787 réponses à ce sujet

[The Sarendoctrinator]

LilyasAvalon wrote...

I thought it was Cassandra .-.

I hope they are our companions too, I mean, to have a warden again would be GREAT, but this means I'm more likely to not get my Cullen companion. T_T

It might be her. I wasn't sure, but the similarities are great enough for me to keep that hope alive!

Why would this mean Cullen can't be a companion? With everything that happened between the mages and templars at the end of DA2, having a templar on our team in DA3 would be a way to show our character their perspective. Now all we need is a mage, and Team Awesome will be complete.

[Darth Krytie]

You already have my hypothetical money for your hypothetical DA3. (I suppose the only way I'd stop buying BioWare games is if you decided to make a game called "God Hates Gays" and you play Archangel Michael as he flies around and smites folks with rainbow triangles above their heads)

But if you did this my money would be happy as it went into you hands.

I really like this compromise as I wasn't too keen on everyone looking the same in DA:O...but didn't like that most of my loot was useless in DA2.

I am leaning toward preferring stat-based restrictions over class base restrictions. Because, and I'll be completely honest, I want people to buy your games so you can keep making them.

I would really like, however, if there's a way to make the mages look....cooler. I guess. Have their gear look better than it tends to. I liked the mage gear Hawke got quite a bit and hope there's that sort of artistry in future mage looks.

[Amycus89]

The Sarendoctrinator wrote...

LilyasAvalon wrote...

I thought it was Cassandra .-.

I hope they are our companions too, I mean, to have a warden again would be GREAT, but this means I'm more likely to not get my Cullen companion. T_T

It might be her. I wasn't sure, but the similarities are great enough for me to keep that hope alive!

Why would this mean Cullen can't be a companion? With everything that happened between the mages and templars at the end of DA2, having a templar on our team in DA3 would be a way to show our character their perspective. Now all we need is a mage, and Team Awesome will be complete.

:OFLEMETH as a companion! Make it happen, Bioware.

[The Sarendoctrinator]

I think the idea of stat-based armor seems better than completely class-based armor, especially if they use this new customization system, although I wouldn't mind if they go the other route with it.

Amycus89 wrote...

:OFLEMETH as a companion! Make it happen, Bioware.

It might be too much to hope for... but I'd support this. I definitely want her to make an appearance in some way. Her part in DA2 was great, and it sounded like she wanted to see what happens with this mage/templar conflict.

[ChaosAgentLoki]

Okay, I enjoy iconic looks for my party members in an RPG. Thrown together with strong personalities, it makes me very happy to play a game that contains both of these. This concept seems to take it a step further as it allows for some customization of the party alongside the iconic looks. To me, this is more than I wanted. The armor customization in DA:O was terrible as I had far too many characters looking the exact same as I came close to the end of the game. Granted part of that comes from the fact that until late in the game, none of the helmets looked good...but that's a different topic.

I like this concept and it would be cool to see it come to fruition. However, if it means the sacrifice of quest content (or other similarly important things), I'd rather not see it.

[Parahexavoctal]

I have to admit, the system as proposed so far matches my preferences pretty well. It sounds like it could give me good customization options while keeping the visual identity of the character fairly intact.

As presented, I have one request and one suggestion.

Request:
Show helmet toggle for the party just like the pc has. I find that face/hair is a big and important part of the visual identity, and I'd hate to see them covered up in helmets like we see in some of the samples.
Ideally, this would be a simple toggle per follower directly in the inventory screen, so we could allow a good headpiece to be displayed if we find it adds to rather than takes away from their identity.

Suggestion:
Try to fit in a sense of visual progression to match the stat/power/rarity progression of the items in the game. Make better items look better. As much as the DA series is a talky RPG over a loot grind, it does have the excitement of finding better items going for it, and it would add to this if better items were a distinct visual 'upgrade' in addition to being a stat upgrade.

[untamedfuture]

I absolutely love what I'm seeing about the new armor ideas so far. The concept art looks awesome and it seems like an original and creative way to allow customization while retaining character identity.

[DoseofReality]

This is a wonderful idea, and I hope that implementing it goes as smoothly as the idea itself seems to want to go. It would be a great way to cut down on the huge amount of stuff to pick up (though I personally love large inventories I can paw through and discover exactly what best outfits my team with) while still giving a number of different "options" for different characters.

Outfitting my party has ALWAYS been one of my favorite things in role playing games. I loved in Dragon Age: Origins, and I loved it in Mass Effect. I was seriously disappointed with DA2 and ME2 and ME3 in this regard, as you can only really change your party members' looks/"loadout" clothes. What if I want to spend my money on specific Turian armor for Garrus? What if I want to spend hours just figuring out how to equip my party to be as awesome as possible?

Please, Bioware - this idea is GREAT, don't get me wrong - but PLEASE take a look at the games you've made over the past decade and realize that simplifying is not ALWAYS the best option. A role playing game is not meant to be instantly accessible to all the gaming kiddies out there - a role playing game is a game that is supposed to have great depth and substance. A role playing game is just that: the gamer stepping into a role. The breadth of the experience the gamer has upon stepping into that role should be immense and immersive. It should take some time to get into. And it should be worth the hours upon hours that the game will take to complete.

This means details. This means intense character backstory. This means varied and thought out environments. It means unique armor and weapons and a pretty hefty sized inventory if a player wants it so.

Apologies for the tangent, but I truly believe that you can make an awesome RPG again Bioware - you've just really got to think it out and remember what an RPG really is. Mass Effect is your "shooter RPG" and that's fine; I enjoyed the series for what it was. But Dragon Age is/was a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, and that isn't a quick-fire, trigger pull RPG. It's more of a classic, and that isn't bad. Change simply for change's sake isn't necessarily wise. Stick to your roots for the structure, and consider carefully what you really think *needs* to be altered for a wonderful gameplay experience.

[Arppis]

It should be very feasable, reminds me of Diablo 1's "leather, mail and plate" appearances.

I just really hope you give players more customization too! 

I would love to see custom armors in this game series too. They could affect so much more than just stats, like your character's movement/swing speed and how easy it is to get staggered or how easily you stagger the blows.

But more than that, I want to be able to color my character's armor.

Modifié par Arppis, 14 avril 2012 - 07:39 .

[ianvillan]

Amycus89 wrote...

I love this, and hope that you will manage to implement it. The artwork looks fantastic.

I just hope that you will also consider (since I havn't seen any mention of this while discussing the new inventory system) letting us swap weapon types as well. If you really do whant to have pre-swet weapons for your characters though, please consider to at least let us choose a "secondary" weapon for each character that we can switch to, like in origins.

And please remove those "standard weapons" that the character automatically started to wear when I tried to remove the current equipped weapon. at least let me TRY to roleplay a hand to hand warrior

EDIT: I seccond mage pants XD
2nd EDIT: I like that parthalan sword the grey warden is holding

This as well I would like companion weapon swap.

[Firky]

Take this with the knowledge that I loved DAO and DA2. Didn't love fixed follower outfits in DA2, but didn't detract from my enjoyment. (And I probably am an equipment micromanager at heart, in most games.) Also, this is just the way my mind works. I can dig that lots would disagree. (Although I don't understand why people want iconic looks at all. To my mind it's the equipment that is interesting, not the follower's personality through appearance. Though, personality is interesting, but through story.)

My first inclination is to not like this model. Sure, if Sterling Armour is put on male or female, tall or short, change the way it looks slightly to suit the character's body. I can accept that.

But why does the Seeker version have an eye on it? If it's Seeker armour, they should both have an eye, and if you put it on the Grey Warden, that's cool. He's wearing Seeker armour. Because it does something for him that you want it to do. Even though he's clearly not a Seeker. Or remove the eye.

Why would the two helmets, in the third from the bottom example, not have different stats/abilities/requirements? They are very different helmets.

The example second from the bottom has different hoods that I think work fine, but different heraldry on the breastplates. Do Grey Warden and Seeker armour really have the same backstory? - even if it's implied by their appearance/name these days, rather than old school item descriptions.

Then, I was just chatting with a knowledgeable friend who raised the point that there probably isn't such a thing as "generic armour" anyway, in a medieval setting. Like - "heavy chainmail" could very well look completely different, depending on who was wearing it, for a whole bunch of reasons. But not unique/famous/special armours. Surely they just are what they are.

Personally, I think the object needs a higher priority than the character's personality, in the equation. If it is generic armour, go nuts at changing it. If it has heraldry, it has to be consistent across whoever wears it. If it is a closed helm, it has to remain a closed helm across classes. If it's famous armour, make it look really great and exactly the same for everyone, just as the King, whoever, originally wore it.

The one other point I'd make, to clarify how I play, is that I played Origins fully zoomed out. I also got a sore middle finger from constantly trying to zoom out DA2. I'm advocating more of an old schooley, Baldur's Gate style armour thing, but the characters in BG were tiny, so armour appearance was hardly important at all; spiky helmet or little cap, green ankheg armour or a robe. I guess how characters look is a lot more important these days, where people look at characters a lot more. To be honest, I'd rather just look at the armour. (But I do really like armour.)

Modifié par Firky, 14 avril 2012 - 09:09 .

[Xewaka]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
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.

This would be ideal. Player still gets freedom to operate and the full array of options (within the ruleset) while the companions retain their visual coherence.
Out of curiosity, were you to follow this route, would armors require a single stat? Two? Would requirements be so that you need to "pigeonhole" stats to wear the wider amount of armors, or would "outside of the box" build and equipment be a feasible route?
And speaking of pigeonholing, what about companion fighting styles? Will they again be robbed of a random skill tree? Or are you considering returning to the base combat style flexibility within class? Or is it too soon to comment on this?

Modifié par Xewaka, 14 avril 2012 - 09:10 .

[vardor99]

untamedfuture wrote...

I absolutely love what I'm seeing about the new armor ideas so far. The concept art looks awesome and it seems like an original and creative way to allow customization while retaining character identity.

+1

I just want to add my two cents and say that I love the idea Bioware came up with.  It will help a lot to not only see the companions as 'followers' but as personalities. It will also make grinding in dungeons more interesting I believe, because no matter if the new armor piece you found is actually better or not, I'd still be curious how it looks on each companion.
I can already see myself standing half an hour in the camp to simply check which armor looks best on which character. Really hope the idea will make it into the final release.

[vardor99]

Xewaka wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
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.

This would be ideal. Player still gets freedom to operate and the full array of options (within the ruleset) while the companions retain their visual coherence.
Out of curiosity, were you to follow this route, would armors require a single stat? Two? Would requirements be so that you need to "pigeonhole" stats to wear the wider amount of armors, or would "outside of the box" build and equipment be a feasible route?
And speaking of pigeonholing, what about companion fighting styles? Will they again be robbed of a random skill tree? Or are you considering returning to the base combat style flexibility within class?

I like the idea, but I'm afraid it might take too many resources especially since it means they'd have to make unique models for every armor piece and character, because there is a slight chance your mage has 30 strength or your warrior has 30 willpower.
The class restriction seems "easier to handle" to me.

Modifié par vardor99, 14 avril 2012 - 09:20 .

[Pzykozis]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

Sounds good I'd just worry about diluting the more inline visuals in order to accomadate out of line visuals though..

I mean don't get me wrong the ability to have armour or what have you be stat based and therefore built for regardless of character is great for those who want that, but by your own admission the variance in armour per character is already going to eat into resources for the visuals side and the lack of visual variance over the game was pretty bad in DA2.

Still sounds interesting though. As for the class thing has it been tempting to remove the warrior/rogue and just install a fighter instead? I mean I remember pre-DA2 having that discussion with some folks on here since the rogue pretty much solely acts as the dex warrior nowadays..

[Uzzy]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

Better then DA2 at least, though that's not very hard. If you're determined to keep characters with 'iconic looks', then this would be a good way to do it. I'd still prefer mixing stat based armour with the DA:O system. Or even better, give the followers a set of 'iconic' armour that always improves, then let us stick whatever armour they qualify for on them.

IF you do this, then please have stat based weapons as well, rather then class based. I want to give my mage a sword.

[rolson00]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

i said in a comment to john epler that it was pretty funny how you could put armor on wynne and morrigan
so yea im 110% for this, this is a perfect system, both sides get what they want.
 us the fans get to change and swap armor and change stats and you the dev get to keep said followers appearence.
will there be uniqe style or theme to each race? like armor styles in lord of the rings?

Modifié par rolson00, 14 avril 2012 - 09:54 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Firky wrote...

Take this with the knowledge that I loved DAO and DA2. Didn't love fixed follower outfits in DA2, but didn't detract from my enjoyment. (And I probably am an equipment micromanager at heart, in most games.) Also, this is just the way my mind works. I can dig that lots would disagree. (Although I don't understand why people want iconic looks at all. To my mind it's the equipment that is interesting, not the follower's personality through appearance. Though, personality is interesting, but through story.)

My first inclination is to not like this model. Sure, if Sterling Armour is put on male or female, tall or short, change the way it looks slightly to suit the character's body. I can accept that.

But why does the Seeker version have an eye on it? If it's Seeker armour, they should both have an eye, and if you put it on the Grey Warden, that's cool. He's wearing Seeker armour. Because it does something for him that you want it to do. Even though he's clearly not a Seeker. Or remove the eye.

Why would the two helmets, in the third from the bottom example, not have different stats/abilities/requirements? They are very different helmets.

The example second from the bottom has different hoods that I think work fine, but different heraldry on the breastplates. Do Grey Warden and Seeker armour really have the same backstory? - even if it's implied by their appearance/name these days, rather than old school item descriptions.

Then, I was just chatting with a knowledgeable friend who raised the point that there probably isn't such a thing as "generic armour" anyway, in a medieval setting. Like - "heavy chainmail" could very well look completely different, depending on who was wearing it, for a whole bunch of reasons. But not unique/famous/special armours. Surely they just are what they are.

Personally, I think the object needs a higher priority than the character's personality, in the equation. If it is generic armour, go nuts at changing it. If it has heraldry, it has to be consistent across whoever wears it. If it is a closed helm, it has to remain a closed helm across classes. If it's famous armour, make it look really great and exactly the same for everyone, just as the King, whoever, originally wore it.

The one other point I'd make, to clarify how I play, is that I played Origins fully zoomed out. I also got a sore middle finger from constantly trying to zoom out DA2. I'm advocating more of an old schooley, Baldur's Gate style armour thing, but the characters in BG were tiny, so armour appearance was hardly important at all; spiky helmet or little cap, green ankheg armour or a robe. I guess how characters look is a lot more important these days, where people look at characters a lot more. To be honest, I'd rather just look at the armour. (But I do really like armour.)

Excellent post. Your point about heraldry got me thinking that if we're going for individual looks now, instead of changing the armour's appearance between characters they should look at introducing stuff that characters wear over their armour, like surcoats, tabards and gambesons, robes, weapon harnesses and bags/pouches. It's the accoutrements characters wear with their armour, or alterations they can (feasibly) make to clothing, that should support their identity.

[Xewaka]

vardor99 wrote...
I like the idea, but I'm afraid it might take too many resources especially since it means they'd have to make unique models for every armor piece and character, because there is a slight chance your mage has 30 strength or your warrior has 30 willpower.
The class restriction seems "easier to handle" to me.

I was under the impression that, for "outside the box" armors, the model would be necessarily more generic (i.e. Mages get a variety of robes but a "heavy robe" design, whereas warriors get several plates but a "light armor" design), thus avoiding the resource issue you mention.
The "Tabards" point mentioned earlier also makes a lot of sense. I would wager it's a cheaper way to add the "personal touches" to keep the character coherence. Sadly, it would only work on "knightly" types (I don't see, say, Isabela or Zevran wearing flappy vests with heraldly over them).

Modifié par Xewaka, 14 avril 2012 - 10:27 .

[ianvillan]

I would also like to see followers have access to all the talent trees availiable for there class. I actually liked that they had there own special tree but they should also have access to the others.

Merrill should of had the creation tree, Isabella should have had archery etc. It help with customisation and replayability because if I was a dual weildind rogue I would never take Isabella with me because she would not fit in to my party, the same with Anders if I wanted a healer I had to take Anders or go without.

[Esbatty]

Sweet Feast Day Andraste*!

I am very happy with this blog post, and I'm terribly glad its covering something from a video. (My internet sucks and watching youtube videos buffer forever to watch even a small clip is taxing on my time and patience.)

Anywho, I remember in Origins mixing and matching armor chunks to get certain "looks" for myself and companions. Juggernaut Chestplate with Drakescale Gloves, etc. etc. That way I could mix the special attributes that specific pieces held while also developing an "Iconic" look that could change over time if I found myself favoring a different helmet or set of greaves.

I did something similar in DA2 but with entire armor sets, where the Champion was awesome as a Rogue I wasn't overly fond of it as a Warrior. I actually finished a game wearing pretty much exclusively the Ser Isaac of Clarke set from Dead Space 2. (The Harvester fight is especially badass when you finish Orsino off).

* - note to self: read codexes in future to see if that statement made any sense whatsoever.

[Borghal]

rolson00 wrote...

i said in a comment to john epler that it was pretty funny how you could put armor on wynne and morrigan
so yea im 110% for this, this is a perfect system, both sides get what they want.

What's so funny about it? They're normal humanoids like anyone else within the universe, so what's to stop them from donning a chainmail shirt or whatever?
(Their possible combat effectiveness in it aside)


Since the unique identity seems so important, I hope we get a helmet toggle (and I don't care whether helmet stats apply or not if it's shown as off), at least out of battle.

A face conveys much much more personality than any armor ever could.

[artsangel]

I really love this idea. I can see myself sticking new bits of armour on every party member who can equip it, just to see how different it looks on each one Personally I'm a big fan of distinctive party members, and letting us still improve and upgrade them while still letting them keep their own sense of style, is perfect for me.
I really hope for the ability to change colours too. Mass Effect 2 & 3 showed it can be done, as has Guild Wars with its extensive dye system.

Also, I really love that you guys are showing us your thoughts and looking for feedback this early in the development process. It makes me very excited for DA3

[Uccio]

I guess this is ok as long as I can put experience points to my character and companions ala Origins to be able to put heavy armour on my rogue/s, or mage/s if he/she is a arcane warrior.

Modifié par Ukki, 14 avril 2012 - 11:09 .

[eroeru]