179 réponses à ce sujet

[David Gaider]

brushyourteeth wrote...
But to say that Bioware would make the decision to give companions signature armors is simply for cosplay is more than a little ridiculous.

It is. Possessing a visual identity is what makes iconic companions "cos-playable", in Mike's words-- as in part of the reason that such companions can be cosplayed. Visual identity is a worthy goal in and of itself.

If we were to arrange our decisions solely to service a part of the fanbase, however, I can certainly think of worse parts of the fanbase to service than a group of people who are generally friendly, engaged and who celebrate our work while asking for little in exchange. If there are other fans who really like to think their money is worth more to us than those peoples', they're certainly free to go on thinking so.

[hussey 92]

David Gaider wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...
But to say that Bioware would make the decision to give companions signature armors is simply for cosplay is more than a little ridiculous.

It is. Possessing a visual identity is what makes iconic companions "cos-playable", in Mike's words-- as in part of the reason that such companions can be cosplayed. Visual identity is a worthy goal in and of itself.

If we were to arrange our decisions solely to service a part of the fanbase, however, I can certainly think of worse parts of the fanbase to service than a group of people who are generally friendly, engaged and who celebrate our work while asking for little in exchange. If there are other fans who really like to think their money is worth more to us than those peoples', they're certainly free to go on thinking so.

But cosplaying has nothing to do with the actual game itself, so isn't focusing on that part of the fanbase a mistake?

also, isn't 60 dollars, 60 dollars no matter whos giving it to you?

[Dr. wonderful]

David Gaider wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...
But to say that Bioware would make the decision to give companions signature armors is simply for cosplay is more than a little ridiculous.

It is. Possessing a visual identity is what makes iconic companions "cos-playable", in Mike's words-- as in part of the reason that such companions can be cosplayed. Visual identity is a worthy goal in and of itself.

True.

I'm just glad that's it may change for DA3.

still, the Cosplay of Dragon Age 2? Freaking Amazing, and let's not get into Mass Effect.

[David Gaider]

hussey 92 wrote...
But cosplaying has nothing to do with the actual game itself, so isn't focusing on that part of the fanbase a mistake?

We're not "focusing" on them. They'll have a greater ability to cosplay as a result of our focus on improving our game's visual identity, but that's not why we're doing it... or did you miss the point of what I wrote?

also, isn't 60 dollars, 60 dollars no matter whos giving it to you?

Indeed.

Modifié par David Gaider, 17 mai 2012 - 02:40 .

[LolaLei]

hussey 92 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...
But to say that Bioware would make the decision to give companions signature armors is simply for cosplay is more than a little ridiculous.

It is. Possessing a visual identity is what makes iconic companions "cos-playable", in Mike's words-- as in part of the reason that such companions can be cosplayed. Visual identity is a worthy goal in and of itself.

If we were to arrange our decisions solely to service a part of the fanbase, however, I can certainly think of worse parts of the fanbase to service than a group of people who are generally friendly, engaged and who celebrate our work while asking for little in exchange. If there are other fans who really like to think their money is worth more to us than those peoples', they're certainly free to go on thinking so.

But cosplaying has nothing to do with the actual game itself, so isn't focusing on that part of the fanbase a mistake?

also, isn't 60 dollars, 60 dollars no matter whos giving it to you?

Pfft, that's like saying Superman's iconic outfit was designed for cosplayers.

Alot of people like characters to have an iconic look, it's as simple as that really. If you don't like it you could always A) not buy it or buy it on the PC and see if you can mod a bunch of new outfits or something. Personally I think the concept armor shown at PAX is a bloody good compromise!

[wsandista]

I prefer Customization over Iconic looks, but the idea to reconcile looks promising. The only doubt I have is that the Iconic looks of companions may override the iconic looks of armor given to them. It would be strange to see a Templar emblem on Blood Dragon Armor.

[hussey 92]

David Gaider wrote...

hussey 92 wrote...
But cosplaying has nothing to do with the actual game itself, so isn't focusing on that part of the fanbase a mistake?

We're not "focusing" on them. They'll have a greater ability to cosplay as a result of our focus on improving our game's visual identity, but that's not why we're doing it... or did you miss the point of what I wrote?

also, isn't 60 dollars, 60 dollars no matter whos giving it to you?

Indeed.

I just think what your "improving" was fine the way it was

[Sylvianus]

Filament wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

Mike Laidlaw has said repreatedly that he wants the game to provide opportunities for cosplay.

But to say that Bioware would make the decision to give companions signature armors is simply for cosplay is more than a little ridiculous.

Mike Laidlaw has said no such thing. It was used one time as an example of the positives of iconic looks by  Epler or someone.

Well, it was used several times by Chris Priestly actually... and apparently Mike Laidlaw too.

Kind of puzzling, to be honest, but if the end result is more unique companions, sure... alright. Whatever you say Mr. Dev-man.

What said Mike Laidlaw didn't matter, it was especially Chris Priestly. I remember well. He began that storm. And for once, I don't think it was just because of the bsn overreacting. His words weren't at all helpful to understand Bioware's position on this matter. Besides, there were many pages in this particular topic after. Actually, I thought it was even more difficult for them to be understood after that.

They can tell whatever they want to tell to defend " iconic looks ", but no, the bsn didn't invent this issue as if it came from nowhere either. Please no.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 17 mai 2012 - 03:48 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Ignoring Shale, only two characters in that image have 'iconic armour'. Yet I have no problem naming the ones who don't.

Being able to decide for myself whether a character wears regular armour or an iconic outfit would be ideal, IMO.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 17 mai 2012 - 03:59 .

[Sylvianus]

Filament wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

What said Mike Laidlaw didn't matter, it was especially Chris Priestly. I remember well. He began that storm. And for once, I don't think it was just because of the bsn overreacting. His words weren't at all helpful to understand Bioware's position on this matter. Besides, there were many pages in this particular topic after. Actually, I thought it was even more difficult for them to be understood after that.

They can tell whatever they want to tell to defend " iconic looks ", but no, the bsn didn't invent this issue as if it came from nowhere either. Please no.

Sure, it didn't come from nowhere... but not overreacting? After reading David's posts, I can't agree.

Not that that's unexpected. This is... well, criticizing the BSN has become a bit passé at this point, hasn't it?

?

Where do you yee the bsn not overreacting ? I said for once it wasn't just because of the bsn overreacting. I thought Chris priestly was pretty awkward too.

Nobody has been charged, nobody is evil. There was simply a lack of understanding, confusion with both sides.  That's the reality for me as far as I remember. You can agree with David Gaider, by saying that actually, it's just the bsn overreacting, I do not.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 17 mai 2012 - 04:30 .

[Rabid Rooster]

You know i seem to remember, wished i had a qoute, that Mr. Laidlaw said somethign to the like of one of the reason they went with non-costumizable followers in DA2 was becasue he got tired of seeing screen shots of Morrigan in platemail and whatnot.

So one mans pet peeve got us what we got in DA2.

[Zanallen]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Ignoring Shale, only two characters in that image have 'iconic armour'. Yet I have no problem naming the ones who don't.

Being able to decide for myself whether a character wears regular armour or an iconic outfit would be ideal, IMO.

But you've played the games. You've spent hours with each of those characters. If they only showed you their eyes, you could probably name each one. On the other hand, part of the reason for visual identity is marketing. If you showed someone who has never played Halo before, they would probably still recognize Master Chief.

And I'll be honest, it took me a bit to recognize Justice there.

[robertthebard]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...



Ignoring Shale, only two characters in that image have 'iconic armour'. Yet I have no problem naming the ones who don't.

Being able to decide for myself whether a character wears regular armour or an iconic outfit would be ideal, IMO.

Actually, there's 4 in iconic armor, if we count Wynne, since she's in the robes you find her in.  Otherwise, Morrigan, Duncan and Loghain...

[SirGladiator]

Customization is just so important. Its easy to have iconic looks, and still have complete customization, just ask Morrigan! That outfit you find her in is as iconic as it gets, and yet you could still dress her in anything you like. So there's nothing wrong with full customization, it wouldnt hurt the ability to have iconic appearances in the slightest.

[Zanallen]

Actually, I think Leliana is in her "iconic" Sacred Ashes outfit as well.

[hussey 92]

Rabid Rooster wrote...

You know i seem to remember, wished i had a qoute, that Mr. Laidlaw said somethign to the like of one of the reason they went with non-costumizable followers in DA2 was becasue he got tired of seeing screen shots of Morrigan in platemail and whatnot.

So one mans pet peeve got us what we got in DA2.

That sucks, I'm going to make Morrigan an arcane warrior in every playthrough just to spite him

[PaulSX]

I think better way to resolve "iconic" look and customization is let every playable character has the default appearance when not wearing any armor. so when you talk to a character outside the battle, like the camp time in DAO, they will have unique looks. And player can customize what kind of armor the party members will wear when you are doing quests and explorations.

[Jones7602]

Perhaps a different point of view. From my perspective a great game must be logical, believeable and consistent in itself. So if a game, like DA2 hands out tons of armor as treasure and someone generally able to use that armor is not able to equip it due to artificial limitations by the developer, the game is not believeable. It is also not believeable that somebody will wear the same clothes for 10 years, or will hang around at home in full plate.

So I like an iconic look at the beginning of the game. But later on, when the game hands me better equipment as loot, I want to use it and I want that equipment to really change the look of that character cause everythings else - like each piece of metal looks different on everybody - doesn't make any sense at all.

Some ways to resolve this:

1) Severely limit the amount of armor found as loot. Never saw a monster with a big enough back pack to contain a full suite of plate armor and why should the ogre carrry that around in the first place? I also don't want to wear anything I killed my enemy in, its gory and broken, cause I hammered at it with my big axe for the last hour :-) And why should it fit? My female warrior is a lot smaller than that hurlock alpha... So make finding armor a special occasion and make each piece of armor iconic in itself.

2) Implement a blacksmith you need to visit before being able to equip armor to repair it and to fit it to your size. That way you could implement a believeable system of each armor piece looking different on everybody, cause that blacksmith will adept it to your style.

3) Implement a blacksmith that will create new armor based on the raw material you find in the world e.g. armor pieces dropped as loot. That way you can also keep the iconic look and still handout new clothes.

[Rainen899]

I understand the wanting to give them an iconic look, if for nothing else the fact that it seems silly that your really good friend/leader would dictate what you wear into battle. "No, you don't get it, it has better stats!" The annoying part is that not only does all the extra armor become vender fodder but it also feels more like trash. Oh, I'm a rogue well this really awesome plate is useless. Or, oh I'm a mage, but look at that amazing rogue gear I just found. Heck you could just do what jrpgs do and default the armor to do nothing but give stats and have their "iconic" look overshadow the actual armor.

But I'll tell you something the iconicness of a character has more to do with their face and persona than whatever trench coat / white blouse and pants or ridiculously poofy overcoat with a forest of chest hair showing out of it does. I can name every single one of the people in that picture yet none of them (other than shale, dog and duncan" really have any kind of "iconic" armor.

Another idea would be to give them an evolving look that the armor starts to look at least more "epic" or convey that the character themselves has become stronger in a little bit. That fenris was still wearing the same dingy plate mail that I found him in, in act one and in 10 freaking years hadn't changed at all despite having one of the best armories in all of Kirkwall was just downright immersion breaking.

The armor system for companions was annoying because there was so little significance to getting gear. It was like sweet, stuff that no one can use. Best gold I ever got that's just going to buy potions because the best gear is mainly found after killing a dragon or some kind of blood mage and/or quest.

[wright1978]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

You may want to take a gander at this - Lead Writer David Gaider blogs on Follower Customization. It may address some of your concerns.

Like the sound of the proposed system. Seems to provide a nice balance imo.

[AkiKishi]

brushyourteeth wrote...

I'm the wrong person to ask, because I honestly don't get why people get so hung up over being able to dress up your companions. I'm much more concerned with stats. As long as I can change my protag's armor, I'm set to go.

The only reason I'd ever really be concerned with changing a companion's armor would be in a situation like Morrigan's, where I quickly got tired of seeing her sideboob. But I know I'm probably alone on that one.

Same for me. Dress up only matters in regards strategy and tactics. I want them to equip that item, but I don't care how the item is represented visually if at all.
Another way to do it is like Xenoblade, have the characters able to equip armour, but have it show up slightly differently depending on who is wearing it (MMO's do this too).

As long as I'm not stuck in the DA2 situation where there is better gear that the characters just won't wear because they are glued to their signiture outfits, I'm ok with it.

[seraphymon]

cant believe how some people get the the people in the picture who have iconics wrong. Dog and shale or course dont count. BUt only morrigan and leliana are iconic. However you can regonize the others as well, cause even without them being iconic, it is the armor you basically first see them in. Exception is justice, wearing sentinel, but still not iconic.