11 réponses à ce sujet

[DragonAgeNeedsCapesOrCloaks]

How ridiculous is it that this is a fantasy RPG with weapons and armor and magic and all that good stuff and there are no cloaks or capes in the game.  It kinda makes your mages look a little undressed to me...Everyone else is wearing armor while the walk around looking un-cool in their mage rhobes which really just look lke regular clothes except for the ones with the fur on it that just look plain stupid.  And whats even more annoying is that in an attempt to try and get us in the whole fantasy rpg mood and really want to buy the game they have a commercial for the game where everybody is wearing cloaks.  Thats just plain old fashion false advertisment...Please tell me they are going to include this in an update.  How is it that they are making a star wars game where everyone is going to be wearing cloaks (yeah i know different teams working on the games but still come one) and it didnt cross their minds to include it in this game?  There really isn't an abundance of any equipment at all in this game now that i think about it.  Updates are needed with the new dlc.

[David Gaider]

DragonAgeNeedsCapesOrCloaks wrote...
i posted this in an attempt to get responses and maybe support from those who may agree with me so hopefully in a perfect world bioware will get the idea and put them in the game.

Wow. So... you mean that some people really like cloaks?

We had no idea.

Thank you so much for bringing this to our attention. If we had only known that there were people out there who think cloaks are neat, we might have added them onto the pile sooner. Our bad.

[David Gaider]

bjdbwea wrote...
I think I have to agree. Sarcasm does the developers no credit, not when the initial complaint was valid. I for one don't like or need cloaks, but then I wouldn't have needed to use them. Just another small thing, but it adds up, especially in the models/animations sector.

Sure, but the premise behind the thread (apparently) was "we want cloaks, and maybe if we say so the developers will realize it and add them." To which my response is "duh". We already know that players like cloaks. They want MOAR -- cloaks, scabbards, bowstrings, spears, longer hair, pretty dresses, halberds, horses, bigger boobs, smaller boobs, whiter teeth and a slider in everyone's stocking at Christmas... I mean, do you really think the reason we don't add most of these things is simply because we don't know that people want them?

I love cloaks. I think cloaks are awesome. I hope we get to add them at some point.

[David Gaider]

Few87 wrote...
First of all im not an american im English and im just saying it would be much nicer if they would be more polite. There isnt any need for their sarky put downs, it is mean and uncalled for.

There were no put downs. If I wanted to be mean I would have said that anyone who honestly believes that we developers don't know that RPG fans like the idea of cloaks, and that this is the reason we didn't have them in DAO, is being foolishly naive. I would also have said that anyone who takes offense on someone else's behalf regarding a snarky response to be a hyper-sensitive wackadoodle.

But I would never say such things. Because I am not mean.

[David Gaider]

BanditGR wrote...
So, purely out of curiosity, was it time constraints, a technical issue or perhaps a balancing issue, that made you guys hide the cloak slot ? It's not much of a big deal anyway (and I'm willing to wager not much of a "secret" either )

The cloak slot is there because, at one time, we had cloaks. They were never actually made, but there was a plan for them -- and if I remember right, when they were cut there was initially a plan to keep them as items which simply didn't show up on your character (hence the "hidden" nature, perhaps?). That didn't last long, and perhaps the slot was never removed entirely on the hopes that we would one day be able to add it back in. Ideally, we'd like to have it. Done correctly, they would probably look pretty cool... but there's the rub, no?

[David Gaider]

DragonAgeNeedsCapesOrCloaks wrote...
Im confused.  I thought forums were where developers said to go and talk about the game and air all your suggestions and or grievances.

Certainly. Saying that you'd like cloaks is one thing. Implying that the reason they're not there is because we don't know enough people want them is quite something else.

I did not know that it was necessary nor appropriate for a staff member to basically allude to their disapproval of my post even if i am not breaking any of the forum rules.  I learn something new everyday.

When did anyone say that you broke a forum rule? I don't only disapprove of people's posts when they break the rules, you know. Some people seem to believe otherwise, but simply having an opinion doesn't mean you can't be wrong.

But having said that thanks for at least acknowledging the post and letting us know that the developers are still at least thinking about it.  And by the way its actually a good thing that the only thing that i thought was worth complainging about was something as trivial as cloaks.  That should resound as a testament of this being a very good game.

I'm glad you enjoyed the game. And we'll always consider any reasonable and polite request, even if they've come up many times before. As I said before, we're well aware of the bells & whistles that players would like to have -- sadly, bells & whistles are usually in short supply when you're making the kind of game that requires so much content simply to meet basic requirements for the genre.

ashes2flame wrote...
That should have been your first post. I've read several others from you and you really are rude. I don't expect you to kiss your customers ass but you could at least be courteous and if you can't then you shouldn't post here at all. You did great work with the game. I appreciate it. But you are extremely defensive, condescending and seem to get off on opportunities to belittle people. You're not helping yourself, your company or the overall maturaity level (read: enjoyment / relevance) on these forums with your childish behavior.

I'll always respond to courteous and reasonable posts in kind. Beyond that, I'll leave it to my company to decide how well I represent them. Thanks for the feedback, anyhow.

Modifié par David Gaider, 13 décembre 2009 - 12:47 .

[David Gaider]

DragonAgeNeedsCapesOrCloaks wrote...
Hey man i was annoyed when i posted my thread and apparrently so were you when you responded.  I think it would be appropriate to offer up an apology if i offended you in any way.  Let's move forward amicably...And get to work on those damn cloaks! (just joking lol)

Then I apologize as well. I was no doubt snippier in my initial response than I needed to be, having read more acrimony into your post than you perhaps intended.

It certainly is gratifying, as well, to see that there are always third parties about to cluck their tongues and wag their fingers at me in disapproval of my insufficient corporate responsibility whenever I respond to someone else in a way that they don't like. I suppose it is worth remembering that I am supposed to be above other human beings and always respond to obnoxious behavior in kind, vague platitudes that don't ruffle any feathers.

[David Gaider]

Brockololly wrote...
We can just hope that since they've laid the foundation of the DA universe they can try and implement some of those desired bells and whistles in future DA games.

If there are further Dragon Age games, the one thing to keep in mind is that a big benefit of sequels is that you can build on that foundation rather than building everything from scratch. People tend to forget that we haven't actually *done* a sequel since Baldur's Gate II (and the upcoming ME2, I suppose) -- working on a brand-new engine is a bit of hell, actually, a bit like trying to arrange your living room furniture while they're still building the house. I know everyone likes to compare DAO to BG2, but more properly it should be compared to BG1 -- BG2 had the benefit of building on the foundation that BG1 laid, and allowed us to work with an already-quantified engine and spend more time tweaking and expanding rather than simply building. I, for one, will be glad to go back to working under those conditions -- if a sequel does materialize, of course.

[David Gaider]

SheffSteel wrote...

Since this thread has gone on for so long but (feature) has somehow not yet been implemented, perhaps it is time to do more than ask the developers to kindly implement (feature).
Perhaps a poll?
Of course, the poll must not contain leading questions or biased language of any form. That would be worse than useless, as it would not tell us anything specific about (feature). I therefore suggest the following simple and neutral form of wording:

Do you want to see (feature) in Dragon Age?
[_] Yes
[_] No
That should provide a definitive answer as to whether / how people think about (feature).

What valuable information would that provide, exactly?

Might as well change the question to "Without consideration of the costs involved, would you like to see additional content in Dragon Age?" I mean... is there any reason to actually say "no" to a question like that?

[David Gaider]

foil- wrote...
As you can see here, there are plenty who would vote "no".  But hey, I guess it could be an either or question.

Sure, but as you can see from any given forum thread all you really need are three or four people to feel vociferously about a given topic to give the impression to other posters that some kind of revolution is in progress. Add the word "poll" and make the implication that we are a company that sits on the forums to take personalized orders for someone's favorite RPG and they'd go absolutely mental.

[David Gaider]

foil- wrote...
Truth be told, if there is no better way to make a feature request or guage the viewers interest in a feature, then why not speek up or poll.  If your company decided to go collect more reliable data for certain features to show us our quest for cloaks is not a marketable trend, then I won't argue with your methods.  But wouldn't it just be less expensive to implement cloaks

Yet what I'm saying is that "reliable data" on how many people might kinda like cloaks is not useful information. We don't expect you guys to keep in mind the costs of such features -- how could you? So when you make requests you're asking for stuff that you'd like to see... because you like them. Which is great, and knowing that features are desired certainly does inform us. But if you want to actually convince any of us that a feature such as cloaks is actually more than just something that most people would kinda sorta like you need to actually convince us that it is a useful feature. Not just "nice to have" for that moment of "hey cool! cloaks!" but something that actually makes it a better game (and by that I mean a line of reasoning slightly improved from "it adds to immersion!" -- which, as we all know, can be used to argue any feature). Because beyond that my answer remains "yes, we know it'd be nice to have and that some people would think it's cool." Providing more reinforcement of that idea does not make it a more valuable feature.

Does that make sense? You did ask, after all.

[David Gaider]

Clovis- wrote...
while I sympathize with your difficult position in all this; I can't help but notice you've made this argument for optional 'features' like cloaks on a number of occasions. While I can't fathom a concrete "game-play" reason for why cloaks should draw resources from alternative features that could presumably enhance "game-play" (aside from immersion, loot, customization, style, fanfare, etc.); can you honestly tell me that all the features that are in Dragon Age currently have a practical/actuarial/"game-play" enhancing logic behind each and every implementation? (that aren't immersion, loot, customization, style, fanfare, etc)

No, but in those cases we are either capitalizing on already-existing features or the cost of implementation is small. The main reason you don't see things like cloaks and mounts very often is because the cost of implementation is too high for what is essentially a "nice to have" feature.

And I make this argument often because I end up repeating myself.

I think I'm ready to stop, to be honest. Sorry, but the onus in this case is on those who think this is a really important feature to convince us it is so. Otherwise you'll simply have to be satisfied if and when we get the ability to include it on the list of "cool things we'd like to include regardless of the cost" -- because, yes, we'd like to do that as much as we possibly can.

And that's really all there is to it.