171 réponses à ce sujet

[syllogi]

I really, really dislike the idea that characters need tattoos or scars to telegraph that they are edgy, cool or unique. Not all of the Bioware characters who fit this trope are more flash than substance, but I don't see why it's *needed*.

DA2 had such a great opportunity, with the passage of time, to show the characters grow and change, through their visual changes. People don't wear the same clothes for seven years. I would worry about my friends, if they did that. It would have been great to see Merrill let her hair grow, or Isabela come back in Act 3 without her piercings. But the game blew it, because apparently they didn't trust the audience to identify with and enjoy characters who weren't visually static.

[LolaLei]

brushyourteeth wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

I think it would be cool if the companions had a casual set of clothing that they'd wear "off duty" or in camp, like ME3 did. I'd find it odd seeing an armor clad Templar companion (for example) wearing their uniform 24/7. Maybe his/her casual clothing could still bare the Orders insignia or maintain an iconic look, but be stripped of  the heavy metal armor.

Yes to this. I found myself in DA:O thinking "doesn't Wynne ever have to wash those robes? Surely Alistair doesn't sleep in that armor."

Also kind of off-topic, I would have personally liked to have something casual to wear to the Hanged Man every now and then too. Your armor could pass for casual if you were a rogue or mage, but it just didn't make sense to grab a pint in full plate. I know we had that weird bathrobey outfit but I just didn't feel right wandering around Kirkwall dressed like Hugh Hefner
 
I loved in KotoR II how you could wear the sexy dancer outfit for situations where you needed + Persuasion, but it gave little in the way of armor. Maybe we could get some casual duds with bonuses to persuade or intimidate? (assuming those attributes play a role in DAIII).

Omg that would be awesome! The companions have their iconic look + casual outfit and our PC gets outfits that increase certain skills like charm/persuade etc, rather than just combat attributes.

[Wozearly]

Bekkael wrote...

Eh, I don't really understand why companions need "iconic appearance" in the first place. I was never once confused in DA:O (or any other game) as to which character was which, based on what clothing or armor they were in at the time. It allows more freedom when you can give any clothing or armor the PC isn't using to other characters of the same class, at the very least.

I feel broadly the same way - the only time it was a potential problem was in the earlier game stages where you had a reasonable chance of two characters being in either light or medium armour and when they both had highly similar weapons. After that, the natural variation in armour useage via the armour sets and distinctive weaponry tended to create unique looks in their own right - but under the player's control.

The one counterpart to this is that I was using the (excellent) NoHelmet mod, to avoid the horror of the early level helmets. Obviously that helps somewhat if you're able to toggle the helmet so that a character's head is visible.

Personally, my feeling is that the iconic appearance is driven more by reasons beyond "make it easy for me to distinguish between characters and enemies, and between characters themselves". Making a character readily identifiable can be achieved in much more RP-friendly ways than forcing a standardised look in the style of DA2.

The DA3 approach seems to strike a sensible balance, having subtle distinctions when characters wear the same sets of armour, or having the recognisable / "iconic" feature be something that is identifiable irrespective of the armour they're wearing.

Similar to you, I'd prefer the iconic default look, some mechanism by which that can be maintained over time if the player likes it, but ultimately the choice to kit them out in the things that you find and create your own recognisable look (I always felt it looked odd seeing anyone but Oghren in the Legion of the Dead armour, after I'd established that as his 'default' armour set in my playthroughs) should you want.

Equally, I'll hold out for what I can get. Not doing the same as DA2 is definitely an improvement (true for many things IMO, as it happens).

[leighzard]

I loved Isabela's look in DA2. I also think Flemeth's upgrade was pretty amazing. But other than those two, I really prefer the DA:O style. Even ME2&3 allowed for more squaddie customization.

It seems to me that what BioWare showed at Pax would work pretty well. I liked that they had a "look." Honestly, I tried to get my DA:O companions in a unique set as soon as I could (plus, you know, there were bonuses for that). But within that look you have options to decide how you want spec the character (I assume different armor pieces have different benefits) and how that character will look. It would have been nice in DA2, for example, to have the option to boost Anders's stats toward healing or defensive magic through armor bonuses. I'm really hoping that element comes back.

Also I agree with pretty much everything syllogi said.

[hoorayforicecream]

I wish the iconic looks went even further than they did.

Here's my favorite example of iconic looks for everyone:

[upsettingshorts]

The premise of this thread doesn't make sense to me.  Either you see the value in and appreciate "unique looks" and enjoy the fact they exist, or you don't and don't.  This is needless hairsplitting that seems like an attempt to frame the discussion negatively by starting from a critical premise.

Archmage Silvery wrote...

I prefer the Origins way here. DA II was too much like a JRPG in this regard.

What does this even mean?

Ukki wrote...

"Unique look" is just another word for lazyness. Thats all. However, if some people prefer it then there should be a option in the setting where putting a tag on it would lock the companion armors if someone wished to do so. Everyone wins.

 

Bingo!  I spotted another amateur volunteer armchair game developer!  Bingo!  What do I win?  Oh, right, another headache.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 09 mai 2012 - 11:00 .

[mesmerizedish]

[quote]Upsettingshorts wrote...

The premise of this thread doesn't make sense to me.  Either you see the value in and appreciate "unique looks" and enjoy the fact they exist, or you don't and don't.  This is needless hairsplitting that seems like an attempt to frame the discussion negatively by starting from a critical premise.[/quote]

The problem is that some people insist on forwarding one philosophy or the other as objectively superior, when it's really just a matter of what the individual wants out of the game.

[quote]
[quote]Ukki wrote...

"Unique look" is just another word for lazyness. Thats all. However, if some people prefer it then there should be a option in the setting where putting a tag on it would lock the companion armors if someone wished to do so. Everyone wins.[/quote] 

Bingo!  I spotted another amateur volunteer armchair game developer!  What do I win?  Oh, right, a headache.[/quote]
[/quote]

See what I mean?

[upsettingshorts]

Ukki suggests that a "unique look" has no value beyond cost-cutting. This denies others' preferences, not to mention creates assumptions about what approach is more cost-effective or labor-intensive out of thin air.  The boards in general have a problem understanding that just because they don't get what there is to like about something, that it follows there's nothing anyone could like about it.

Then Ukki suggests a toggle between the two, as if that isn't the most labor intensive and least cost-effective "solution" out there, as it demands spending zots on both approaches. Toggles are the go-to suggestion for enabling content a user does not appreciate in any form and could do without but wants to come off as compromising.  Because it doesn't require understanding what they can't appreciate.

So, I guess I do?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 09 mai 2012 - 11:05 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

deuce985 wrote...

I still prefer seeing unique armors that fit the personalities of our companions though, IMO.

I want their armours to suit their combat roles, and as long as we have full-party control those combat roles are detemined by us.

As such, having fixed appearances doesn't work.

If I used Leliana as a tank, I could give her Massive armour.  If I used Sten as an archer, I could give him Medium armour. The iconic looks simply do not suit all possible circumstances.  Letting the player decide, though, can.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ukki suggests that a "unique look" has no value beyond cost-cutting. This denies others' preferences, not to mention creates assumptions about what approach is more cost-effective or labor-intensive out of thin air.  The boards in general have a problem understanding that just because they don't get what there is to like about something, that it follows there's nothing anyone could like about it.

Then Ukki suggests a toggle between the two, as if that isn't the most labor intensive and least cost-effective "solution" out there, as it demands spending zots on both approaches. Toggles are the go-to suggestion for enabling content a user does not appreciate in any form and could do without but wants to come off as compromising.  Because it doesn't require understanding what they can't appreciate.

So, I guess I do?

To be fair, a toggle was approximated by Ish's Diversified Follower Armours mod for DA2.  The player could either have the iconic look or a generic armoured appearance based on what equipment was chosen.

A strict toggle would be labour intensive, but that's not the only option that serves both interests.

[upsettingshorts]

Fundamentally Sylvius I'd say your issues run deeper than iconic looks. What do I mean?

Your position is that the entire party should be controlled by the player. As such, it follows that their combat role - and therefore equipment - should be within your purview to modify, edit, direct, and guide.

But that's not the only point of view out there. Most of them have arbitrary boundaries, but players tend to put them in different places. Personally I prefer more... independent party members. I'd never think of making Leliana a tank, for example, because that's not her style.

The blog proposing DA3's system is a good idea, however, as it seems to retain much of what I appreciate of both approaches.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 09 mai 2012 - 11:12 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

deuce985 wrote...

I still prefer seeing unique armors that fit the personalities of our companions though, IMO.

I want their armours to suit their combat roles, and as long as we have full-party control those combat roles are detemined by us.

As such, having fixed appearances doesn't work.

If I used Leliana as a tank, I could give her Massive armour.  If I used Sten as an archer, I could give him Medium armour. The iconic looks simply do not suit all possible circumstances.  Letting the player decide, though, can.

You'd probably hate Planescape: Torment.

[ReallyRue]

I like the characters having their own outfits. The option to change them might have been nice (seeing as DA2 had more variety of armour/robes) similar to how Morrigan's unique outfit functioned, or it'd have been good if they'd had alternate oufits. But as it is, I liked it just fine.

If the most of the armours in DAO had been more than just a texture swap of other armours in their category, then I probably would've had more enthusiasm about being able to change my characters' outfits.

[Vormaerin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If I used Leliana as a tank, I could give her Massive armour.  If I used Sten as an archer, I could give him Medium armour. The iconic looks simply do not suit all possible circumstances.  Letting the player decide, though, can.

I'd question whether you should have that much control over your companions in a story based game like this.   That's fine in a pure action RPG like Icewind Dale was, but I tend to think that one's companions should be their own people and you use the ones that suit what you want out of the group.

If you need a tank, you don't recruit Leilana.   Not  "I need a tank, I'll decide the courtly spy is trained in heavy armored melee."

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vormaerin wrote...

I'd question whether you should have that much control over your companions in a story based game like this.

And that's a reasonable question.

But we do have that much control, so why are they forced to dress inappropriately for their own actions?

That's fine in a pure action RPG like Icewind Dale was, but I tend to think that one's companions should be their own people and you use the ones that suit what you want out of the group.

They're not my companions.  They're Hawke's companions.  Hawke isn't the one telling them what to wear - I am.

If you need a tank, you don't recruit Leilana.   Not  "I need a tank, I'll decide the courtly spy is trained in heavy armored melee."

Except, of course, that she is trained in it if you train her in it.

[Maria Caliban]

Bekkael wrote...

Eh, I don't really understand why companions need "iconic appearance" in the first place.

They didn't.

Then again, no one has claimed they needed to have an iconic appearance.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BioWare has claimed there are benefits to the iconic appearances.

I dispute the value of those supposed benefits.

[the_one_54321]

I feel that unique appearances are more interesting than playing dress-up. I want to manage stats, not outfits.

I'd be willing to manage stats and outfits, if that's how things worked out. But in the end, not using universal models improves animations and technical appearance in the game.

[brushyourteeth]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I feel that unique appearances are more interesting than playing dress-up. I want to manage stats, not outfits.

I'd be willing to manage stats and outfits, if that's how things worked out. 

This.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I feel that unique appearances are more interesting than playing dress-up. I want to manage stats, not outfits.

What is the point of the detailed visuals if they don't reflect the mechanical reality of the game?

I'd be willing to manage stats and outfits, if that's how things worked out. But in the end, not using universal models improves animations and technical appearance in the game.

No it doesn't.  Not using universal models might allow for a greater variety of animations across all characters, but a would then require a lesser variety for each character (assuming the same zot expenditure).

It's a trade-off, and not one I support.

[Ponendus]

I tend to think 'iconic' appearances are fine as long as they are adaptable to class. For example, Morrigans robes were fine with Morrigan being a mage, however if she were to become a rogue, a unique 'Morrigan-style' rogue outfit (leather?) would be applied.

Something like that makes sense to me. I agree that if the developers give one the choice to make a character a tank, even if their 'iconic look' encourages them to be a mage, then the developers need to cater for that choice to occur.

[deuce985]

My biggest worry is Bioware's new proposal severely cuts down on customization. It's obvious this will happen. That hurts itemization because you have less items to choose from. So that hurts build variety. Unless you have some sort of system where you can customize the stats on the gear...

Say they give one armor piece 4 different looks. That's 4x as much work compared to the old system they used in DA:O.

It's either less items or we'll see more recycled armor graphics. Neither is good, IMO. If I had to choose...I'd go with customization over giving our companions unique looks.

Modifié par deuce985, 10 mai 2012 - 01:12 .