179 réponses à ce sujet

[bEVEsthda]

My views are essentially that when I equip a certain piece of armor on a char, I want it to look like that piece of armor.
EVERYTHING  that has been said in defense of iconic looks, can be (and mostly always was) achieved with common customizable armor. If we want.

This "compromise", as it's called, lets us do two things. It lets us change the appearance of partymembers, "customization". And it lets us change their stats. But now the armor/equipment own looks disappears instead. The appearance changes, yes. To something.

And this, somehow is the gist of how Bioware tries to heed feedback, while still doing it "their way". I don't really feel like going to war on this. But... The most important thing is that the end result is a good game. Second most important thing is that it is a game that we want.  It's the second part that worries me.

I'm not really excited about Bioware trying to make partymembers so extra-super-special. It's so Japanese. In a bad way. What's wrong with normal fighters, thiefs, mages, etc?  Why do we have to endure this miraculous (totally magic infact) full auto crossbow? Why do we have to have this superspecial magic tragic Fenris warrior?

It's like the silly animations and the nukeing combat skills. It's totally "over the top". And I find it more repulsive than *exciting*.

I hope the compromise is fine enough. ...And a tolerable loss, of something we've always had, in BG, NWN, KotOR, IWD, TES, FO, DS,... I don't really feel or believe that, but I hope it'll be fine enough. But my greatest fear is that this will somehow be coupled to a continuation of this over-the-top, *super-special* drivel we saw in DA2. For sure companions shall be a bit special. Nothing wrong with that itself. But adjust the volume knob, plz.
 

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 21 mai 2012 - 10:22 .

[robertthebard]

Yrkoon wrote...

Sidney wrote...


The idea that it is "customization" is laughable. I'd bet money that your party and mine at the end of DAO looked the same and had the same capabilities - because the best armor was the best armor. If you really wanted customization DA2's rune system offered a lot more mix and match options in terms of functionality if not appearance.

Definitely not appearance.

Most players' Hawkes  (the one character in the game that you COULD customize utterly) ended the game in the same armor  (champion's armor) 

This stands in huge contrast to DA:O, where some wardens ended the game in Caelin's, others in the Warden Commander's, and some in  Wade's.

There really was no improvement  even there.

As for the party members.  Not sure how anyone can argue that DA2 did it better.  Did your Isabela end up with a different outfit than mine?  No, she didn't. 

I don't know, she ran off with the book and didn't come back.

What the system in 2 did was allow me to junk stuff to the vendor instead of having to have different sets of armor for everybody, or, even worse, competing with party members for the same gear.  Not such a big deal in Origins, as there were tons of options, but it has been an issue in the past.  At the end of the day, it's fluff, and doesn't matter.  There are tons of other things that I would rather see modified, such as hot bars.  Of course, I'm not spending a couple of hours a day staring at my characters either.

[Yrkoon]

robertthebard wrote...

What the system in 2 did was allow me to junk stuff to the vendor instead of having to have different sets of armor for everybody, or, even worse, competing with party members for the same gear.

Yeah, planning, managing and  customizing your party.   Bad stuff.   Get rid of it! 

robertthebard wrote...
 At the end of the day, it's fluff, and doesn't matter. 

Wow.  I  couldn't disagree more.  I rank   'equip-ment'  way, way up there....equal to the story itself in an RPG.  

  Why even have the concept of  visual  avatars in games in the first place if you can't  customize how they look?  Why bother  having that special piece of armor as treasure if its only purpose is to be sold to a vender? 

Hell, why even call it "your party" when it's really not yours?

Modifié par Yrkoon, 22 mai 2012 - 01:20 .

[Reidbynature]

Some people use it to manage their companions stats and others like to manage their companions looks. Both are valid options, especially when it was previously possible to do so in the series. Like I said before, the variable iconic look idea that was presented looks fine, but there's no real reason why we can't simply toggle that off and have the armour's look on our companions as it would for the player character.

[Ser Bryant]

I was vastly disappointed not being able to customize companion armor in DA2.
My understanding on why they took this out of the game was because they didn't want players to put outfits on companions that didn't make sense to the DA universe (eg. Morrigan wearing Chantry robes) . While I can't speak for everyone I can say I have no desire to put Chantry robes on Morrigan but do have a desire to put Juggernaut armor on Sten rather than be forced to sell it because my character is content wearing the Warden Commander set if we are going by the DA2 way where only the main character can switch armor. It annoys me just thinking about it.
If they are so worried about players putting so called "wrong outfits" on certain characters why not just put slight bans on certain scenarios. For instance block Morrigan from being able to wear Chantry robes but allow for the other companions to wear them . I really don't think there is that many outfits that aren't plausible on any character given their strength/dexterity is up to par for the certain outfit but if there is issue with it being plausible or not, simply restrict that character from that set of armor. Don't take the entire customization feature away.

[Wulfram]

This is only tangentially related to the main topic, but I did find the lack of choice in end game armour annoying. 

(My latest playthrough I used a mod which gave everything the level scaling property, which was a great improvement)

Modifié par Wulfram, 22 mai 2012 - 06:32 .

[robertthebard]

Yrkoon wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

What the system in 2 did was allow me to junk stuff to the vendor instead of having to have different sets of armor for everybody, or, even worse, competing with party members for the same gear.

Yeah, planning, managing and  customizing your party.   Bad stuff.   Get rid of it! 

robertthebard wrote...
 At the end of the day, it's fluff, and doesn't matter. 

Wow.  I  couldn't disagree more.  I rank   'equip-ment'  way, way up there....equal to the story itself in an RPG.  

  Why even have the concept of  visual  avatars in games in the first place if you can't  customize how they look?  Why bother  having that special piece of armor as treasure if its only purpose is to be sold to a vender? 

Hell, why even call it "your party" when it's really not yours?

I managed to plan, and manage my party just fine, how they looked had nothing to do with it.  So, why do I need customization again?  If you can't plan your party because they are looking the same in act 3 as act 1, I don't think that's a problem with game mechanics.  Seriously, it's aesthetic, and doesn't matter.  If you spent the time finding the upgrades for their gear, and actually upgrading it that you spent worrying about how it looked, you'd find it works just fine.  This does mean keeping their weapons, where applicable, and accessories up to date.

In warrior/mage games, Verrick will be built way differently than in rogue play throughs, as will Aveline, depending on whether I want to build a tank spec or dps spec warrior.  This is planning and customization, so that traps and locks can still be dealt with, and the same applies to Isabela.  My archer rogue doesn't take Verrick as often as my dual wielder does, because I have range well covered with a mage and my bow.  This is customization, and planning, and what they are wearing has nothing to do with it.  You want to be able to change their appearance, and that's all well and good, but don't pretend that it's game breaking that you can't.  The one thing that I can see it really does is seperate the character builders from the chaffe.  After all, if you can't build a party member that functions in it's role just because you can't change it's armor, again, it's not a game mechanics problem.

[Todd23]

Why can't we have both? Make one of settings a check box that says: Change appearence? If it's checked, than when you have a piece of armor on someone, you can see that armor. If it's not checked than they will keep their normal appearance and just gain the stats bonuses.

[bEVEsthda]

robertthebard wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

What the system in 2 did was allow me to junk stuff to the vendor instead of having to have different sets of armor for everybody, or, even worse, competing with party members for the same gear.

Yeah, planning, managing and  customizing your party.   Bad stuff.   Get rid of it! 

robertthebard wrote...
 At the end of the day, it's fluff, and doesn't matter. 

Wow.  I  couldn't disagree more.  I rank   'equip-ment'  way, way up there....equal to the story itself in an RPG.  

  Why even have the concept of  visual  avatars in games in the first place if you can't  customize how they look?  Why bother  having that special piece of armor as treasure if its only purpose is to be sold to a vender? 

Hell, why even call it "your party" when it's really not yours?

I managed to plan, and manage my party just fine, how they looked had nothing to do with it.  So, why do I need customization again?  If you can't plan your party because they are looking the same in act 3 as act 1, I don't think that's a problem with game mechanics.  Seriously, it's aesthetic, and doesn't matter.  If you spent the time finding the upgrades for their gear, and actually upgrading it that you spent worrying about how it looked, you'd find it works just fine.  This does mean keeping their weapons, where applicable, and accessories up to date.

In warrior/mage games, Verrick will be built way differently than in rogue play throughs, as will Aveline, depending on whether I want to build a tank spec or dps spec warrior.  This is planning and customization, so that traps and locks can still be dealt with, and the same applies to Isabela.  My archer rogue doesn't take Verrick as often as my dual wielder does, because I have range well covered with a mage and my bow.  This is customization, and planning, and what they are wearing has nothing to do with it.  You want to be able to change their appearance, and that's all well and good, but don't pretend that it's game breaking that you can't.  The one thing that I can see it really does is seperate the character builders from the chaffe.  After all, if you can't build a party member that functions in it's role just because you can't change it's armor, again, it's not a game mechanics problem.

Yes, it's plain enough. You want a combat game that is as convenient as possibly.
But people don't want to play the game like you do. They don't even want to play DA2 at all. They miss the gameplay they have always had in a long row of other games. ...And it is a gameplay mechanics problem.
You don't understand that because you want to play a different game. A game where 'competing' with partymembers for equipment is a nuisance, rather than a quality. I don't think we have anything to discuss. I'm just trying to enlighten you.
If people perceive there is a gameplay problem, then you can't tell them there isn't. You can tell them that you're not affected by that. But you can't really tell them their experience doesn't exist or is wrong.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 22 mai 2012 - 08:34 .

[robertthebard]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Yes, it's plain enough. You want a combat game that is as convenient as possibly.
But people don't want to play the game like you do. They don't even want to play DA2 at all. They miss the gameplay they have always had in a long row of other games. ...And it is a gameplay mechanics problem.
You don't understand that because you want to play a different game. A game where 'competing' with partymembers for equipment is a nuisance, rather than a quality. I don't think we have anything to discuss. I'm just trying to enlighten you.
If people perceive there is a gameplay problem, then you can't tell them there isn't. You can tell them that you're not affected by that. But you can't really tell them their experience doesn't exist or is wrong.

So what you're saying is that the game is unplayable because you can't change somebody's clothes?  Got it.  Way back when Doom and Quake were on 5.5 in floppy discs, as Shareware, I played them.  They were fun, for a while, but then I found Baldur's Gate.  The closest I've been to those Shareware versions of games was Aion, for a time, you know, twitch games, in real time, with no pause button.  I just don't find the fact that Isabela looks like Isabela as game breaking.  So you're right, we have nothing to discuss, since you've made a list of assumptions based on I don't know what about my gaming style/character.  I thought I laid out my problem with aesthetics being game breaking pretty clearly.  As in, they aren't.

[bEVEsthda]

robertthebard wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

Yes, it's plain enough. You want a combat game that is as convenient as possibly.
But people don't want to play the game like you do. They don't even want to play DA2 at all. They miss the gameplay they have always had in a long row of other games. ...And it is a gameplay mechanics problem.
You don't understand that because you want to play a different game. A game where 'competing' with partymembers for equipment is a nuisance, rather than a quality. I don't think we have anything to discuss. I'm just trying to enlighten you.
If people perceive there is a gameplay problem, then you can't tell them there isn't. You can tell them that you're not affected by that. But you can't really tell them their experience doesn't exist or is wrong.

So what you're saying is that the game is unplayable because you can't change somebody's clothes?  Got it.  Way back when Doom and Quake were on 5.5 in floppy discs, as Shareware, I played them.  They were fun, for a while, but then I found Baldur's Gate.  The closest I've been to those Shareware versions of games was Aion, for a time, you know, twitch games, in real time, with no pause button.  I just don't find the fact that Isabela looks like Isabela as game breaking.  So you're right, we have nothing to discuss, since you've made a list of assumptions based on I don't know what about my gaming style/character.  I thought I laid out my problem with aesthetics being game breaking pretty clearly.  As in, they aren't.

Granted, I did make some assumptions that were wrong. But the point I made still holds. And I didn't make any assumptions about you thinking that fiddling with equipment, who to equip, what to sell, etc is a nuisance to you. You said words to that effect.

Let's look at your assumption: No, I'm not saying the game is unplayable because I can't change somebody's clothes. Never did. That's not it. I did, for instance play through DA2 once. I didn't like it, but I did it.
No, the thing is I never signed on to play such a game at all. Playable or unplayable.

Aesthetics are not "game breaking" to you, you say. Fine. But are you then posting and arguing in this thread because you do place some value on aesthetics? Or because you place some value on convenience?

[Vormaerin]

Todd23 wrote...

Why can't we have both? Make one of settings a check box that says: Change appearence? If it's checked, than when you have a piece of armor on someone, you can see that armor. If it's not checked than they will keep their normal appearance and just gain the stats bonuses.

Because that doesn't solve the core problem?  The problem with combining iconic looks and anyone can equip anything has to do with character modelling and art assets.

Either Bioware has to create unique versions of every piece of gear for every character (increasing item art workload 700% compared to DA2).  I seem to recall some dev comments on how much of a hassle it was to have to make gear work for every race/gender combo in DAO.

[Yrkoon]

Developer gripes about something they used to do in the past suddenly being "too much work and hassle" to do today, is not a powerful argument. In fact, it doesn't resonate at all with me.

Because I couldn't give a crap. I'm not a developer. I'm a paying consumer.  I won't pay for laziness, and my sympathies end the moment I'm asked to accept  some  grotesque corner-cutting  but still being asked to pay $60 for the game.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 23 mai 2012 - 12:12 .

[robertthebard]

bEVEsthda wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

Yes, it's plain enough. You want a combat game that is as convenient as possibly.
But people don't want to play the game like you do. They don't even want to play DA2 at all. They miss the gameplay they have always had in a long row of other games. ...And it is a gameplay mechanics problem.
You don't understand that because you want to play a different game. A game where 'competing' with partymembers for equipment is a nuisance, rather than a quality. I don't think we have anything to discuss. I'm just trying to enlighten you.
If people perceive there is a gameplay problem, then you can't tell them there isn't. You can tell them that you're not affected by that. But you can't really tell them their experience doesn't exist or is wrong.

So what you're saying is that the game is unplayable because you can't change somebody's clothes?  Got it.  Way back when Doom and Quake were on 5.5 in floppy discs, as Shareware, I played them.  They were fun, for a while, but then I found Baldur's Gate.  The closest I've been to those Shareware versions of games was Aion, for a time, you know, twitch games, in real time, with no pause button.  I just don't find the fact that Isabela looks like Isabela as game breaking.  So you're right, we have nothing to discuss, since you've made a list of assumptions based on I don't know what about my gaming style/character.  I thought I laid out my problem with aesthetics being game breaking pretty clearly.  As in, they aren't.

Granted, I did make some assumptions that were wrong. But the point I made still holds. And I didn't make any assumptions about you thinking that fiddling with equipment, who to equip, what to sell, etc is a nuisance to you. You said words to that effect.

Let's look at your assumption: No, I'm not saying the game is unplayable because I can't change somebody's clothes. Never did. That's not it. I did, for instance play through DA2 once. I didn't like it, but I did it.
No, the thing is I never signed on to play such a game at all. Playable or unplayable.

Aesthetics are not "game breaking" to you, you say. Fine. But are you then posting and arguing in this thread because you do place some value on aesthetics? Or because you place some value on convenience?

I'm really not trying to argue, I'm trying to figure out why people think that this, of all things, is a big deal.  Natural curiousity, I guess.

[Sidney]

Fandango9641 wrote...

All one need do is browse BSN’s library of Origins mods and screen dumps to see the importance many here place on visual customisation. It’s a big deal, no question.

It is inexplicable though why of all the flaws in the game this one causes so much frothing at the mouth. It is pointless, has zero effect on gameplay and isn't a challenging or thought provoking part of the game - no matter what some people seem to think this isn't like depth in games that actually have depth.  It is tedium defined but I guess if games like Skyrim teach us anything it is that some people have an insatiable desire to engage in tedium. Maybe we could make Dragon Agee Excel for the really boring people.

Frankly, i'd never want to play dress up again since my companions are supposedly adults who can make decisions for themsleves - why the whiners don't want to control hairstyles, makeup, tatoos and other things I have no idea.

[Vormaerin]

Yrkoon wrote...

Developer gripes about something they used to do in the past suddenly being "too much work and hassle" to do today, is not a powerful argument. In fact, it doesn't resonate at all with me.

Because I couldn't give a crap. I'm not a developer. I'm a paying consumer.  I won't pay for laziness, and my sympathies end the moment I'm asked to accept  some  grotesque corner-cutting  but still being asked to pay $60 for the game.

Except that they never did it before?   The bioware games that let you play dress up with your companions did not have individualized companion models.  They have generic bodies with different heads on them.

Isabella, femHawke, and Avelline are not the same body model.  So just making "human female" armor like before isn't going to work.    Now you need three armors made where you used to only need one.

Not to mention that the cost to make the games in general has increased faster than the price you are paying.

[Yrkoon]

Vormaerin wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Developer gripes about something they used to do in the past suddenly being "too much work and hassle" to do today, is not a powerful argument. In fact, it doesn't resonate at all with me.

Because I couldn't give a crap. I'm not a developer. I'm a paying consumer.  I won't pay for laziness, and my sympathies end the moment I'm asked to accept  some  grotesque corner-cutting  but still being asked to pay $60 for the game.

Except that they never did it before?   The bioware games that let you play dress up with your companions did not have individualized companion models.  They have generic bodies with different heads on them.

What?

Not sure which version of DA:O you played, but mine had Dwarves who were short and stocky, and Qunari who were significantly larger than they were, as well as   Humans who's bodies were different sized than Elves, and of course male  and female  bodies of all of the above.

Any given piece of armor worked on all of them.    Take any piece of armor.  It literally resized/reshaped itself to fit on any body type.

They took that away for DA2.  And even if you argue that  "individualized" means that Isabela's body is so-totally different than any other human female, it still doesn't excuse the laziness.  There was NOTHING stopping them from simply making 8 extra meshes of each armor type in order to accomodate our specific companions.  Hell they didn't even have to do each armor type, since the armor in DA2 was essentially class specific.  All they had to do was make   just leather armor fittable on Varric and  Isabella;  Mage  robes fittable on Merril, Anders and your sister, and Warrior gear fittable on Fenris, Carver, and Avaline.

[Vormaerin]

Yrkoon wrote...


What?

Not sure which version of DA:O you played, but mine had Dwarves who were short and stocky, and Qunari who were significantly larger than they were, as well as   Humans who's bodies were different sized than Elves, and of course male  and female  bodies of all of the above.

Each armor in DAO had 7 versions, because that was what was required for the player's character.

MHawke, FHawke, Anders, Varric, Merril, Isabella, Fenris, Sebastian, Carver, Bethany, Avelline.   That makes 10 right there.   Sure, you could cut it down to specific characters by class.  But most of the people arguing for dressing up their NPCs are asking for the ability to respec them as well.  So doing that wouldn't be responding to the actual request.

Modifié par Vormaerin, 23 mai 2012 - 02:38 .

[robertthebard]

Yrkoon wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Developer gripes about something they used to do in the past suddenly being "too much work and hassle" to do today, is not a powerful argument. In fact, it doesn't resonate at all with me.

Because I couldn't give a crap. I'm not a developer. I'm a paying consumer.  I won't pay for laziness, and my sympathies end the moment I'm asked to accept  some  grotesque corner-cutting  but still being asked to pay $60 for the game.

Except that they never did it before?   The bioware games that let you play dress up with your companions did not have individualized companion models.  They have generic bodies with different heads on them.

What?

Not sure which version of DA:O you played, but mine had Dwarves who were short and stocky, and Qunari who were significantly larger than they were, as well as   Humans who's bodies were different sized than Elves, and of course male  and female  bodies of all of the above.

Any given piece of armor worked on all of them.    Take any piece of armor.  It literally resized/reshaped itself to fit on any body type.

They took that away for DA2.  And even if you argue that  "individualized" means that Isabela's body is so-totally different than any other human female, it still doesn't excuse the laziness.  There was NOTHING stopping them from simply making 8 extra meshes of each armor type in order to accomodate our specific companions.  Hell they didn't even have to do each armor type, since the armor in DA2 was essentially class specific.  All they had to do was make   just leather armor fittable on Varric and  Isabella;  Mage  robes fittable on Merril, Anders and your sister, and Warrior gear fittable on Fenris, Carver, and Avaline.

Maybe they ran out of magical steel to make plate that could fit a dwarf one day, and a Qunari the next?

[hussey 92]

f*** Yes!

[Yrkoon]

robertthebard wrote...
Maybe they ran out of magical steel to make plate that could fit a dwarf one day, and a Qunari the next?

Indeed.  Oddly though, they had no problems   mass-producing   an unlimited amount of invisible Parachutes, then  distributing them to every single hostile entity in Kirkwall.  lol

Modifié par Yrkoon, 23 mai 2012 - 09:37 .

[Kidd]

I like the sense that my party members have lives of their own and can handle their own wardrobes. Similarly I don't equip my fellow players' characters when we play D&D, that's for them to handle. My character is my character, the others are people my avatar adventures with whom I have (and should have) no control over.

Kidd just went Sylvius, I think =)

[robertthebard]

Yrkoon wrote...

robertthebard wrote...
Maybe they ran out of magical steel to make plate that could fit a dwarf one day, and a Qunari the next?

Indeed.  Oddly though, they had no problems   mass-producing   an unlimited amount of invisible Parachutes, then  distributing them to every single hostile entity in Kirkwall.  lol

It gave those cave spiders something to do when they weren't busy trying to scare the crap out of you.