171 réponses à ce sujet

[Merlex]

Olchick wrote...

Merlex wrote...

Filament wrote...

I happen to like the unique skill trees. What it adds to their character is more than a fine tradeoff for the 'freedom' to make Wynne a blood mage, I think. Of course for Sylvius the 'inconsistency' is probably more important than freedom or BioWare's vision for a character.

I like them too, but only as specializations. Taking away basic class trees, took some replay value away. Bethany made sense, being an apostate she didn't learn in the conventional ways. Varric loves Bianca, so that made sense. But Merrill not having creation? Sebastian is cornered by whatever, and he can't pull out a daggar?

This used to ****** me off too until I realized how to build them properly.

Meril doesn't need Creation. Entropy+Primal+Dalish Pariah (bottom skill branch) makes her damn near unstopable. And with her in the party even Revenant won't cause a problem.

Similarly, Sebastian doesn't need daggers. Placing daggers on him would be a waste of skill points. He already has Shadow abilities in his Royal Archer skill tree. Presetting those properly ensures he's barely touched by mele attacks. Royal Archer+Archery+Subterfuge will work quite nicely for him.

Similarly, Varic needs Bianca+Archery+Subterfuge.

Isabella is a bit trickier. Shee needs a combination of partly-complete Dual Weapon+Scoundrel+Subterfuge+Swashbuckler

Bethany is easy Elemental+Creation+Force Mage.

It took me quite a few playthroughs to figure out good combinations of those skill trees, but once I did, I found nothing lacking. In fact, I kind of like that Bioware had forced us to be more creative with our skill sets. In DAO, I basically had everyone built around the same principles and it was quite boring in retrospect.

Now, I do wish they'd give more tactic slots to mages. It got VERY hard to preset Maril and Anders toward the end here >>;

Yes building the companions within their limits, is easy. And i can see how giving them their own nitch, can make for a diverse party, instead of a party of clones. But that's what the specializations do. You pointed out how to build many of the companions. It's pretty much the same each time. You change a few things, but.... My point was about the replay value you get out of more choices. 

Just because someone has the ability to use any type of weapon, doesn't mean they have to spend talent slots in that tree. My DW Shadow Assassin would switch to a bow sometimes while his talents were in cooldown, mostly early in his career. I wouldn't give Isabela a bow, though thrown daggars would be nice. You're right that with his stealth abilities Sebastian doesn't need daggars, unless he runs out of stealth. I could 'give' Varric a melee weapon, and he'd sell it. Bianca, Bianca, Bianca! I was more thinking about mages and spells, not prefered weapons, i'd like to see more variety.

There use to be more than 20 tactic slots for pc, one of the patches removed them. I usually activate most sustains myself. Blood Magic, Pancea - Vengence, and some of Aveline's being the exceptions. I too would like a lot more tactic slots in DA3, but we'll see.

[Merlex]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Merlex wrote...

Not completely. If they don't like your choices, they can leave or even attack you. You can't take control of them to stop them.

Right. They can choose to leave the party, in which case they are no longer under my control.  But as long as they're in the aprty, they are mine to do with as I see fit.

Training them and having influence over some of their choices; is not the same telling them what to wear, or what they have to look like.

It's exactly the same.  I, the player, someone who exists outside their reality, controls their behaviour.  How is one aspect of their behaviour different from another?

That sounds more like Warriors of the Eternal Sun or NWN2 SOZ, where you create your party from scratch. In DA they are NPCs, your player is Hawk or the Warden. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

[abnocte]

nerdage wrote...
That was my impression too.

Can't say I ever had a problem recognizing companions in combat before; largely because I knew where I'd just told them to go, what I had equipped on them, and the yellow circle at their feet. If anything negatively affected orientation in combat it was removing the top-down camera, but then consoles never had that in the first place so perhaps that's why.

I agree with you, never had a problem recognizing companions, hell I could tell them apart in BG where the sprites barely changed depending on race/gender/equipment.  I fail to see how Bioware reached the conclusion that we are not able to.

nerdage wrote...
As for cosplayers, I'm not sure why they should influence the game design so strongly so that reason always struck me as a convenient excuse rather than a proper reason.

After seeing some of the marketing ploys used by EA to promote ME3, is obvious to me that cosplayers aren't the reason, but EA thinking that to promote a game anything goes... ( but the quality of the product... )

nerdage wrote...
The system they've proposed looks like a good compromise though. I'd hope the armour pieces look more similar across characters than they did in the concepts but still a nice idea.

We can hope...

[Sylvius the Mad]

Olchick wrote...

It took me quite a few playthroughs to figure out good combinations of those skill trees, but once I did, I found nothing lacking. In fact, I kind of like that Bioware had forced us to be more creative with our skill sets. In DAO, I basically had everyone built around the same principles and it was quite boring in retrospect.

It was boring "in retrospect"?  How?  It was either boring when you did it or it wasn't.  If you had fun, it wasn't boring.

But regardless, if you designed all of your characters the same way and found it boring, that's your fault.  DA2 has different optimal builds for each character, but they never change.  DAO offers many different possible effective builds for each character.

DAO is vastly more replayable.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Merlex wrote...

That sounds more like Warriors of the Eternal Sun or NWN2 SOZ, where you create your party from scratch. In DA they are NPCs, your player is Hawk or the Warden. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

You're unnecessarily conflating character creation with character control.

[schalafi]

I liked the ability in previous games to change the npc's places, and the frustrating thing about DA2 is that the person that hasn't been with the party for a while is always given the position in the back. I don't want my mages in front and my tank in back, so the only way I can remedy that is to always pick the middle and right side player, and not have a 3rd npc at all. Then I have to go back and pick the third npc so they will be in back. Frustrating at the least. I hope they go back to the early Bioware way where the players can choose the formation any time they want.

I know this was about armor, and I hope DA3 will work out something everyone can live with, but I also hope they'll let us arrange our party the way we want it, not having to manipulate things to get the best formation.

[Sylvius the Mad]

schalafi wrote...

I hope they go back to the early Bioware way where the players can choose the formation any time they want.

Please.  I would very much like this back.  It would give us control over the position of the party members, plus the positions of the portraits in the UI for ease of selection during combat.

[hussey 92]

Origins was much better. I never liked the new ionic looks

[Merlex]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Merlex wrote...

Not completely. If they don't like your choices, they can leave or even attack you. You can't take control of them to stop them.

Right. They can choose to leave the party, in which case they are no longer under my control.  But as long as they're in the aprty, they are mine to do with as I see fit.

Training them and having influence over some of their choices; is not the same telling them what to wear, or what they have to look like.

It's exactly the same.  I, the player, someone who exists outside their reality, controls their behaviour.  How is one aspect of their behaviour different from another?

I take it all back. For the last few weeks, i've been using mods from Nexus. Some of the Iconic looks are 'cute', but i really like being able to pick their armor. And i give them unique looks as compaired to each other.

[Cimeas]

I really found it jarring that in Origins as soon as I put a standard mage robe on Morrigan, she actually felt like less of a character because her appearance was iconic. At the same time, it was annoying not being able to equip armor on companions in DA2, especially if it was a really good drop.

That's why I like DA3. There will be armors that keep iconic appearances, yet still allow you to swap stats, and still allow you to make your companions look cooler

[Uccio]

DA2 "uniqueness" is just another word for lazynes. Bring back DAO style!

[Patchwork]

I'm fine with unique looks and armour for companions with stats uniquely suited to them. By all means let that outfit level with them but I want the choice to put them in whatever I like and build them however I like.

I also want the weapon switch option back.

If I'm honest I would probably be less against iconic looks if DA2 had implemented them better (and if ME2&3 female defaults were less offensive).

If the upgrade had been a new outfit or their look changed during Acts but they didn't and I got very frustrated then bored of the same look. So now I'm against the control of what my party wears, and their talents, being in anyone's hands but mine.

This idea for DA3 looks good on paper but I don't think it's going to work out.

[Kail Ashton]

If you wanted unique characters, make the models unique and not just use the damn character creator, what they're wearing isn't as important, morrigan stood out because of her face & hair modeling, i could slap her in any mage outfit & still know who it was

I've seen bioware argue "but it's iconic!" ok sure, shove enough cleavage in anyones face with morrigan & it'll make an impression, i wouldn't say morrigan will go down in the history of iconic rpg characters based on how much side boob she shows (or orghren as the only other unique companion model, thankfully without the clevage) Is "hey i remember those breasts!" really the best iconic image you could've hoped for bioware?

DA2 at least tried to mostly make the models unique, i remember fenris's jrpg hair and tattoo's, i remember Aveline's manish face and stupid ginger hair, varrik's weird nose & hair(i'd say fabulous chest hair but it's barely visible in game), i remember Anders needing to eat a damn sandwich given how thin in the face he became since awakening(i remember the unique hairstyles you cut & paste on valenna & anders also) the clothes didn't make them unique or iconic, most just looked silly.

Now i'm not saying this isn't the case for everything, there's plenty of examples to the contrary of unique models with iconic wardrobes, however that's from stylish, well thought out designs that are actually followed precisely by the programmers, no offense (kinda) but the DA series will never be remembered for it's iconic designs or visuals(past, present & future, unless you get an entirely new programming & art staff), DA team claiming iconic visuals on characters is like the ME team claiming artistic vision on writting, no one is ever going to swallow that.

[Elvis_Mazur]

I would say I prefer DA 2's style minus Fenris'. I like his personality a lot, but the way his body curves because of his weapon and the white hair made him look too JRPGy.

[Jerrybnsn]

So if they have to wear disguises like in Origins, they have iconic disquises?

[Wrathion]

PetrySilva wrote...

I would say I prefer DA 2's style minus Fenris'. I like his personality a lot, but the way his body curves because of his weapon and the white hair made him look too JRPGy.

His body doesn't "curve" because of his weapon...*sigh* and his hair has a very reasonable explanation.

You're really hitting the low notes here are you? 

[Fredward]

Alexandrine Delassixe wrote...
and his hair has a very reasonable explanation.

He's old? Actually that might explain the curvy thing too.




I liked the iconic look of the companions. Which seems to be an insanely minority view but there you go. The only problem I had is that it was waaaaay to static, I really like the idea of being able to give them different armors but having it conform to their own unique look.

[Blacklash93]

As long as I can equip companions with armor stat upgrades like my PC I don't see a problem with defined looks. I know an idea posed by Laidlaw involved multiple companion costumes that were preset, but you could still equip armor for the bonuses normally even though the visual itself wouldn't show up on the character.

It sounded like a good idea to me.

[bEVEsthda]

I think it's a disaster to stop the player from customizing the armour and looks on party members.

I think the restyling, as of whole, of DA in DA2, grossly demeaned DA and made it shallow. The iconic looks were part of that, and "too diverse" would be a problem for taking the game seriously, but I won't blame the iconic looks by themselves.

[Elvis_Mazur]

Alexandrine Delassixe wrote...

PetrySilva wrote...

I would say I prefer DA 2's style minus Fenris'. I like his personality a lot, but the way his body curves because of his weapon and the white hair made him look too JRPGy.

His body doesn't "curve" because of his weapon...*sigh* and his hair has a very reasonable explanation.

You're really hitting the low notes here are you? 

How so? He's evidently putting more effort than he should to keep a heavy weapon at his back.


And, there's no in-game explanation for his white hair, only theories from players.

[Plaintiff]

Ukki wrote...

DA2 "uniqueness" is just another word for lazynes. Bring back DAO style!

Because everyone looking virtually identical isn't lazy?

[Fast Jimmy]

Plaintiff wrote...

Ukki wrote...

DA2 "uniqueness" is just another word for lazynes. Bring back DAO style!

Because everyone looking virtually identical isn't lazy?

Everyone DIDN'T look identical. You had different models for the every suit of armor that changed depending on if the wearer was Qunari, humanoid or dwarven, as well as if the wearer was male or female. For every type of armor set.

Meanwhile, DA2's companions had two armor sets to design for, period. A whopping fourteen armor skins to account for, excluding Hawke. This narrowed down the design work from hundreds of armor renderings down to less than six, I'd wager, including all of Hawke's armor options. 

Not saying it isn't a time converer and a money saver, but the DA:O model is far from lazy.

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Ukki wrote...

DA2 "uniqueness" is just another word for lazynes. Bring back DAO style!

Because everyone looking virtually identical isn't lazy?

Everyone DIDN'T look identical. You had different models for the every suit of armor that changed depending on if the wearer was Qunari, humanoid or dwarven, as well as if the wearer was male or female. For every type of armor set.

Meanwhile, DA2's companions had two armor sets to design for, period. A whopping fourteen armor skins to account for, excluding Hawke. This narrowed down the design work from hundreds of armor renderings down to less than six, I'd wager, including all of Hawke's armor options. 

Not saying it isn't a time converer and a money saver, but the DA:O model is far from lazy.

DA:O features the same three sets copy/pasted over and over, with the only variation being colour. Mages get two styles of robe. There are three... maaaaaaybe four unique sets in the whole bunch, and as far as I remember, with the exclusion of Morrigan's character-specific outfit, they were all heavy armour. So yeah, it's a little lazy. Changing the shape to fit different body types doesn't impress me. It's the least they could do, given the utter lack of variety in design.

Even if only Hawke can wear them, DA2 has a wider variety of unique designs overall, so I think giving the companions a fixed, 'iconic' appearance is an acceptable tradeoff. I appreciate an interesting, unique and detailed appearance more than the ability to put them all in the same mud-coloured smock.

[TEWR]

Olchick wrote...

Meril doesn't need Creation

I'd argue that, given that per the lore of DAO she knew the same healing magic Marethari knew, and thus should have a Dalish variant tree where she can use healing-esque spells on allies.

Merlex wrote...

Sebastian is cornered by whatever, and he can't pull out a daggar?

He technically does in his CQC animations.

Not that I disagree with your intended point, in that being unable to equip Sebastian with daggers, swords, axes, etc is a bit frustrating.

Even if they only had skill trees for their intended weapon -- Sebastian and Varric for archery -- they should still be able to equip other weapons and use the base animations that the game provides those weapons. Meaning Sebastian should be able to equip an axe and a shield and fight like Aveline or Warrior Hawke does when they abstain from using Warrior skills.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Merlex wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Merlex wrote...

Training them and having influence over some of their choices; is not the same telling them what to wear, or what they have to look like.

It's exactly the same.  I, the player, someone who exists outside their reality, controls their behaviour.  How is one aspect of their behaviour different from another?

I take it all back. For the last few weeks, i've been using mods from Nexus. Some of the Iconic looks are 'cute', but i really like being able to pick their armor. And i give them unique looks as compaired to each other.

Thanks for posting this.

I, too, used companion armour mods for DA2, and I found the game unplayable without them.