167 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

AresKeith wrote...

But I understand why Bioware and others wanted companions to keep their unique iconic look, hince the middle ground

I don't understand why BioWare wants that.  That's the problem.

I can see why some players might like the characters to maintain their iconic looks, but I don't understand why BioWare would care how we play the game.

[Nightdragon8]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

But I understand why Bioware and others wanted companions to keep their unique iconic look, hince the middle ground

I don't understand why BioWare wants that.  That's the problem.

I can see why some players might like the characters to maintain their iconic looks, but I don't understand why BioWare would care how we play the game.

they save on money on he art and programining department. Also isabella had a unique body so does all Elves now, thats why there are only 2 outfits for each. they didn't have to spent time thus money (because we all know time = money) on getting all the what 20? outfits the game has for each and every character.

[Xerxes52]

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.

This has my vote. I wouldn't mind seeing something like that for the player either (i.e. 3 or 4 base outfits per class, maybe one per specialization as well, though freely switchable at your home camp).

Modifié par Xerxes52, 22 juin 2013 - 07:32 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Nightdragon8 wrote...

they save on money on he art and programining department. Also isabella had a unique body so does all Elves now, thats why there are only 2 outfits for each. they didn't have to spent time thus money (because we all know time = money) on getting all the what 20? outfits the game has for each and every character.

But there are generic elves in the background.  There are human companions.  Drawing a line in the sand and saying that companions must look exactly as they designed them all of the time doesn't make any sense.

Yes, there are any number of reasons to limit customisation, but none to forbid it.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If we're given the choice, there's no need for a middle ground.

There is, because sometimes the system has serious holes. For example, DA2's stat growing armours were not as good as many possible inventory builds. So suddenly this system would have the problem of forcing players to either give up the ideal build, or deal with an apperance they loathe. 

[AresKeith]

Xerxes52 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.

This has my vote. I wouldn't mind seeing something like that for the player either (i.e. 3 or 4 base outfits per class, maybe one per specialization as well, though freely switchable at your home camp).

Would putting armor you find in the game on it change like in the blog?

[Nightdragon8]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Nightdragon8 wrote...

they save on money on he art and programining department. Also isabella had a unique body so does all Elves now, thats why there are only 2 outfits for each. they didn't have to spent time thus money (because we all know time = money) on getting all the what 20? outfits the game has for each and every character.

But there are generic elves in the background.  There are human companions.  Drawing a line in the sand and saying that companions must look exactly as they designed them all of the time doesn't make any sense.

Yes, there are any number of reasons to limit customisation, but none to forbid it.

and thus you have arrived at the answer. "They didn't feel like it"

[Eveangaline]

Nightdragon8 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Nightdragon8 wrote...

they save on money on he art and programining department. Also isabella had a unique body so does all Elves now, thats why there are only 2 outfits for each. they didn't have to spent time thus money (because we all know time = money) on getting all the what 20? outfits the game has for each and every character.

But there are generic elves in the background.  There are human companions.  Drawing a line in the sand and saying that companions must look exactly as they designed them all of the time doesn't make any sense.

Yes, there are any number of reasons to limit customisation, but none to forbid it.

and thus you have arrived at the answer. "They didn't feel like it"

I thought the answer was they didn't have time for it?

[Kerethos]

Dubozz wrote...

 I certainly hope so. Something like this pretty please.

Oh, god not more bdsm "armor" and "jelly boobs"-physics. Please keep that **** away from DA like you keep feeces away from your food. The music is nice though.
Just as a reminder:

Modifié par Kerethos_, 22 juin 2013 - 05:56 .

[Kerethos]

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.

Now that's what I'd like to see too. This is infact the system I'd wish they'd used for DA2 

[AresKeith]

Kerethos_ 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.

Now that's what I'd like to see too. This is infact the system I'd wish they'd used for DA2 

And ME2 

[Xerxes52]

AresKeith wrote...

Xerxes52 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.

This has my vote. I wouldn't mind seeing something like that for the player either (i.e. 3 or 4 base outfits per class, maybe one per specialization as well, though freely switchable at your home camp).

Would putting armor you find in the game on it change like in the blog?

I hope so, if they can fit all the possible permutations onto the disc. I admit that would be tons of work.

If not, then maybe less armor options overall, but every piece is worthwhile?

[AresKeith]

Xerxes52 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Xerxes52 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.

This has my vote. I wouldn't mind seeing something like that for the player either (i.e. 3 or 4 base outfits per class, maybe one per specialization as well, though freely switchable at your home camp).

Would putting armor you find in the game on it change like in the blog?

I hope so, if they can fit all the possible permutations onto the disc. I admit that would be tons of work.

If not, then maybe less armor options overall, but every piece is worthwhile?

I wouldn't mind that personally

[In Exile]

Kerethos_ wrote...
Oh, god not more bdsm "armor" and "jelly boobs"-physics. Please keep that **** away from DA like you keep feeces away from your food. The music is nice though.
Just as a reminder:

Yeah, except for how in an RPG you can turn into a pincushion if you drink enough magic healing potions. Ditto for fire, freezing, being exploded, etc. etc. 

I can't wrap my head around the armour complaints when the RPG mechanics are so absurd when it comes to damage. 

[AresKeith]

Filament wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

But I understand why Bioware and others wanted companions to keep their unique iconic look, hince the middle ground

I don't understand why BioWare wants that.  That's the problem.

It's iconic.

And it makes them stand out as their own character, atleast that's what I got from it

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

There is, because sometimes the system has serious holes. For example, DA2's stat growing armours were not as good as many possible inventory builds. So suddenly this system would have the problem of forcing players to either give up the ideal build, or deal with an apperance they loathe.

That's exactly how PC armour works.  How is that a problem?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 24 juin 2013 - 01:45 .

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...
Yeah, except for how in an RPG you can turn into a pincushion if you drink enough magic healing potions. Ditto for fire, freezing, being exploded, etc. etc. 
I can't wrap my head around the armour complaints when the RPG mechanics are so absurd when it comes to damage. 

Because then the arrows are stuck in the armor, not the flesh.
Hit points are a mechanical abstraction necessary to allow combats to be something other than one-hit-kill battles. It is also cheaper on the animation side than having to create full combat choreographies. Since they're necessary to make the combat work, people tend to gloss over them.
Looks, however, are not constrained by mechanical necessity. Hence people will be more critical of those.

Modifié par Xewaka, 24 juin 2013 - 11:12 .

[AresKeith]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

There is, because sometimes the system has serious holes. For example, DA2's stat growing armours were not as good as many possible inventory builds. So suddenly this system would have the problem of forcing players to either give up the ideal build, or deal with an apperance they loathe.

That's exactly how PC armour works.  How is that a problem?

I guess they want them to stand out more

[AresKeith]

 

[Eveangaline]

AresKeith wrote...

 

Is that still something they're planning to do?

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That's exactly how PC armour works.  How is that a problem?

Because it is? I object to having to choose between aesthetics and stats, when there is a perfectly good workaround available. 

Xewaka wrote...
Because then the arrows are stuck in the armor, not the flesh.

All 5000 of them? That's some surreal armour, protecting you from absolutely all damage, and then immediately leading to unconsciousness one hit later. 

Hit points are a mechanical abstraction necessary to allow combats to be something other than one-hit-kill battles.

They're an absurdity that undermines any attempt at pretending at "realism", because it amounts to one-hit-kills. Take your being stuck in armour example - a literally infinite amount of arrows could lead to absolutely no impairment at all provided enough potions are available to chug.

It is also cheaper on the animation side than having to create full combat choreographies. Since they're necessary to make the combat work, people tend to gloss over them.
Looks, however, are not constrained by mechanical necessity. Hence people will be more critical of those.

They're not neccessary to make combat work - we can easily come up with a set of RPG-like mechanics that far more closely track what realistic combat is like. 

[AresKeith]

Eveangaline wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

 

Is that still something they're planning to do?

Probably, having their appearance change but keep to their unique look

I could work with something like this

[IceHawk-181]

In Exile wrote...
They're not neccessary to make combat work - we can easily come up with a set of RPG-like mechanics that far more closely track what realistic combat is like. 

By all means, enumerate said mechanics.


Considering that in realistic combat a single strike from a broadsword or axe, or someone sending a few volts of electricity through your system = death.

[In Exile]

IceHawk-181 wrote...
By all means, enumerate said mechanics. 

Considering that in realistic combat a single strike from a broadsword or axe, or someone sending a few volts of electricity through your system = death.

So I'm making this up on the spot, as a caveat.

In terms of physical combat, what it takes is changing the animation and the "pools" that you're drawing from. It also requires better hit boxes for differnet parts. In terms of pools, it would be like the way ME2 did enemy health, in layers. 

Firstly, parrying exists. So not every physical blow is death - it has to connect. You can approximate the character's ability to parry via a "stamina" ability. That handles the physical part of combat. The bigger problems are arrows, and the extent to which characters dodge their fatality. Frankly, I think the solution here is magic. 

Going back to the idea of better hit boxes first, I think what Fallout does with having the body segment into general "parts" is an understandable approximation. I disagree with those parts having substantive health pools - so I would favour 1-2 hit KOs of a part when stamina runs out and no recovery for it short of magic - but that's a side point right now. I'd also approximate a destructible armour stat that hangs over each limb; this way you actually get the "realistic" aspect of having covering armour instead of chainmail bikinis. 

The issue of arrows remains.

I would argue that you can introduce mechanics - via items or spells - that effectively overlay another type of protection for arrows (either for a limited time or damage). The same can extend to ideas of damaging spells. 

This also has the effect of illustrating the value of mages. The issue would still be balancing - especially not making mages too strong. Frankly, I would deal with that by actually recognizing what spells could do to someone - like casting a fireball could burn your own hands. I'd make it so that the lore requires esentially for mages to wear flimsly clothing (that lets them cast dmg spells without hurting themselves) that can't lead to protection from physical blows or arrows - so basically glass cannons. 

So like I said - it's all spitballing, but you can actually try and abstract what combat could be like without the absurdity of HP.