167 réponses à ce sujet

[AresKeith]

garrusfan1 wrote...

they will allow different armor then just one set. also the facial stuff is too much since it takes away their individuality

I wasn't talking about facial stuff, just armor and outfits

[devSin]

jessielou wrote...

Has there been any word on whether http://blog.bioware....acustomization/ is still the plan? I really hope so, it sounds perfect to me.

Nope. I don't think they'll talk about it again until they're ready to show what system they ended up with.

I doubt it will be exactly as it is in the post that David made, but I think we're certain to get some sort of customization (it seemed to be one of the key things that Mike was pushing for, all the way back to the DA2 expansion even).

[AresKeith]

devSin wrote...

jessielou wrote...

Has there been any word on whether http://blog.bioware....acustomization/ is still the plan? I really hope so, it sounds perfect to me.

Nope. I don't think they'll talk about it again until they're ready to show what system they ended up with.

I doubt it will be exactly as it is in the post that David made, but I think we're certain to get some sort of customization (it seemed to be one of the key things that Mike was pushing for, all the way back to the DA2 expansion even).

Can't wait to hear, hopefully it's still the same or atleast similar

[Isaidlunch]

I'm hoping there's an option to keep the companion's "real" outfit. I'm glad we get to upgrade their gear but I'm not interested in playing dress up with their appearance.

[Wolf]

If they end up using the system described in the blog post, it's likely that by endgame the companions look different compared to how they looked when you first met them, although sticking to the same "theme" outfit/armor-wise.

Modifié par Gaiden96, 18 juin 2013 - 11:36 .

[KiwiQuiche]

We can, but only to a limited degree so apparently they'll keep their unique look, but we can modify it a bit.

But I fully endorse this. Ugh, I utterly hated some of the companion's outfits in DA2; I'm looking at you Isabela.

[Eveangaline]

They've said you can. You may even be able to dye the armors.

[AresKeith]

Eveangaline wrote...

They've said you can. You may even be able to dye the armors.

That could be cool, and I could see people making their companions one color 

[TsaiMeLemoni]

AresKeith wrote...

Eveangaline wrote...

They've said you can. You may even be able to dye the armors.

That could be cool, and I could see people making their companions one color 

My team would be an assortment of black and red and we would be the Thunderbolts.

[Plaintiff]

WillPF363 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

WillPF363 wrote...
My point is that this excuse, "...you are playing Hawke, not Anders or Isabela or anyone else, so you aren't entitled to control what they wear."  is a cop out, especially when you can say the same thing for the previous game in the series (that you're playing the warden) but you can still control what equipment your companions use.   But hey, if we're not doing party customization anymore, can we at least limit the loot to things our character can actually use.  It's really annoying picking up armor that nobody in the game can use.

It's not an "excuse". Just because one game has a feature does not mean that its sequel must have that feature.
There are a lot of features that people expect and demand in RPGs that in fact have nothing whatsoever to do with roleplaying.

It is an excuse.  Something like, 'we thought keeping a unique look for the companion characters was more important than controlling their inventory.' is an explanation (and I was under the impression that was the actual reason).

I never said anything about Bioware's reasoning. WHat on Earth gave you the impression that I speak for them?

All I said was that being allowed to control what your companions wear is not and should not be considered a given.

It makes a certain amount of sense even though I don't agree with it.  Saying that you don't get to pick the armor for your companions because Hawke is your character, not the companions, is an excuse, and a bad one at that.

It's a perfectly good explanation, you just don't like it personally.

If that was the case, why do we get to give them new weapons?  Why don't they stick with the generic ones?  Why do we get any choices in allocating their skils and talents? Maybe they should just auto-level.  They're not our characters afterall.

Because the developers decided to let you. Being allowed to control any facet of your companions is a nice extra, not something that should be assumed.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Plaintiff wrote...

Because the developers decided to let you. Being allowed to control any facet of your companions is a nice extra, not something that should be assumed.

It should be assumed if we're to expect any sort of in-world coherence.  The rules that govern one character should govern every other relevantly similar character.

[Chanda]

FaWa wrote...

100% of Bioware Social Network users agree that they only want this so that they can strip down attractive companions.

Heck yeah. I'll be stripping down all the male characters, Varric included. Then I'll get a real good look at that chest hair.

[KiwiQuiche]

FaWa wrote...

100% of Bioware Social Network users agree that they only want this so that they can strip down attractive companions.

Isabela did that well enough without our help.

[Plaintiff]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Because the developers decided to let you. Being allowed to control any facet of your companions is a nice extra, not something that should be assumed.

It should be assumed if we're to expect any sort of in-world coherence.  The rules that govern one character should govern every other relevantly similar character.

On the contrary, giving player control to non-player characters totally destroys any sense of in-world coherence. Being allowed to make personal decisions (such as what to wear) for party members that are supposed to be fully independent, adult individuals, capable of making their own decisions, is nonsense.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 19 juin 2013 - 06:42 .

[KiwiQuiche]

Plaintiff wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Because the developers decided to let you. Being allowed to control any facet of your companions is a nice extra, not something that should be assumed.

It should be assumed if we're to expect any sort of in-world coherence.  The rules that govern one character should govern every other relevantly similar character.

On the contrary, giving player control to non-player characters totally destroys any sense of in-world coherence. Being allowed to make personal decisions (such as what to wear) for party members that are supposed to be fully independent, adult individuals, capable of making their own decisions, is nonsense.

....dude it's a Role-Playing-Game.

[Plaintiff]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Because the developers decided to let you. Being allowed to control any facet of your companions is a nice extra, not something that should be assumed.

It should be assumed if we're to expect any sort of in-world coherence.  The rules that govern one character should govern every other relevantly similar character.

On the contrary, giving player control to non-player characters totally destroys any sense of in-world coherence. Being allowed to make personal decisions (such as what to wear) for party members that are supposed to be fully independent, adult individuals, capable of making their own decisions, is nonsense.

....dude it's a Role-Playing-Game.

Exactly, and you are playing one role, not all of them.

[KiwiQuiche]

Plaintiff wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Because the developers decided to let you. Being allowed to control any facet of your companions is a nice extra, not something that should be assumed.

It should be assumed if we're to expect any sort of in-world coherence.  The rules that govern one character should govern every other relevantly similar character.

On the contrary, giving player control to non-player characters totally destroys any sense of in-world coherence. Being allowed to make personal decisions (such as what to wear) for party members that are supposed to be fully independent, adult individuals, capable of making their own decisions, is nonsense.

....dude it's a Role-Playing-Game.

Exactly, and you are playing one role, not all of them.

Who cares, I want my companions to actually change their clothes at least once during six years.

[Fredward]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Who cares, I want my companions to actually change their clothes at least once during six years.

That'd be cool. As long as they were the ones who made the change.

[KiwiQuiche]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Who cares, I want my companions to actually change their clothes at least once during six years.

That'd be cool. As long as they were the ones who made the change.

I admit, I do love Merrill's wardrobe change if you romance her.<3

[ElitePinecone]

Plaintiff wrote...

On the contrary, giving player control to non-player characters totally destroys any sense of in-world coherence. Being allowed to make personal decisions (such as what to wear) for party members that are supposed to be fully independent, adult individuals, capable of making their own decisions, is nonsense.

How would tactical party combat work, then? If we're keeping a bunch of autonomous individuals around, why can we instantly control (possess?) them in battle or issue orders from the protagonist's perspective that they obey 100% of the time?

Control over party members' gear and combat role is a trope of the genre, and I think it's highly unlikely that this will change any time soon. Sure, there's a dissonance there between the gameplay and narrative, but I'd struggle to find a game that doesn't introduce abstractions or absurdities for the purposes of making a fun and challenging interactive experience with actual gameplay.

If you *actually* had a game with independent, adult individual party members running around who we couldn't control in real time in battle, and couldn't give items to for their use, you wouldn't have a Dragon Age game as I imagine the vast majority of players would define it. 

[Plaintiff]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

On the contrary, giving player control to non-player characters totally destroys any sense of in-world coherence. Being allowed to make personal decisions (such as what to wear) for party members that are supposed to be fully independent, adult individuals, capable of making their own decisions, is nonsense.

How would tactical party combat work, then? If we're keeping a bunch of autonomous individuals around, why can we instantly control (possess?) them in battle or issue orders from the protagonist's perspective that they obey 100% of the time?

Control over party members' gear and combat role is a trope of the genre, and I think it's highly unlikely that this will change any time soon. Sure, there's a dissonance there between the gameplay and narrative, but I'd struggle to find a game that doesn't introduce abstractions or absurdities for the purposes of making a fun and challenging interactive experience with actual gameplay.

If you *actually* had a game with independent, adult individual party members running around who we couldn't control in real time in battle, and couldn't give items to for their use, you wouldn't have a Dragon Age game as I imagine the vast majority of players would define it. 

Okay, there seems to be some confusion: I am not advocating the system I describe. I am not advocating anything.

[Ieldra]

ElitePinecone wrote...
There was a blog about this over a year ago:

http://blog.bioware....acustomization/

Companion customisation is in the game, and it looks pretty neat.

Wow. I was skeptical of the idea when I read about it, but this looks great. I hope companion equipment will work like this in DAI. It appears to be a lot of extra work for the artists.

[Nightdragon8]

Plaintiff wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

On the contrary, giving player control to non-player characters totally destroys any sense of in-world coherence. Being allowed to make personal decisions (such as what to wear) for party members that are supposed to be fully independent, adult individuals, capable of making their own decisions, is nonsense.

How would tactical party combat work, then? If we're keeping a bunch of autonomous individuals around, why can we instantly control (possess?) them in battle or issue orders from the protagonist's perspective that they obey 100% of the time?

Control over party members' gear and combat role is a trope of the genre, and I think it's highly unlikely that this will change any time soon. Sure, there's a dissonance there between the gameplay and narrative, but I'd struggle to find a game that doesn't introduce abstractions or absurdities for the purposes of making a fun and challenging interactive experience with actual gameplay.

If you *actually* had a game with independent, adult individual party members running around who we couldn't control in real time in battle, and couldn't give items to for their use, you wouldn't have a Dragon Age game as I imagine the vast majority of players would define it. 

Okay, there seems to be some confusion: I am not advocating the system I describe. I am not advocating anything.

I think Plantiff was just saying how IRL, you generally wouldn't get this type of option... unless you are dealing with a miltary... where then you have very little choice in the matter, if they want you to wear civies you will wear civies, if you are ordered to you will wear full armor, pack, rifle, basicly fighting gear with X camo pattern. You pretty much do so.

But considering AI's are no wear near advanced enough to make (synergy) sort of choices for you, having full AI control is not fesable yet.

Tho there are some JRPG's trying to do this with combat, from the feel of it, while yes it is "Smoother" the AI does waste alot for little gain.

Have to ask the question tho. If you couldn't change the armor/weapon to whatever "You" want would that not make it an RPG anymore? Granted it would tick off a mark in the "What an RPG is" list but its not that major.

(also by not doing the whole AI decides I think they will be able to lose alot of lines of coding and not have to worry about it screwing up. )

[Sylvius the Mad]

Plaintiff wrote...

On the contrary, giving player control to non-player characters totally destroys any sense of in-world coherence.

They're all player characters.  Everyone in the party is a player character.  The player controls them; they're player characters.

Being allowed to make personal decisions (such as what to wear) for party members that are supposed to be fully independent, adult individuals, capable of making their own decisions, is nonsense.

We get to make personal decisions for the main character.  How is that any different?

Every relevant character in the game is a fully independent adult.  They're all capable of making their own decisions.  In DA2, Hawke made his own decisions.  And Varric made his.  And Merrill made hers..  In DAO, the Warden made his own decisions.  And Alistair made his.  And Morrigan made hers.

What (completely arbitrary) line are you trying to draw?