145 réponses à ce sujet

[mousestalker]

Is it possible to have it both ways, with some companions being unique and some being customizable?

[hoorayforicecream]

mousestalker wrote...

Is it possible to have it both ways, with some companions being unique and some being customizable?

Of course. Just need to allocate more programmer and designer zots to enforce the rule selectively.

[Blessed Silence]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I fully support this idea. It makes no sense at all that Fenris can't pick up a shield. After all, Sten could use a bow. The way DA2 worked is just another step in the wrong direction of having the PC and the other characters bound by different rules.

Also, I'd like it if the companions, when we meet them, have no talents pre-assigned, so we can set them up however we'd like. Sten makes an even better archer if you don't need to keep his 2H talents.

I modded this into both DAO and DA2, but I'd rather just have the option supported right out of the box. People who like the companions as they're designed can use them that way, but people who don't can change them. This is effectively what Obsidian is offering in the Adventurers' Hall for Project Eternity, but without the need of having actual different companions - we can use teh same companions in different ways.

There are so many aspects of DA2 that I hope were result of the short development schedule. The restrictive companion designs is one of them.

OMG YES to the B/I/U above.

I would rather be given my companion, hell even my character, with a pool of stats and ability points and set them up as I want.  My noble warrior is still stuck with that stupid shield ability  when I wanted her a 2H warrior.  (Sorry I'm kinda OCD and it drives me nuts there)

[Blessed Silence]

daaaav wrote...

Whilst I won't say that it didn't irritate me when companions were set up with completely useless talents in DAO... Morrigans shapeshifting and Zevrans lockpicking fail as examples, I actually liked Varric weilding Bianca and the way that each characters style and outfit reflected their personalities in DA2.

I don't understand why people need to customise everything about companions as in DAO and in my opinion, some of the characters identity is lost when you do. For example, none of the mage outfits really suited Morrigan and I honestly could not bring myself to put helmets on anyone but warriors!

Perhaps we could have a few outfits per character and an updgrade system that would let us tweak them to suit our playstyles.

Sorry for another post, I busted my clipboard somehow to edit this in ....

But I can see your point.  But, how would that ruin a character?  If their personality was set up, unless they specifically say they learned something ....

If that's the case, have it like DA:O where Alistair has his Templar training still separate and can never be changed, but everything else open to interpretation.

[AlexJK]

Ah, classic example of how you can't make everyone happy - I *like* characters that have skills pre-assigned when you meet them. It makes absolutely no sense, in mechanics or story, to collect a character above level 1 with no skills assigned. (Respec potions and similar mechanics do make this a bit of a moot point though.)

[Xewaka]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
I disagree. Look at someone like Varric. Varric loves Bianca. He really loves Bianca. He has many lines of dialogue and story beats dedicated to how much he cares about Bianca. Bianca is an integral part of his character. Allowing the player to make Varric a dual dagger-wielding rogue like Isabela while he continues to talk about how much he loves Bianca would instantly kill any sense of immersion for many players. Allowing the player to remove Bianca would severely hamper the ability of the developers to tell Varric's story.
You say that nothing is lost, but I think that you're wrong. There's definitely a tradeoff involved.

It is still a choice in the hands of the player wether or not to remove Bianca from Varric's hands. If you believe it breaks his character to do so, then don't. If another player doesn't think that or doesn't care if giving Varric daggers breaks him, he's able to do so.
Where's the loss?

Modifié par Xewaka, 09 octobre 2012 - 03:08 .

[kingjezza]

But in this case you could easily please everybody. It shouldn't be a case of one or the other and the only people missing out are the ones who like to have a lot more customisation over companions.

I like to be able to equip and play characters as I wish but I don't get a choice in the matter with Bioware's new approach to party members. You can still have iconic looks and anybody who likes that can keep them but with the ability to customise as well, people who like to play that way also get what they want. Morrigan works perfectly fine as an example of a character who can either be kept looking iconic or customised (beyond shape shifting being fixed) as the player sees fit.

I expect the usual argument to come up though, zots, zots, zots, etc etc

It's not like Bioware is run by one of the richest gaming companies around or anything.

Modifié par kingjezza, 09 octobre 2012 - 03:10 .

[mrs_anomaly]

AlexJK wrote...

Ah, classic example of how you can't make everyone happy - I *like* characters that have skills pre-assigned when you meet them. It makes absolutely no sense, in mechanics or story, to collect a character above level 1 with no skills assigned. (Respec potions and similar mechanics do make this a bit of a moot point though.)

I kind of agree. It certainly sounds nice to be able to customize our party members to the hilt but there are major caveats for the benefit of that IMO. 

My major objection to being able to completely customize our party members is immersion. Like one of the above posters mentioned the Varric+Bianca dialogue and theme- that is kind of stupid to remove his crossbow and then have him babble on about it lovingly while you have him using a dagger instead. 

If one is playing a game where story is a huge element (vs an FPS or something) - it is silly to meet up with full grown characters, add them to your party, and for them to have zero experience skill wise . It makes it a bit more realistic in terms of the story's interenal logic...Fenris is best utilized with swords because he did that as a slave right? 

I do think you should be able to have party members use alternative secondary weapons, enhance a wildcard skill tree, but more importantly for silly me- customize the hell out of their armor /costumes! 

[Aulis Vaara]

I agree with kingjezza. Morrigan was both iconic and customisable, so where's the problem in doing this for everyone?

Also, Bioware, if you can put a choice about something into the player's hands, do it. The more we get to choose, the better, ranging from customisable classes, over customising companions, to the timing of conversations we want to have with our companions. The best stories are those we made ourselves, and those always lose out when you take tighter reign of the story.

[hoorayforicecream]

Xewaka wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
I disagree. Look at someone like Varric. Varric loves Bianca. He really loves Bianca. He has many lines of dialogue and story beats dedicated to how much he cares about Bianca. Bianca is an integral part of his character. Allowing the player to make Varric a dual dagger-wielding rogue like Isabela while he continues to talk about how much he loves Bianca would instantly kill any sense of immersion for many players. Allowing the player to remove Bianca would severely hamper the ability of the developers to tell Varric's story.
You say that nothing is lost, but I think that you're wrong. There's definitely a tradeoff involved.

It is still a choice in the hands of the player wether or not to remove Bianca from Varric's hands. If you believe it breaks his character to do so, then don't. If another player doesn't think that or doesn't care if giving Varric daggers breaks him, he's able to do so.
Where's the loss?

The player may not realize that equipping Varric with a 2-handed sword will break his story upon meeting him. It is only as the story progresses that the player realizes how important his crossbow is to him. By enforcing the weapon selection for Varric, similar to how Minsc was forced to carry Boo, the game shows how important this is to him. The player knows from the beginning that Bianca is special, just like the player knows from the beginning that Boo is special.

Your "choice" only exists if the player knows what he or she is choosing at the time. The loss is for that first playthrough, where the player gets to actually meet and interact with these characters on their terms for the first time. In essence, you wish to allow the players to shoot characterization in the foot without realizing it. I disagree with this approach, because it gives an overall feeling of ridiculousness to the game due to the lack of verisimilitude. It's a very similar reason to why I never got into Skyrim... because any sense of verisimilitude was very easily broken, due to the amount of player freedom allowed.

That sort of freedom is wonderful if the game is focused on it. Skyrim is fine for those who enjoy the go-anywhere, do-anything, whatever you like sort of sandbox. That's perfectly well and good for that type of game. I personally don't think that Dragon Age is that sort of game. I could be completely wrong, and the developers may wish to take it in that direction, rather than the more directed, story-driven experience that I enjoy. It's a legitimate tradeoff, but it is a tradeoff.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 09 octobre 2012 - 03:34 .

[Aulis Vaara]

hoorayforicecream, they can always make an exception for one character (which is acceptable), or they can just emphasize the importance of the weapon in the first encounter with the character, or by making it the best weapon you will find for that character for a while. Also, if respeccing has more of a mid game cost range. You wouldn't be able to change weapons soon, but you still could if you really wanted to (which you likely wouldn't want when you just start playing the game, since you don't know what's good yet). Ideally, combine all of them if you want to emphasise the importance of something.

[Alessa]

Nizaris1 wrote...

Of course you may set up to do whatever in DA2, but it is limited. Aveline will NEVER use two handed weapon, Varric will NEVER use daggers, Fenris will NEVER use a shiled, and so on...their potential is limited

In DA:O Leliana may use a shiled, Alistair may use daggers, Zevran may use bow, Morrigan or Wayne may wear armor sword and shield, and so on...their potential are unlimited.

That's exactly the difference. I really hope, they go back somehow to lower limitations in this point.

[hoorayforicecream]

Aulis Vaara wrote...

hoorayforicecream, they can always make an exception for one character (which is acceptable), or they can just emphasize the importance of the weapon in the first encounter with the character, or by making it the best weapon you will find for that character for a while. Also, if respeccing has more of a mid game cost range. You wouldn't be able to change weapons soon, but you still could if you really wanted to (which you likely wouldn't want when you just start playing the game, since you don't know what's good yet). Ideally, combine all of them if you want to emphasise the importance of something.

I never said that they couldn't. I'm just saying that there do exist exceptions when the post that I responded to made it seem like it should be universal. I think that dismissing these exceptions out of hand, or not allowing for them, would be very foolish because it takes away extremely valuable tools the developers use to create memorable and believable characters.

If a character has a core concept that is important to them (Varric's crossbow, Isabela's boots, Shale's crystals, Minsc's hamster, etc.), then I believe that should be respected. It doesn't have to be every character that adheres so strongly to a particular visual or conceptual identity, but we also shouldn't never see them.

I fully support the idea of allowing players to create generic followers/companions to build, dress, and spec out however they wish. If you want to make a dual wielding dwarf rogue, that's fine. You can create whomever you like, but I believe that Varric should remain Varric, Minsc should remain Minsc, and Shale should remain Shale.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

The more customization the better, I say.

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I never said that they couldn't. I'm just saying that there do exist exceptions when the post that I responded to made it seem like it should be universal. I think that dismissing these exceptions out of hand, or not allowing for them, would be very foolish because it takes away extremely valuable tools the developers use to create memorable and believable characters.

It should be universal.  Let us enable it through an .ini tweak or something, if you're worried about the option ruining the game for some people.

If a character has a core concept that is important to them (Varric's crossbow, Isabela's boots, Shale's crystals, Minsc's hamster, etc.), then I believe that should be respected. It doesn't have to be every character that adheres so strongly to a particular visual or conceptual identity, but we also shouldn't never see them.

I agree those sorts of features should be included.  And then the player should be free to ignore them.  Personally, I never used Minsc because I found having Boo in his inventory annoying.  I never used Varric because I couldn't put clothing on him (I could equip the other companions because they weren't dwarves, but the mod I was using didn't work for Varric).

[unbentbuzzkill]

My problem with DA2 was the lack of customization period.

[SafetyShattered]

themikefest wrote...

the one thing that bothered me in DA2 is the lack of customizing armor for the companions
I liked it better in DAO

Same here, but from what I've heard it seems DA3 is more akin to DAO then to DA2 in that regards. Which is great news.

[FINE HERE]

I have a question. If DA:3I did something like the diablo series did for companions, would that be a bad thing? If they had a preset appearance, and it only changed slightly depending on the type of armor you equiped; the stronger and larger the armor, the more that the companion would have on. Would that work?

[Xewaka]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
I disagree. Look at someone like Varric. Varric loves Bianca. He really loves Bianca. He has many lines of dialogue and story beats dedicated to how much he cares about Bianca. Bianca is an integral part of his character. Allowing the player to make Varric a dual dagger-wielding rogue like Isabela while he continues to talk about how much he loves Bianca would instantly kill any sense of immersion for many players. Allowing the player to remove Bianca would severely hamper the ability of the developers to tell Varric's story.
You say that nothing is lost, but I think that you're wrong. There's definitely a tradeoff involved.

It is still a choice in the hands of the player wether or not to remove Bianca from Varric's hands. If you believe it breaks his character to do so, then don't. If another player doesn't think that or doesn't care if giving Varric daggers breaks him, he's able to do so.
Where's the loss?

The player may not realize that equipping Varric with a 2-handed sword will break his story upon meeting him. It is only as the story progresses that the player realizes how important his crossbow is to him. By enforcing the weapon selection for Varric, similar to how Minsc was forced to carry Boo, the game shows how important this is to him. The player knows from the beginning that Bianca is special, just like the player knows from the beginning that Boo is special.

I'd say that big honking "Bianca" specialization tree is already enough indication that Bianca is something special to Varric. As is the fact that he starts with archery points and the crossbow equipped. I might be wrong, but I tend to assume players are smart enough to catch a hint. Again, nudge the player in the desire direction and reward him for doing so (i.e. the ability to use Bianca's specialization tree if they choose to stick with it) rather than slap him in the hand and go "NO!" if they want to try something different.
Again, because apparently you missed it: a tradeoff in the character (such as changing one quickbar slot for a passive bonus) is fine. A strict restriction (not being able to equip anything other than Bianca for nothing) is not.

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Your "choice" only exists if the player knows what he or she is choosing at the time. The loss is for that first playthrough, where the player gets to actually meet and interact with these characters on their terms for the first time. In essence, you wish to allow the players to shoot characterization in the foot without realizing it. I disagree with this approach, because it gives an overall feeling of ridiculousness to the game due to the lack of verisimilitude. It's a very similar reason to why I never got into Skyrim... because any sense of verisimilitude was very easily broken, due to the amount of player freedom allowed.

That sort of freedom is wonderful if the game is focused on it. Skyrim is fine for those who enjoy the go-anywhere, do-anything, whatever you like sort of sandbox. That's perfectly well and good for that type of game. I personally don't think that Dragon Age is that sort of game. I could be completely wrong, and the developers may wish to take it in that direction, rather than the more directed, story-driven experience that I enjoy. It's a legitimate tradeoff, but it is a tradeoff.

I believe you have a different perception of what I'm asking for, because at no point I asked to turn a story-driven party-based pause and play tactical game into a sandbox. What I'm asking for is nothing that wasn't available in earlier games, and that never had its viability questioned until DA2: a higher degree of companion control by the player. You seem to believe that it would somehow damage characterization when past games have proven it not to be the case.

Modifié par Xewaka, 09 octobre 2012 - 06:09 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Xewaka wrote...

What I'm asking for is nothing that wasn't available in earlier games, and that never had its viability questioned until DA2: a higher degree of companion control by the player. You seem to believe that it would somehow damage characterization when past games have proven it not to be the case.

Shale's existence would disagree with your premise.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Shale's existence does not disagree with Xewaka's premise. Alistair and Leliana and Sten and Zevran and Oghren and Morrigan support Xewaka's premise. Where companions were relevantly similar to the PC, the equipment rules that governed them were the same as those that governed the PC.

That went away. That Shale used different rules is not evidence that everyone should. Not all grey things are elephants.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 09 octobre 2012 - 07:21 .

[Orian Tabris]

I NEVER gave Alistair 2-handed weapons or talents, because we already had Sten and Oghren for that, and no sword and shield tank. It makes no sense anyway. I've also never made Zev an Archer and Leli a dual-wield rogue.

BioWare can make lots of decent characters, all with varying roles to feel, so I don't see any need whatsoever to make them customisable in that way. If you don't like a character and would rather have somone else you do like, fill that role, then, well it's your problem if you can't. So I say, "Get over it."

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't think I ever made Leliana an archer. And I did often make Sten an archer, because he made a great archer (and as an archer, his lack of a second specialisation was less of a drawback).

You're welcome to use the characters the way BioWare intended. Just don't make the rest of us do it.