light armor or chainmail-y robes and not just cloth robes/ugly pantsuits? Please?

I would also like to see this. I would say the odds are pretty good of it happening, but we wouldn't lose robes entirely.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Okay, let me put this out here:

• Suppose armor was purely stat dependant, not class. You need X strength to wear this mail, or what have you.
• We make sure that works with the player, but if you go "out of class" on a follower, it looks "okay" but not as one-to-one as if you stuck with the intended class.
• So: You take a bunch of strength with your mage, and you move plate onto your mage. His armor looks pretty "heavy" but doesn't look necessarily like plate. It still has all the stats that platemail has, though.
• If you moved that armor onto a warrior, it would look closer to how it looks on your player. (Since you'd be back in the expected space for that character's class)

Better? Worse? I ask because something like this might very well be possible.

[Mike Laidlaw]

Brockololly wrote...
[*]That sounds better, although I'm not clear on what you mean by having the mage with plate armor equipped have a "heavy" look thats not necessarily plate?  Like a "heavy" variant of that companion's default look thats just not customized to the specific armor, but just generically "heavy"?

 

It would be something along the lines ot taking that follower's "heaviest" customization options and create a visual mapping that ties them to anything heavier than cloth. It would be a best-fit kind of thing, and not offer the same level of variety a mage follower would have with robes on. So, yes, something like generically heavy, and probably not looking like full-on platemail.

Another option would be to simply say "If follower armor =/= expected armor for follower class, follower appearance = base"

*ponders* I'll consider it.

[John Epler]

Hey, guess what. Telling us 'I'll just pirate your game' is a quick way to get a permanent forum vacation.