10 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

I prefer the ME 2 model of unique armor, clothing, and design to the Dragon Age: Origins model of using the same bodies and armors as that of regular NPCs and the PC. Morrigan managed to get her ‘Morrigan specific’ outfit, and I’d have like to see the same for Leliana, Sten, Alistair, etc.

[David Gaider]

There are definitely advantages to having a "set" model for companion characters, that's true. They acquire a unique look that does not need to be made "one size fits all" with the regular armor sets, and thus can look different from everyone else in the game. That makes them more visually interesting. At the same time, there's a drawback with regards to less customization.



I doubt the idea is going to get much support here, since the prevailing opinion is usually "freedom=all" -- but I don't think more interesting-looking companions is necessarily a bad thing, so long as other sorts of customization are allowed elsewhere. It's certainly something to consider.

[David Gaider]

corebit wrote...
Compared to DA:O and even ME1, ME2 companion customization is NON-EXISTENT.

Perhaps, but it doesn't necessarily have to work in the exact same way, either. A set model doesn't have to mean customization is completely removed outside of their look -- and while some people may not like the idea of such a set look all I'm suggesting (as Maria is) is that there are benefits to be had just like there are drawbacks to having companions use generic armor models. Customization is not win/win on all fronts.

[David Gaider]

Abriael_CG wrote...
I'm sorry but this is an entirely flawed argumeng, and given David's response, i dread the possibility of Bioware actually picking up the bait and deciding that putting less effort in companion visual customization like was done in ME2 is might be a good idea, ending up with extremely flat and uncustomizable characters like the ME2 ones.
No thanks Bioware, no need to make an U-turn back into the stone age of RPGs. Visual customization is exactly one of the aspects that western RPGs have in their favor in the comparison with JRPGs, so much that even JRPGs are looking into it lately, in order to catch up. Mass effect was a mass-ive step back. We can only ope it's an isolated case.

"unique appearences" is just an excuse to be lazy and dedicate less resources to development. I'd say encouraging such an attitude is a very bad idea.

Yes, I imagine if we did such a thing there would be people all over the forums throwing themselves on their swords in protest. "You can't take away MY FREEEEDDDOMM!"

I think there is such a thing as having an open mind, however. Far be it for anyone to suggest that there's only one way to do an RPG. Ever. And that's the way it was done back in the good old days, and too many darned kids these days just don't appreciate that! 

[David Gaider]

Abriael_CG wrote...
My mind is very open, and that's why I enjoy both western RPGs and JRPGs more or less equally. That said, there are plenty JRPG developers in Japan. We don't really need Bioware to suddenly start doing the same kind of game, when you're well known and proficent in doing something different (and actually pretty rare in the market nowadays), do we?

You claim your mind is open, but it seems there's no middle ground. If we were to undertake such a feature as set companion models, it would no doubt be because the advantages were worthwhile... and that would not mean all customization and dialogue options immediately vanish. It is not one extreme or the other, with nothing inbetween, much as some people would like to claim.

Honestly, if the definition for a "true RPG" is so narrow that every feature of it must be strictly adhered to simply because it's traditional then I don't think it's a very useful genre.

But it's a theoretical debate. I'm not the lead designer and the decision wouldn't be mine, so I'm not going to start hashing it out here. I think there are plenty of players who like RPG's, however, who would be more than happy to see some changes if it meant some improvements in the game overall -- even if that meant having to endure the mass suicides on the forums.

Modifié par David Gaider, 10 février 2010 - 07:51 .

[David Gaider]

Abriael_CG wrote...
Yanno, people not wanting to encourage a course of action that would probably be damaging to the overall quality of the game doesn't mean that such change would bring "mass suicides".
I don't think anyone here contemplates self-termination due to their lower enjoyment of their favourite franchise, as displeased as they can be.
While i often agree that some complaints on forums tend to go overboard, massive exaggeration in order to dismiss every kind of complain and criticism as exaggerated is getting a tad old as well.

Sorry, I didn't mean you specifically -- some people do go way overboard on their complaints, but you are correct that stating what you would or would not be interested in seeing is perfectly valid. That said, you did rather imply that any direction away from total customization would make it a JRPG. Which I suggest is an exaggeration. There is lots of room for variation in RPG's, although the prevailing viewpoint on forums tends to lean towards the most extreme viewpoints on that fact and is not really representative. But we are well aware of that, just as I'm sure you all are.

[David Gaider]

Abriael_CG wrote...
Sure, there can be a middle ground, but DA doesn't exactly offer an immense wealth of armor models already (expecially in the non-massive armor department), if even less resources would be dedicated to customization in order to give each character their "style" (that is, instead, plenty characterized with dialogue, expressiveness, writing, and such, and yes, you can interpret this as a personal compliment ), there wouldn't be much customizability left.
Now, if Bioware gave each character their initial costume like they did with Morrigan, but still allowed them to wear a wide range of generic armor models, then it would be quite a lot better. But we're talking about putting more resources into it, not less

Consider this: one of the reasons you don't get a lot of variety in the armor models is because they are required to fit all body types. More concentrated use of armor likely means more variation overall.

Also, I'm not sure that anyone is necessarily suggesting that the player character themselves be limited to one type of armor or appearance. All I remember Maria suggesting was that the followers could have such -- and she is correct in her assumption that this would likely work to give them a unique look that distinguished them from the player and from other opponents you'd encounter wearing the same armor.

As I recall, part of the benefit is also that the footprint of a model that doesn't use multiple armor "pieces" is much smaller -- which could potentially allow for more creatures on-screen at one time. Which can certainly add more variety to the combats you face, not to mention the environments the party enters.

All I ever suggested was that there were trade-offs with such a consideration, and it isn't solely a "customization vs. appearance" thing, either. If we were to go down that path (and that's if) that doesn't mean we have to do it the same as a JRPG or Mass Effect, nor do I think anyone was suggesting that we should.

[David Gaider]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Is it a trade off of not having the luxury anymore of long dev cycles now that EA calls the shots? Or is it just a complete 180 in design choices going forward? Because its not really something one would expect from a Bioware game.

That's over-simplifying matters. 5-year development cycles aren't sustainable for any developer in the long term, and aren't necessary once you've got a working engine and existing content.

[David Gaider]

Abriael_CG wrote...
Thankfully. But given that you're working with an existing engine, why changing what works well? Evolution is always a good thing, when it isn't actually involution disguised as evolution. That's what many (me included) associated to the ME2 approach to companion customization (or lack of thereof).
If unique clothing is an addition over what we already have, welcome and thank you
If it means removing the ability to put massive armor on Morrigan (or a morrigan-like character) sending her in close combat wearing courtesan-wear (not that I have anything against courtesan-wear, in the appropriate situations...), then no, I wouldn't be that happy <_<

I imagine not. But I suspect we're going to take Dragon Age in a direction that suits us, regardless of where others think it ought to go. What direction that might be is hard to say, but I doubt we're going to always agree on what works well and what ought to be changed.

[David Gaider]

Let's keep it civil, folks. I think we can all state the sorts of things we'd prefer to see in our RPG's without resorting to snapping at each other or blowing what anyone says out of proportion. I do that myself sometimes, but that's probably because I -- like everyone here -- am very passionate about RPG's. So let's cool our jets a bit, shall we?

[David Gaider]

Abriael_CG wrote...
You simply don't get expressions like the one below in ME2, with many layers of complexity and that perfectly show conflifting feelings

Quite a feat, apparently, since we borrowed their system for our facial expressions.