66 réponses à ce sujet

[Kerad Kralc]

Ambaryerno wrote...

Kerad Kralc wrote...

C'mon man, adjustable armor isn't a whole lot different than flying dragons, and other FANTASY aspects of the game....

I HATE that argument. Biggest cop-out there is in game communities.

I wouldn't consider that a cop-out, just the nature of how games, books, and movies can get away with unrealistic things.  If I can paraphrase CptPatch, we all have our different levels of realism threshold.  Do I dislike or disagree with some of the things in Dragons Age?  Of course, but not enough to post it on a forum, or stop playing the game....

Modifié par Kerad Kralc, 05 janvier 2010 - 12:59 .

[Fragtallity]

CptPatch wrote...

Fragtallity wrote...
 Sure, but arent video games supposed to "escape" from reality? Seriously, if people care too much about the "realism" involved in games, they will ultimately get as dull as real life :S.

To be precise, games (in particular RPGs) are meant to give you an opportunity to experience a different "life".  One where you are more capable than the Real World you.  Where you can experience environments that are totally alien to the real you.  Of course you have the option to mentally "check out".  [You see similar escapism wherever they serve alcohol or dispense recreational drugs.)

Just how immersed you want to become in the fantasy world is entirely up to you.  {Like some people stop after one drink, whereas others aren't "done" until they're passed out on the floor.]  EXCEPT that how immersed you can become is heavily dependent on how "realistic" the game is.  Every time you are forced to invoke your Suspension of Disbelief, the less immersed you become in that fantasy world.  If all you want to do is get all twitchy doing hack-and-slash moments, then any "realtistic" touches are a "waste" to your POV.  But there most definitely are others that would very much like to get lost in Ferelden, being Ser Praiseworthy for an afternoon.  And for them, things like one-size-fits-all and near-infinite carry capacity are jarring reminders that "it's just a game".

Like I said, "Different strokes for different folks."  Your view is not necessarily the "correct" view.

 Well, yes, but by going with your rule, your view isnt necessarily the "correct" view either.

[CptPatch]

Fragtallity wrote...
 Well, yes, but by going with your rule, your view isnt necessarily the "correct" view either.

Ah, yes, but my philosophy is more "inclusive".  Sort of, "We should agree to disagree."  That other philosophy basically says "Your view is incorrect.  Period.  End of story."

[Ulicus]

The game doesn't force you to wear armour you don't think you should be able to equip. Sure, it'd be cool if the game had species/gender applied to an armour's stats (as long as it could be reworked at a smithy) if you like that sort of thing (and I do) but it'd be a real pain if you didn't. And, since I can impose those restrictions myself if I so choose, it's not a huge issue for me that they're not a part of the game proper.

[The Capital Gaultier]

It's a simplification thing. Same reason you can don a suit of armor in a half a moment. Making it more realistic takes time and doesn't really add to the enjoyment of the game.

[CptPatch]

Ulicus wrote...

The game doesn't force you to wear armour you don't think you should be able to equip. Sure, it'd be cool if the game had species/gender applied to an armour's stats (as long as it could be reworked at a smithy) if you like that sort of thing (and I do) but it'd be a real pain if you didn't. And, since I can impose those restrictions myself if I so choose, it's not a huge issue for me that they're not a part of the game proper.

The game actually _does_ use a certain amount of restriction.  Armor and weapons have a Strength (Magic for Arcane Warriors) limitation as to who may or may not use such equipment.  Different classes will tend to buff up certain attributes why neglecting others.  So, though you _could_ build up a Rogue's Strength, because you are busy buffing Cunning and Dexterity, there just wouldn't be much left over for Strength.  Ergo, Rogue's **generally** won't be seen wearing Blood Dragon armor.

Though I tend to argue for "More realism!", I quickly recognize that when it comes to things like armor, the numbers get out of hand _real_ quick.  Like, it may be relatively easy to produce armor specifically for Dwarves, Elves, or Humans.  But then you _could_ also differentiate between male (muy macho!) and female (dainty) physiques.  Then within those categories, further differentiate between S, M, L, XL, and XXL for each gender.  Doing all this just took armor from just a single classification (one-size-fits-all) to _thirty_ classifications.  And that would be just for the armor, which has four components (helm, gloves, boots, chest).  Now factor in that there are over 30 armor sets and you've made the required variety to cover over 3600 armor pieces.

Sooooooo much easier to Keep It Simple S........

[Kerilus]

It is really an interesting phenomenon that people seem to expect a perfect game out of DA:O.

[Ulicus]

CptPatch wrote...

The game actually _does_ use a certain amount of restriction.  Armor and weapons have a Strength (Magic for Arcane Warriors) limitation as to who may or may not use such equipment.  Different classes will tend to buff up certain attributes why neglecting others.  So, though you _could_ build up a Rogue's Strength, because you are busy buffing Cunning and Dexterity, there just wouldn't be much left over for Strength.  Ergo, Rogue's **generally** won't be seen wearing Blood Dragon armor.

I'm not sure how that's really relevant to what I was saying, to be honest. I didn't deny that there were some restrictions, I said that the game doesn't force you to equip armour you don't think you should be able to. It doesn't.

If it bothers you that you can peel armour of a dead dwarf and slap it on your human male... don't do it. I don't equip my non-dwarven characters in the Legion of the Dead armour. *Shrug* That's the only point I was making.

CptPatch wrote...
Though I tend to argue for "More realism!", I quickly recognize that when it comes to things like armor, the numbers get out of hand _real_ quick.  Like, it may be relatively easy to produce armor specifically for Dwarves, Elves, or Humans.  But then you _could_ also differentiate between male (muy macho!) and female (dainty) physiques.  Then within those categories, further differentiate between S, M, L, XL, and XXL for each gender.  Doing all this just took armor from just a single classification (one-size-fits-all) to _thirty_ classifications.  And that would be just for the armor, which has four components (helm, gloves, boots, chest).  Now factor in that there are over 30 armor sets and you've made the required variety to cover over 3600 armor pieces.

Sooooooo much easier to Keep It Simple S........

The numbers only get out of hand really quick if you don't give yourself a sane cutoff point.

No-one was asking for the S, M, L, XL and XXL divide, just the armour models we already have and restrictions slapped on them. I don't think it's necessary, since if you want more restrictions, you can impose them yourself... but I can totally see the appeal. It would be kind of cool if, say, males and non-humans couldn't wear the Warden Commander's armour until they took it to a smithy to get "reworked" (simply changing the restriction from "female human" to whatever new one you wanted). It's really not the choice between two extremes you're making it out to be.

[CptPatch]

I think it's somewhat important to point out that "Dwarven" armor **probably** means "Dwarven-made", as opposed to "made for Dwarves." It's more a comment about craftsmanship as opposed to size. (Especially in light of the fact that _anyone_ is capable of donning Dwarven armor.)



Additional irrelevant point: Re-sizing armor creates a host of problems. Making it smaller requires removing material; making it bigger requires adding material. Armorsmiths in the Middle Ages almost invariably just created a new set from scratch. "Reworking" generally involved adding padding here and there to make a suit fit a smaller person. And then it _pointedly_ did not work as well as it did for the original tenant.

[AntiChri5]

Maric wore Dwarven armour. Whether it was specially made for big peoples is unknown.

[OPlatypusPrime]

Most games do this, its not really surprising.

[Ambaryerno]

There's so much stuff that people take for granted in games like these. I'd LOVE to see one that takes all those little things and beats players over the head with them...



You walk up to a dessicated corpse that's been lying on the floor of a ruin for 500 years, and yet his non-enchanted sword is as sharp as the day it was forged.



You can smash a guy's chest in with a hammer, yet despite the HUGE dent that would have left in that cuirass you can strip him and equip his armor with no penalty to its protection. Not to mention the fact that he could have been eight feet tall and wide as an ox, and you're a Dwarf....



Let's not even get INTO the capability of your character to haul around several hundred if not THOUSANDS of pounds of loot without a pack mule....

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

Sledge454 wrote...

It's no different than having a space marine being able to carry a pistol, shotgun, assault rifle, grenade launcher, and missile launcher.

Least the first three it shows where they are all put in ME, be interesting to see if there is a limit on what we can carry in ME2 but then again... besides the 'main' weapons each character is carrying... the inventory... that is another matter.

Where are our mules carrying all our inventory?

[Fishy]

No .. The weirdest it's to kill someone and than ..Take off his armor and use it..

Knight : WOW look at this armor .. It's better than mine!!
Knight 2: yeah but you just killed him ... and he's dead ... Are you going to steal his armor ... Covered in blood and sweat?Oh and we're in the middle of a fight.
Knight : YEAH MAN!!

*2 sec later*

Knight : TADA!!!
Knight 2 ;; WOW it'S PERFECT!!

Modifié par Suprez30, 05 janvier 2010 - 02:21 .

[bjdbwea]

I would like to have armor be restricted to races or genders. The more realism, the better in my opinion. Maybe a smith could fit the armor so you can wear it, maybe with the risk of damaging it a bit. The better the smith, the more gold it costs, but the better the result? But usually, things are made simpler and easier these days (inventory, ...), so there should really be no surprise that DA didn't implement something like that. To be fair though, I can't remember a PC RPG were you couldn't wear any piece of armor as long as you met the requirements.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 05 janvier 2010 - 02:26 .

[Ambaryerno]

Suprez,



I think I pretty much covered that situation, though without the funny dialog. ;-)

[Ambaryerno]

bj,



In an ideal world, I'm thinking it should work something like this:



1) Armor is restricted by race. Gender wouldn't really matter, because there WOULDN'T be much difference between the armor worn by a woman vs. a man except for the size (this is the case with mail especially, but even plate would have VERY little difference).



2) If you equip just any piece of armor for your race that you find lying around on the ground you're going to suffer movement and fatigue penalties. It may be too big, it may be too small, either way it wasn't made for your frame so it's going to affect your ability to move. You can have an armorer make adjustments for a better fit, but this will only REDUCE the penalties, not eliminate them. This would be a much bigger issue with rigid armors (plate, scale, etc) than it would with mail.



3) If you go to an armorer and commission a suit of armor, you receive a "fitted" set which eliminiates those added penalties.



4) Equipping armor that you strip off an enemy you just killed may impose additional penalties--both to movement (a LOT of armored combat involved denting the armor to restrict your opponent's ability to move the joint) and the armor's effectiveness--due to damage. This damage could be repaired by an armorer to eliminate those penalties. However you'd still suffer the penalty of wearing an ill-fitting suit of armor.

[bjdbwea]

Yeah, that sounds alright. One additional problem with this is though, that the game's still too easy and predictable, rendering penalties more or less meaningless. But the same was true with Fallout 3, but some mods did a great job to increase realism and difficulty.



Of course we'd also need weapons that become damaged and need repairs over time, the use of ammo, and much more, to make DA more realistic and therefore (in my view) more enjoyable.

[Zenon]

You'd need much more gold and backpacks, if you'd have to buy two or more different sets of armour for your party. Ok, perhaps a gender restriction would make sense as they tend to look quite differently apart from the obvious difference in body shape. Concerning size at least humans and elves have similar body size and structure. What would be missing is then dwarf only armour. Qunari could wear human armour perhaps, or they need an XXL human armour maybe.

Anyway: Imagine you'd like to wear the special boss drop armour, just to realize it had the size of an ogre... or the magnificent 2h-warhammer you found weighs 30kg and is too heavy to wield efficiently in combat even by the biggest warrior.

(Edit) Maybe a smith could adjust size or if some spare material is available change armor from male to female version, or from dwarf size to human size... for a price of course. But I guess it doesn't break immersion too much and would just cause you to spend more time in the shops and smithies to get stuff adjusted.

Besides if you want to be picky, you'd probably like to have visible bowstrings, scabbards for swords, weapons strung to the body by leather straps instead of being kind of glued to the back hovering a few inches away from your backs, need for repair of weapons and armour after every other major fight to get the dents out, swords breaking during battle (possibly beyond repair), infectious deseases, tinnitus from dragonroars, blindness from scorched eyes (heh, try to play with a black screen), backproblems from carrying too much stuff, etc. etc. etc. ...

Modifié par Zenon, 05 janvier 2010 - 03:26 .

[CloudOfShadows]

CptPatch wrote...

Fragtallity wrote...
 Well, yes, but by going with your rule, your view isnt necessarily the "correct" view either.

Ah, yes, but my philosophy is more "inclusive".  Sort of, "We should agree to disagree."  That other philosophy basically says "Your view is incorrect.  Period.  End of story."

I'm glad the game follows the 'inclusive' philosophy. If someone feels the need to apply restrictions, based on gender, or size, they can do so. But it does not force this approach on anyone.

Of course, I wonder where those people who want to apply the restrictions will find armor fit for a Quanari. But that's their problem, not really mine.

In short: If you wish for this rule, make it your house rule. And enjoy!

[Ambaryerno]

Zenon,



As I said, if you wanted to take a realistic approach there WOULDN'T be a noticeable difference between male and female armor except in size. That's pure fanservice. Plate armor for a woman would be shaped no differently than if it were made for a man.

[Psython]

Just because its realistic does not make it fun.on a piece of armor would increase my suspension of disbelief. Realism in a fantasy game I really doubt that eating, peeing, bandaging fingers and spending 5 minutes watching the character strap ? Having to go to the armorer to fix my armor after everytime I equip a new piece to get it to work properly just does not sound fun at all. I imagine the novelty would wear off quick.

[Sloth Of Doom]

Psython wrote...

Just because its realistic does not make it fun.on a piece of armor would increase my suspension of disbelief. Realism in a fantasy game I really doubt that eating, peeing, bandaging fingers and spending 5 minutes watching the character strap ? Having to go to the armorer to fix my armor after everytime I equip a new piece to get it to work properly just does not sound fun at all. I imagine the novelty would wear off quick.

Dragon Age:  The Terrors of Wearing Full Plate will be released as an expansion mid-summer for only $120.

Features: 

- Needing at least one other person to assist you in putting on plate.

- Inabity to move at faster than haf your normal walking speed.

- Inability to grasp anything smaller than a sword hilt.

- Difficulties in saying active more than 30 minutes at a time.

- Combat damage can now leave you stuck in your armour until you see a smith!

-  Plate armour for Nugs

[Zenon]

Ambaryerno wrote...

Zenon,

As I said, if you wanted to take a realistic approach there WOULDN'T be a noticeable difference between male and female armor except in size. That's pure fanservice. Plate armor for a woman would be shaped no differently than if it were made for a man.

You gotta be kidding to say female armour would have the same shape as male armour. Well, a chain-shirt should fit both, but if we talk about a breastplate, I'd definitely say no. Besides I think my male hero would look strange wearing Leliana's studded leather shorts and tank-top with cups for boobs. Perhaps Zevran might like that (hehe), but not my human.

Should be possible to put restictions on items with the toolset. But size seems not among them. The obvious size difference could be by making some items dwarf only. I don't know if female only or male only (if because of size or shape doesn't matter) is available by default, but likely can be solved by scripting. I just wander how much more immersion this will offer to me. I think, I can live with the current one-size-fits-all philosophy pretty well. In my imagination the dwarven merchant in my camp gives/exchanges/modifies the items as needed without me extra telling him.

[Zenon]

Sloth Of Doom wrote...

Psython wrote...

Just because its realistic does not make it fun.on a piece of armor would increase my suspension of disbelief. Realism in a fantasy game I really doubt that eating, peeing, bandaging fingers and spending 5 minutes watching the character strap ? Having to go to the armorer to fix my armor after everytime I equip a new piece to get it to work properly just does not sound fun at all. I imagine the novelty would wear off quick.

Dragon Age:  The Terrors of Wearing Full Plate will be released as an expansion mid-summer for only $120.

Features: 

- Needing at least one other person to assist you in putting on plate.

- Inabity to move at faster than half your normal walking speed.

- Inability to grasp anything smaller than a sword hilt.

- Difficulties in saying active more than 30 minutes at a time.

- Combat damage can now leave you stuck in your armour until you see a smith!

-  Plate armour for Nugs

Haha, I like that. But 120$ is too much for the fun. And I'd like full plate for my warhound as well. I also request more healing salve to treat the sore spots where the armor rubs on the skin.

How about a quest, being ambushed by some Darkspawn Assassins while peeing behind a bush and unable to put back armor in time?