I noticed that when the Superior Battlemaster Mail was equipped on the Iron Bull, it only changed his torso armor, not the legs/boots.
That was somewhat disappointing, considering the original presentation on equippable companions showed that each armor gave them a unique iconic appearance from their head to their toes.
The piece it replaced was a "Battlemaster Armour" it was just a better version of that.
Well, it is a concern, if you think that the options means that you'll be denied certain things that only some classes will be able to get.
Though I wouldn't worry about that.
That would only add to the replay vallue of the game, really. Zero concerns about that.
But if it is other people, in your stronghold, doing the crafting. As one poster stated here earlier, my particular class shouldn't really matter? Will just have to wait and see, I suppose. Exploration is my main draw towards this game anyway. Looks like something one could spend hours and hours on.
This argument I agree with. The magic adaption of armors for every size, is an almost unrealistic feature. But so is almost all gameplay details. If we go there, we have a long night ahead. In the end there are practical solutions. And you can assume that the armor was just the right size for the particular character you chose to equip.
Are you done with the whole "its not DAO so its wrong" jibberish yet? This system is the compromise between your sort and BIowares insistence on the "Iconic" looks. Hell I think this was some of the first information to come out about DAI YEARS AGO.
We know armor sets will change between who equips them but we have no idea to what extent they will change, if we will be able to make them look like what somebody else wears or how much customization there will be.
And your argument about BioWare controlling the look falls flat on its face if this system is even half of what they are hinting at. It would give far more control to the players how to control the appearance of their character and companions then before.
To reiterate THIS IS THE COMPROMISE between BioWares iconic looks and customization.
1. Why? What is so special about the clothes character wear, to the extent that they have to be swappable with each other?
2. Why is a character's face special? What sets how they look apart from how they dress? The fact that Alistair has blond short hair is or long black hair is irrelevant to the gameplay. The reason I'm involving it is that so far your argument seems to come down to there being something intrinsically special about customizing clothes, because it's not enough if the game gives you a choice of many looks for one character if those looks are swappable between characters.
3. Bioware has control over visual apperance. That's my point: the facial structure/look of every character is visual apperance. They control that. You seem to be OK with them controlling that. Why are clothes special?
What do peoples faces and armor have in common, just because you use the word "appearance" in the different contexts?
One of the points of choosing clothes is to choose appearance, Isn't it? Of course, the clothes also need to serve some practical needs. But isn't that one of the things you do when you dress? Choose appearance?
Also, that a suit of armor changes appearance, takes away the visual identity of that armor.
Both of these issues annoy me. And, please, In Exile, don't build cardhouses of words that are supposed to prove that they shouldn't, or that they're not compatible with other opinons I hold or whatever. If you go down that road, I'm not going to bother trying to explain any longer. Particularly since we haven't played the game yet.
Finally, there's a third issue that annoy me, which I have already mentioned. And that is that this is done in order to give the characters an 'iconic' look. I'm not customizing clothes. Bioware is. For every character. As someone above mentioned, the best way to treat this is probably to assume that they (the characters) changed them to their liking. But I am opposed to the whole notion of designing the game around having 'iconic' appearance for characters. It's not my call, of course, and the decision was made long ago. But I do not agree with it.
Are you done with the whole "its not DAO so its wrong" jibberish yet? This system is the compromise between your sort and BIowares insistence on the "Iconic" looks. Hell I think this was some of the first information to come out about DAI YEARS AGO.
We know armor sets will change between who equips them but we have no idea to what extent they will change, if we will be able to make them look like what somebody else wears or how much customization there will be.
And your argument about BioWare controlling the look falls flat on its face if this system is even half of what they are hinting at. It would give far more control to the players how to control the appearance of their character and companions then before.
To reiterate THIS IS THE COMPROMISE between BioWares iconic looks and customization.
I'm only responding to people posting questions to me, as a part of an argument they have.
In the particular case you for some reason chose to quote, I agreed with the argument that person made. It's a good point.
Bad example, because there's a lot of chemical and physiological science behind flavor. Flavor isn't as much an opinion as people think; it's a survival mechanism, as generally poisonous or toxic foods have naturally bad flavors. It's true you can psychologically condition flavor tolerance and preference in people, that that itself has a founding in science too.
You should have said something like the downfall of Disco. Then I'd be in a checkmate.
Or you can assume that armor is custom fit for each person's body, I've had to get quite a few suits tailored in my days as a Cowboy-Astronaut-President-Millionare and that's with modern industrial standardization, somehow I doubt rigid suits of hand-made metal were all perfectly sized off the shelf. This deduction works for both DA:O's size changes and DA:I's more dramatic changes. In both cases, the "fitting" takes place in an extra-dimensional void known as "Inventory Screen" where time seems to stand still.
On the first paragraph, both my point and purpose seems to have escaped you.
On the second, I agree. This is how it should be embraced. But that is something I've been aware of the whole time. It doesn't make me like it. ...But, we have to play the game first.
Both of these issues annoy me. And, please, In Exile, don't build cardhouses of words that are supposed to prove that they shouldn't, or that they're not compatible with other opinons I hold or whatever. If you go down that road, I'm not going to bother trying to explain any longer. Particularly since we haven't played the game yet.
What do peoples faces and armor have in common, just because you use the word "appearance" in the different contexts?
One of the points of choosing clothes is to choose appearance, Isn't it? Of course, the clothes also need to serve some practical needs. But isn't that one of the things you do when you dress? Choose appearance?
Also, that a suit of armor changes appearance, takes away the visual identity of that armor.
The point of choosing clothes is to choose appearance, sure. If every companion has multiple possible outfits - say, 6 each - then you're choosing their appearance. If these range from "lots of armour" to "very little armour" and vary in style, then you're choosing both their aspect and including a practical element.
So, again, why is it necessary that character X share the same appearance clothing-wise with character Y? This is what you have yet to address.
The reason I bring up - and have brought up - faces repeatedly is that faces are iconic, they're an essential part of how the character looks, but they're purely subjective and players do (often) change them. Just look at all the DA:O mods - tons of new faces for Fenris, Isabella, Morrigan, Anders, etc. Players absolutely want to change how characters look to suit their tastes.
So why are clothes special?
Finally, there's a third issue that annoy me, which I have already mentioned. And that is that this is done in order to give the characters an 'iconic' look. I'm not customizing clothes. Bioware is. For every character. As someone above mentioned, the best way to treat this is probably to assume that they (the characters) changed them to their liking. But I am opposed to the whole notion of designing the game around having 'iconic' appearance for characters. It's not my call, of course, and the decision was made long ago. But I do not agree with it.
So then why aren't you supposed to characters having iconic faces? Why is having two characters share identical-looking clothes special? Why do you need that feature?
Having said that, I have to admit that in my RPG experiences swapping out boots consistently wasn't something that I typically did. Is this a regularly common occurrence for you?
1. My point is that having the choice to pick from a finite set of apperances in DA:O, presumably, is not something you would see as a problem for choice/customization. So if DA:I lets you pick from a finite set of apperances for each character, what's the ground for the objection? That the finite set of apperance choices for Cassandra doesn't overlap with that for Vivene or Sera?
I'm concerned that the range of that finite set will be narrower than it was in DAO. I'm concerned that armour will be class-restricted to avoid the difficulty of putting Vivienne's appearance together with plate armour. Or, perhaps as bad, that Vivienne's appearance will not change appreciably when I equip her with plate armour.
Hey all,
To clear things up. A suite of armor can be modified with separate boots and gloves in our crafting system, that's why you see only one slot, it's all combined. The same goes for weapons where you can change the hilt, blade etc. We'll go into crafting and loot in a lot more depth later on.
-------------------------------------------------
I'm very interested in whether we can swap those things out in the field. If I have a certain set of armour associated with a certain set of boots, can I switch to that same set of armour with different boots, or a different set or armour with the same boots, while walking through a dungeon?
3. Bioware has control over visual apperance. That's my point: the facial structure/look of every character is visual apperance. They control that. You seem to be OK with them controlling that. Why are clothes special?
I'm not okay with that. I change it whenever I think I'll enjoy a different face more.
Lots of people changed Morrigan's face in DAO. I changed Leliana's. Changing Isabela's face in DA2 became the subject of many vitriolic comment threads around here. Changing DA2 elves was quite popular.
Changing the face is something people do.
then figure out how to mod Frostbite and change their armors. problem solved. if past iconic appearances were changed by mods you can always do it the same way again.
I'll just add to this thread that while it was great to be able to customize however you wanted in DAO...I found it very very bland. All the armors looked the same and they had no distinction at all unless you heavily modded the game. Bioware came back in DA2 to remedy this with the iconic looks. I personally would sacrifice customization for iconic looks. I have one good reason for that...if I try to play the game in full real-time, I can get overwhelmed on the battlefield trying to figure out who's who. Iconic looks allows me to establish exactly who that is engaging the Templar. You could say all Bioware games have the pause+play mechanic but in a game like this, I want to enjoy the full visceral combat and the only way to do that is without pausing. It gives a more tactical approach to the game but I want to see a combat system that flows better together. Pausing kills that. I think that kind of distinction is underrated for a player like me. You obviously have other reasons like it fits their personality better. I think Bioware had the right idea with this system in DAI. It sounds like the perfect compromise for me personally.
I'm hoping we see a crafting video soon. This is perhaps the biggest mystery in DAI for me because I read so many details about it but haven't seen anything on it yet. Did they ever confirm the dye system made it into DAI?
I understand we will be able to "craft" different parts of our outfit but my concern would be how much of a pain in the a$$ it will be to craft these pieces & whether it will even be worth doing.. Will we have to repetitively collect 100 small items to make pair of gloves...personally I am not a fan of this since it becomes tedious & I usually give up on collecting items or Another option: will we just be paying an npc to make them...cause that too seems like a waste.. I dont care for this cause could easily find or buy the item & drop the crafting mechanic all together.
Hopefully will find a good balance & crafting system will actually feel like a crafting system (not DA2).
I'm concerned that the range of that finite set will be narrower than it was in DAO. I'm concerned that armour will be class-restricted to avoid the difficulty of putting Vivienne's appearance together with plate armour. Or, perhaps as bad, that Vivienne's appearance will not change appreciably when I equip her with plate armour.
I appreciate your concern: I think that phrased in this way, it's quite legitimate. In DA:O, there were a few armour models, around 8 (as I recall; it's been a long time since I replayed it). There were re-textures. I recall there was an imagine of Viviene floating around which showed a few models - around 6? So the range of possibilities will exist. I think you're right to expect it to be narrower, in the sense that you probably won't see the gamut that DA:O did, but then I think we will have to disagree that an appreciable change is desirable.
In either case, it's a justifiable aesthetic worry.
I'm not okay with that. I change it whenever I think I'll enjoy a different face more.
Lots of people changed Morrigan's face in DAO. I changed Leliana's. Changing Isabela's face in DA2 became the subject of many vitriolic comment threads around here. Changing DA2 elves was quite popular.
Changing the face is something people do.
I don't object to people wanting to change the faces; I just don't think there's a fundamental difference between faces and clothing in terms of either aesthetic preference or customizability.
For whatever reason, I'm not worried about the equipment slots in this game. I think I'll be alright.
For whatever reason, I'm not worried about the equipment slots in this game. I think I'll be alright.
Like wise 
and going off topic for a moment. Cool ying icon from rwby. I see still screen shots of the trailer is already out =D
Like wise
There's at thread for that, conveniently placed in my signature. 
But yeah, I think they'll make up for the equipment in DA2. That was awful, I don't think it's that hard to improve upon.
I appreciate your concern: I think that phrased in this way, it's quite legitimate. In DA:O, there were a few armour models, around 8 (as I recall; it's been a long time since I replayed it). There were re-textures. I recall there was an imagine of Viviene floating around which showed a few models - around 6? So the range of possibilities will exist. I think you're right to expect it to be narrower, in the sense that you probably won't see the gamut that DA:O did, but then I think we will have to disagree that an appreciable change is desirable.
In either case, it's a justifiable aesthetic worry.
If BioWare wanted to assuage these fears, they take that armour that we saw Iron Bull equip, and then instead put it on Sera, and show how much that one suit of armour changed the appearance of two different characters of different classes.
I don't need to put plate armour on Vivienne, but if I can then I know that the game isn't making a special effort to make me abide by class orthodoxy.
There's at thread for that, conveniently placed in my signature.
But yeah, I think they'll make up for the equipment in DA2. That was awful, I don't think it's that hard to improve upon.
I still really enjoy Isabella,Merril and female hawke rogue/mage champion gear. they look really cool ^^ but yeah I know where going at it.. ^^
I hope they don't think adding spikes all over a character's armor is cool.
You mean, don't point out how you're contradicting yourself or being a hypocrite? Maybe I'd avoid doing that if you weren't going around acting as if your preference is some principled stand on behalf of all gamers.
That's entirely you.
So, again, why is it necessary that character X share the same appearance clothing-wise with character Y? This is what you have yet to address.
I never said it was "necessary".
And no. I have told you. "that a suit of armor changes appearance, takes away the visual identity of that armor".
The reason I bring up - and have brought up - faces repeatedly is that faces are iconic, they're an essential part of how the character looks, but they're purely subjective and players do (often) change them. Just look at all the DA:O mods - tons of new faces for Fenris, Isabella, Morrigan, Anders, etc. Players absolutely want to change how characters look to suit their tastes.
So why are clothes special?
Not "special". Clothes and faces are different things. It's selfevident. Dressing is different from plastic surgery. Changing apparel in a game that features that as a gameplay feature and features clothes as ingame items, is different from modding the game.
So then why aren't you supposed to characters having iconic faces? Why is having two characters share identical-looking clothes special? Why do you need that feature?
I'll read that as "opposed".
I never said "I need" that feature. On the contrary, I repeatedly made statements to the effect that it's the whole game that counts in the end, not details.
But I did say that I do not like that particular design approach to the game. And I don't. But we really have to see this in action first, before discussing what might be mostly imaginary details. And we're going to have to, since the decision was taken long ago. It's not like what we say now is going to affect anything. It might not be a big deal. As has been pointed out, clothes/armor always have had to morph in some way.
You have to keep in mind that you and I are vastly different in some ways, of how we play and enjoy these games. I would, for instance, never take a party of four carefully optimized mages to blast through 'Nightmare' level and then complain it wasn't challenging enough. It's totally alien to me. My way of playing these games orbit around settling into the role and world. Immersion. I make an awful lot of choices from and for roleplay reasons, not combat mechanics reasons, I don't care at all about that. And then I stick to that and make do. I get into troubles and then I learn enough to figure a way, given what I have. My characters have to carve a path as best of abilities. I have no problems creating a challenge for me
My ideal rpg, features realism and realistic characters (sic, yes, "realism" in a game featuring magic bla, bla...). I have no desire in having a nuclear-superpower party facing a constant barrage of "Space Invaders". I don't want returning characters. My ideal party could basically be composed of any NPCs. The main requirement should be if they can somehow be motivated to join. And then this little modest party would have to try to make do. Evolve, complement each other and somehow scratch something. The characters of that party would become powerful by experience, and 'iconic' for me, at the end. But not because they looked uniquely 'cool' and had a unique machinegun crossbow when I recruited them.
What I don't want is something akin to Dynasty Warriors.
These are some reasons why 'iconic' looks rub me the wrong way. It seems like a wrong reason, to develop a wRPG from, as from how I want to see the genre evolve. My ideal is more of a software toy, with straightforward relations between objects of all sorts. So clothes will be just clothes, for instance. One of their attributes being the visual appearance.
I'll just add to this thread that while it was great to be able to customize however you wanted in DAO...I found it very very bland. All the armors looked the same and they had no distinction at all unless you heavily modded the game. Bioware came back in DA2 to remedy this with the iconic looks. I personally would sacrifice customization for iconic looks. I have one good reason for that...if I try to play the game in full real-time, I can get overwhelmed on the battlefield trying to figure out who's who. Iconic looks allows me to establish exactly who that is engaging the Templar. You could say all Bioware games have the pause+play mechanic but in a game like this, I want to enjoy the full visceral combat and the only way to do that is without pausing. It gives a more tactical approach to the game but I want to see a combat system that flows better together. Pausing kills that. I think that kind of distinction is underrated for a player like me. You obviously have other reasons like it fits their personality better. I think Bioware had the right idea with this system in DAI. It sounds like the perfect compromise for me personally.
I'm hoping we see a crafting video soon. This is perhaps the biggest mystery in DAI for me because I read so many details about it but haven't seen anything on it yet. Did they ever confirm the dye system made it into DAI?
A thousand times this.
Are you done with the whole "its not DAO so its wrong" jibberish yet? This system is the compromise between your sort and BIowares insistence on the "Iconic" looks. Hell I think this was some of the first information to come out about DAI YEARS AGO.
We know armor sets will change between who equips them but we have no idea to what extent they will change, if we will be able to make them look like what somebody else wears or how much customization there will be.
And your argument about BioWare controlling the look falls flat on its face if this system is even half of what they are hinting at. It would give far more control to the players how to control the appearance of their character and companions then before.
To reiterate THIS IS THE COMPROMISE between BioWares iconic looks and customization.
So compromise between the bad idea of 'iconic looks' and the great idea of fully customisable equipment is to keep the bad idea? Not a deal breaker, but a suit of armour should really look the same on one guy as on another, you aren't going to alter the neckline or length of chainmail without compromising it's protective abilities. Ok we have a suspension of disbelieve about plate fitting people of wildly different builds (tho you would be surprised at how much some types can adjust) but more than that is..jarring. *Goes off to play Fire and Sword some more*
Retour en haut