270 réponses à ce sujet

[Abriael_CG]

Bfler wrote...

Sorry for the question but what is a "AAA CRPG"? Do you mean a group based RPG with that?

Btw if somebody here is from Germany next week is release of Drakensang: The River of Time. I think one of the last real RPG-games that bases on pen and paper rules.

Eh, unfortunately as far as i know there's still no release date available for the english version. Which is very painful given how much i liked the first Drakensang, as much as it suffered from the low budget...

AAA means an high-budget, high-quality title, CRPG is the definition of calssic western RPGs a-la Baldur's Gate/Ultima and so forth.

SurfaceBeneath wrote...
No, the extremes are found on these forums. Between the haters and the Tali love threads.

Actually between the extremes there are plenty balanced and well argumented posts that criticize the game for it's many flaws.

Fair
assessments of the game you go to other websites such as Gamespot, IGN.... heck 4chan's /v board when they're not just trolling.

LOL oh my god, this is absolutely hilarious. You named some of the forums where the level of discussion is the lowest in the whole internet and the level of trolling the highest.... interesting.

I'm a personal frequent of Penny-Arcade's forums, which has a very erudite posting base. And on those sites you find absolutely OVERWHELMINGLY positive opinions of the game and consensus that everything that was removed was for good.

Oh, from the frying pan to the fire. The famous forums in which if you're not a wii/nintendo fanboy you're not welcome. I say we have a complete scenario here.

S
Do you not -get- analogies at all? Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 are both ENTIRELY different games from Baldur's Gate and Torment. You cannot compare them directly to one another because they play COMPLETELY
differently. You have to judge games by the merits of their peers, not
games that play nothing alike from one another. You're basically
complaining that Mass Effect isn't a turn based isometric "traditional"
RPG. Or at least that Mass Effect 2 didn't evolve in to one.

Please buy some reading skills.
I made a paralel comparison between Mass effect and Mass effect 2, as opposed to the comparison between Baldur's Gate and Torment.

And yes, Planescape Torment was much more
simplified from Baldur's Gate than Mass Effect 2 was from Mass Effect.

Not really. Torment retains a full fledged RPG system, even if simpler than that in Baldur's gate. There's a full stat system and itemization.

On the other end, Mass Effect 2 basically lost all of the elements that made ME1 an RPG.

And stop saying dumbed down, it's a retarded
vague phrase that only further exemplifies how you are more willing to
argue with rhetoric than examples or facts. I thought about Mass Effect
2 both in and out of the game easily twice as much as I ever did
about Mass Effect. There is not a single arguable point that anything
that was removed from ME1 was actually smarter than its replacement
analogue in ME2 and despite your claim that plenty of posters have made
posts proving so, you've yet to bring one here to counter any point
I've made.

Again, I'm afraid that you stating your very personal opinion and then screaming "I thought it better than you! You can't argue with me! I'm right!" doesn't really make you autimatically right.
Arguments that you stubbornly believe invalid aren't necessarily so just because you persuaded yourself that they are.

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Also, I'm done with this thread. ME2 discussion doesn't belong on this forum, so it should cease.

Abriael_CG,
you've demonstrated yourself as a person of low wit who would rather arrogantly insist your opinion as fact and condescendingly attempted to portray all other opinions as lower and "dumber" than yours. Have fun with that.

And of course when one runs out of arguments, insulting is the next natural step..

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 11 février 2010 - 08:43 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Also, I'm done with this thread. ME2 discussion doesn't belong on this forum, so it should cease.

Abriael_CG, you've demonstrated yourself as a person of low wit who would rather arrogantly insist your opinion as fact and condescendingly attempted to portray all other opinions as lower and "dumber" than yours. Have fun with that.

Stay classy!

[Onyx Jaguar]

I'm totally confused. I read much of these posts under the impression that CRPG was "Console RPG" and wondering wth these games had to do with that. My confusion still lingers however, but blasted I wouldn't bring up older RPG's because most of the customization were pallette swaps, the same exact problem ME 2 has. Gameplay rules notwithstanding those brought up had clearly defined rules that had to be adapted into a game form. ME and Jade Empire took on completely different rules while DA was more of an evolution of some of those ideas. Eh, I completely forgot what I was going to say but I'm pretty sure there is something relevant in this paragraph somewhere.

[RedVisionaire]

I'm not certain how we got into an argument about the technical merits of Mass Effect 2 as an RPG, but I agree with the OP. I'd have liked to have seen character specific armor for all the companions, as opposed to just Morrigan, or at the very least, I'd like it to be uniform.



The fact that Morrigan was the only party member to look unique (well, I guess Sten too) jarred me.

[Abriael_CG]

RedVisionaire wrote...

I'm not certain how we got into an argument about the technical merits of Mass Effect 2 as an RPG, but I agree with the OP. I'd have liked to have seen character specific armor for all the companions, as opposed to just Morrigan, or at the very least, I'd like it to be uniform.
The fact that Morrigan was the only party member to look unique (well, I guess Sten too) jarred me.

The OP doesn't just want character specific armor for the companions like morrigan does (which is all good and lovely as more options are always welcome), she/he wants what they did with Mass Effect 2, an that's the companion wearing such armor for the whole game, glued to their skin, deprieving the player of the option of changing it with something else.

Which is how the argument on the merits of ME2 as an RPG was born.

While I'm very favorable to the inclusion of an additional iconic costume per character, the "give us less options bioware! Please! Options are bad!" argument doesn't really fly with me.

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 11 février 2010 - 09:12 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Stay classy!

Yea....

I really do apologize for that. As much as I try to keep the high road, when I feel a "discussion" has gone awry I just tend to throw myself down the well and start slugging it out for funsies. It's not something I'm proud of, but eh, if I think there's no exchange of ideas, I'd rather exchange insults to help level up my Litany of Curses skill

[DPB]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I'm totally confused. I read much of these posts under the impression that CRPG was "Console RPG" and wondering wth these games had to do with that.

CRPG= Computer RPG

Modifié par dbankier, 11 février 2010 - 10:47 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

dbankier wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I'm totally confused. I read much of these posts under the impression that CRPG was "Console RPG" and wondering wth these games had to do with that.

CRPG= Computer RPG

I always laid out the whole WRPG v JRPG since the differences are more clearly defined, but whatever this thread jumped the shark by the second page.

[grregg]

Abriael_CG wrote...

(...)

Which is how the argument on the merits of ME2 as an RPG was born.

While I'm very favorable to the inclusion of an additional iconic costume per character, the "give us less options bioware! Please! Options are bad!" argument doesn't really fly with me.

Well, I think you should consider that "More BioWare! Please! Options are good!" does not fly very far either.

First, it is arguable whether more options always make for a better game (and this has been the argument going back and forth in this thread), but more importantly, such a call always runs into resource limitations. In essence you're saying "BioWare, get off you lazy bums and give me more (for the same price)". They might be reluctant to listen.

I understood Maria as saying "I am willing to trade companion customizability for their uniqueness." While I personally might not agree, I don't see how such a trade would destroy RPG-ness of a game.

Modifié par grregg, 11 février 2010 - 02:46 .

[DragonDefender]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

 Well David instead of throwing myself on a sword I intend to throw someone else on a sword, that way atleast I can complain about content I do not like still. Besides let the other guy die for his beliefs.

[fchopin]

No, DA:O is fine as is.

[Abriael_CG]

grregg wrote...

Well, I think you should consider that "More BioWare! Please! Options are good!" does not fly very far either.

And in fact it's not what I say, that would be "if you can't give us more, fine, but don't give us less. The game is fine as it is".
Which is quite different.

[Quixal]

You know, Abriael_CG, I agree with you on most of your core points but I have to say your approach makes me almost ashamed to hold those opinions. I can't say your smug condescension is doing your cause any good.

The choice between set costumes and interchangable clothing/armor is not a simple one with a right and wrong answer. In both cases there are trade-offs.

Set costumes allow for varied body types, among other things. I think anyone who has put Wynne in a Chasind robe understands why this would be nice. Set costumes also allow the clothing to reflect the personality of the person wearing it. The outfit in question can be carefully crafted in support of the specific character as yet another way for them to stand out.

Interchangable clothing has the obvious advantage of customizability which goes hand-in-hand with that of the characters themselves. The example of Morrigan being able to wear heavy armor as an arcane warrior is an excellent example. On the other hand, interchangable gear limits everyone in the game to effectively having the exact same body. Again, look to Wynne for reasons why this can be undesirable.

I favor interchangable gear, but the other option is just as viable. In a perfect world with unlimited resources, we could get unique models for each possible type of armor for each companion, but as is, this is not possible.

[grregg]

Abriael_CG wrote...

grregg wrote...

Well, I think you should consider that "More BioWare! Please! Options are good!" does not fly very far either.

And in fact it's not what I say, that would be "if you can't give us more, fine, but don't give us less. The game is fine as it is".
Which is quite different.

Sure, I was mostly trying to illustrate that Maria did not say "give us less". She was merely willing to trade.

I understand that you might like DA:O the way it is, but many people (myself included) would be willing to see some features go, in exchange for something else. I can name several if you're curious.

Moreover, I think people were objecting to you classifying these trade-offs as "dumbing down."

[Abriael_CG]

grregg wrote...
Sure, I was mostly trying to illustrate that Maria did not say "give us less". She was merely willing to trade.
I understand that you might like DA:O the way it is, but many people (myself included) would be willing to see some features go, in exchange for something else. I can name several if you're curious.
Moreover, I think people were objecting to you classifying these trade-offs as "dumbing down."

There's a lot of difference between trading off elements that require more or less the same development effort and have more or less the same objective value, and giving up an element that takes a sizable development effort for one that takes much more, limiting the customization and the replayability value of the game significantly in order to achieve something that can be (and has been) achieved in other ways.

Uniqueness of a character can be easily achieved with proper character design (facial design and hair), expressiveness, body language,  voice acting and storytelling. It's not casual that  beasically every media is moving away from set costume designs and towards a more realistic approach in which characters are multiple outfits. It's more realistic and it makes the character less one-dimentional, while there are plenty other elements for characterization. To put it down simply, having a character wear always the same clothes is a cheapn trick to make it up when the character design is lacking.
Even anime, that have been for ages the very bastion of "unique costumes" are quickly moving away from that stereotype to give characters more dimension.
The funny part is that people that advocate companions having only one costume all the time, think it adds characterization, while in fact it just removes dimension and depth from the character itself, which is actually poor characterization.

Advocating an "unique" outfit for each character simply means encouraging developers to slack off in the other elements of characterization "because she has a yellow jumpsuit, she can be totally average in the rest", and to give us less content, less value for our money, and ultimately less replayability. That's exactly what they did with ME2. They cut off several elements from the game (and several elements that many people appreciated) that could have, given more effort, fit perfectly inthe game, by fixing the flaws they had in ME1. They called it "streamlining", that's what I call "cutting corners" and "dumbing down". points of view I guess. I talk from the point of view of a customer that's receiving less (and less of what he likes, on top of it) for the same cost.

By the way, having different body types doesn't necessarily require only one costume. That's the lazy approach. There are plenty ways to make, engine-wise, the same armor/clothing adapt to different body types.There are plenty examples out there of games with very different bodies in which the characters can wear a very wide array of clothing/armor. White Knight chronicles is one of such examples, but there are others. It can definitely be done, so the "different body types" is not really an argument in favor of single skin-glued costumes.

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 11 février 2010 - 04:27 .

[Merci357]

Quixal wrote...
You know, Abriael_CG, I agree with you on most of your core points but I have to say your approach makes me almost ashamed to hold those opinions. I can't say your smug condescension is doing your cause any good.

That's it. Not that I agree with all points (on- and offtopic, regarding this very thread), but Abriael had quite many valid points, and:

Abriael_CG wrote...
I'm most favorable to characters having ONE (or a few) iconic outfit that makes their look unique. But they should also be able to wear a whole variety of armor if the situation warrants it or if the player so wishes. Best of both worlds.

is a quote from him that condensed an opinion most of us would agree with in a heartbeat, like a best of two worlds. But this overzealousness does more harm then anything, since (and I said that before) we all just care about this very game.

And in fact it's not what I say, that would be "if you can't give us more, fine, but don't give us less. The game is fine as it is".
Which is quite different.

And I say, less is sometimes more. Less armor choices, with more distinctive looks? Why, yes. Less companions, but with more interaction and dialogue? Why, yes, let's see how this flies with Awakening.
Wether we like it or not, Dragon Age will change, with Awakening, with the sequel.

Modifié par Merci357, 11 février 2010 - 04:23 .

[Abriael_CG]

Merci357 wrote...
And I say, less is sometimes more. Less armor choices, with more distinctive looks? Why, yes. Less companions, but with more interaction and dialogue? Why, yes, let's see how this flies with Awakening.
Wether we like it or not, Dragon Age will change, with Awakening, with the sequel.

It depends on what you start from. I would say the number of armor/clothing choices we have now is already quite limited. We have a few different massive armors (not that many) but very few different heavy/cloth/leather options. I'm sure you've seen how many people complained about the lack of variety, which is already quite evident. If you reduce that amount further, it becomes seriously too few.

As for less companions, it really depends. The companions in DA:O are already very flashed out, do we really need less choices to give them even more dialogue? 
Remember that there always have to be a balance stricken between quality and the ability to appease to multiple very different people. How many companions in DA:O you really like? Are there some that you don't like? What if they took out the ones you happen to like and kept the ones you don't?
For instance, despite the fact that the objective quality of companions in DA:O is pretty high across the table there are some that I completely resent due to a simple matter of tastes. I can't stand Zevran, I can't stand Winne, and I can't really bear to go around with Dog. Also, I'm not very much interested in Oghren, despite the fact that his character design is probably the best, quality-wise. Many have widely differing tastes, and can absolutely hate the companions that I like. The reason for having a sizeable number of companions come with the ability to please more people, and give everyone a few options that will appease their tastes.
Having less companions would mean having to characterize them less, because they would be forced to have each companions appease to a wider audience. They would have to carefully avoid extremes, and flatten down everyone across the board.
Say they cut the number of companions in half, some very nice choices become unfeasible. They couldn't have afforded letting you give in to a "darker side" by recruiting Loghain giving up Alistair for instance. Loghain is a fairly niche choice, not many like him, but he's a very nice addition to the game and to it's replayability value overall, because he changes things significantly. If they were to give less overall choices, niche choices like Loghain would have to be nixed.
And strongly characterized not necessarily widely popular choices are what give depth to a game.

Awakening is a different animal here. It's a much shorter venue of the original game, with less content overall. That's why it's an expansion and not a sequel. It's obvious for it to have less of everything.
On the sequel we'll have to see, but I most certainly would be displeased to see them do much "streamlining" (translate: cutting corners) like has been done with ME2.

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 11 février 2010 - 04:57 .

[twincast]

Quixal wrote...

You know, Abriael_CG, I agree with you on most of your core points but I have to say your approach makes me almost ashamed to hold those opinions. I can't say your smug condescension is doing your cause any good.

The choice between set costumes and interchangable clothing/armor is not a simple one with a right and wrong answer. In both cases there are trade-offs.

Set costumes allow for varied body types, among other things. I think anyone who has put Wynne in a Chasind robe understands why this would be nice. Set costumes also allow the clothing to reflect the personality of the person wearing it. The outfit in question can be carefully crafted in support of the specific character as yet another way for them to stand out.

Interchangable clothing has the obvious advantage of customizability which goes hand-in-hand with that of the characters themselves. The example of Morrigan being able to wear heavy armor as an arcane warrior is an excellent example. On the other hand, interchangable gear limits everyone in the game to effectively having the exact same body. Again, look to Wynne for reasons why this can be undesirable.

I favor interchangable gear, but the other option is just as viable. In a perfect world with unlimited resources, we could get unique models for each possible type of armor for each companion, but as is, this is not possible.

100% ditto

The one thing that bothers me most about JRPG's is the usual lack of (visible) armor modifications. By no means do I demand a vast selection, but a handful of outfits per character around the same number as their respective weapons that (like the weapons) all fit the character style-wise and aren't just recolors would be immensely appreciated.

As for Western stuff:
Diablo 1+2, BG 1+2, DA:O - enjoyed hunting for better gear, but hated the limited inventory space (and the save systems in Diablo's case)
KotOR 1+2 - enjoyed hunting for better gear, inventory didn't annoy me IIRC
JE - can't say I really missed gear-hunting; there's enough spec'ing with the styles
ME - didn't enjoy hunting for better gear because of the awful inventory system and the overreliance on slots, which gets tedious over time.
ME2 - in most areas including armor they exchanged quantity with quality, i.e. I love the modular system of the N7 armor, but that everything else got nixed is a major downer. Ideally the N7 options should be doubled and squadmates and DLC armor should have a small amount of customizability as well.

As for DA:O: My problem is not that all the bodies are the same, but that they have ugly oversized hands and feet (when not armored).

However, I'm very much an all or nothing and symmetry above all guy, so that Morrigan is the only one with special outfits kind of irks me. At least Alistair should've gotten them as well (though not the same ones, lol).

So for DA2 I'd love for every party member to start out with a unique look (that doesn't derive too far from the standard body proportions) while keeping standard-sized armor (old and new) numerous and viable.

Modifié par twincast, 11 février 2010 - 04:47 .

[Sabriana]

That only Morrigan is the one with a unique outfit is somewhat logical though. I doubt there are clothing stores in the wilds, so she uses materials at hand and makes her own. All the others are more or less regular people, living in regular towns/cities, getting the usual clothing that's available.

In a sci-fi setting that might differ a lot, because there is a lot of different stuff available through a wide variety of sources.

I do like it that I have the opportunity to manage my PC and her companions in stats and armor/robes. As for being unique, they are unique to my PC. If they are my companions, and accept my PC as their leader, they better let her lead. They will be of little use to her if they are under-armored, and have crappy weapons. If they decline the better armor and better weapon, then they would stay behind. She can't afford to be outgunned (so-to-speak) by the enemy.

[grregg]

Abriael_CG wrote...

(...)

There's a lot of difference between trading off elements that require more or less the same development effort and have more or less the same objective value, and giving up an element that takes a sizable development effort for one that takes much more, limiting the customization and the replayability value of the game significantly in order to achieve something that can be (and has been) achieved in other ways.

Uniqueness of a character can be easily achieved with proper character design (facial design and hair), expressiveness, body language,  voice acting and storytelling. It's not casual that  beasically every media is moving away from set costume designs and towards a more realistic approach in which characters are multiple outfits. It's more realistic and it makes the character less one-dimentional, while there are plenty other elements for characterization. To put it down simply, having a character wear always the same clothes is a cheapn trick to make it up when the character design is lacking.
Even anime, that have been for ages the very bastion of "unique costumes" are quickly moving away from that stereotype to give characters more dimension.
The funny part is that people that advocate companions having only one costume all the time, think it adds characterization, while in fact it just removes dimension and depth from the character itself, which is actually poor characterization.

Advocating an "unique" outfit for each character simply means encouraging developers to slack off in the other elements of characterization "because she has a yellow jumpsuit, she can be totally average in the rest", and to give us less content, less value for our money, and ultimately less replayability. That's exactly what they did with ME2. They cut off several elements from the game (and several elements that many people appreciated) that could have, given more effort, fit perfectly inthe game, by fixing the flaws they had in ME1. They called it "streamlining", that's what I call "cutting corners" and "dumbing down". points of view I guess. I talk from the point of view of a customer that's receiving less (and less of what he likes, on top of it) for the same cost.

By the way, having different body types doesn't necessarily require only one costume. That's the lazy approach. There are plenty ways to make, engine-wise, the same armor/clothing adapt to different body types.There are plenty examples out there of games with very different bodies in which the characters can wear a very wide array of clothing/armor. White Knight chronicles is one of such examples, but there are others. It can definitely be done, so the "different body types" is not really an argument in favor of single skin-glued costumes.

Several things that I disagree with, more or less in order of appearance...

1. Gameplay elements have no objective value. Period. Their value depends entirely on whether you like them or not. Which is obviously subjective. If you have an example to the contrary, I am all ears.

2. Uniqueness of a character is to some degree contrary to the character's customizability. A simple example, you talk about character's body language. I presume that this means unique animations, correct? Well, the more you can customize the character, the more chances you have that some of these animations won't work with the given customization. Of course you can work around most of that, but it requires extra resources. Given limited resources, more customizability generally means less uniqueness.

3. Treating developers, especially developers of a game you say you like, like a bunch of little, lazy kids that will take any opportunity to "slack off" is, in my opinion, impolite. I'd suggest you scratch various instances of "easily", "lazy", "slacking off", etc. Unless you happen to be a game developer and can present a convincing argument that these things really are easy...

4. Keep in mind that we are talking about things that are to a large degree a matter of taste. A lot of your arguments seem to attempt to persuade people that they shouldn't like what they say they like. It's a bit pointless, I think. It's like trying to persuade me that I should like coffee.

[Abriael_CG]

grregg wrote...
1. Gameplay elements have no objective value. Period. Their value depends entirely on whether you like them or not. Which is obviously subjective. If you have an example to the contrary, I am all ears.

Replayability has an objective value. It makes you enjoy the game longer, getting more for what you paid. Customization adds variation, variation adds to replayability.

2. Uniqueness of a character is to some degree contrary to the character's customizability. A simple example, you talk about character's body language. I presume that this means unique animations, correct? Well, the more you can customize the character, the more chances you have that some of these animations won't work with the given customization. Of course you can work around most of that, but it requires extra resources. Given limited resources, more customizability generally means less uniqueness.

This is not necessarily true, mind you, it's actually quite false. Character animation (wether it's frame-by-frame or mocap) is based on a skeleton, more or less complex. Different kinds of equipment are modeled to fit that skeleton. Characterizing body language doesn't necessarily require a more complex skeleton. It simply requires making different animations that still fit that skeleton. If you work on animations for Oblivion you'll notice that quite easily.
Of course making many different animations requires time and resources, but the fact that you have, or not, different equipment doesn't matter, simply because, unless your characters/equipment models are very messy and badly implemented, that equipment will adapt to the skeleton.
Animations are made to work with the skeleton.
Equipement is modeled to work with the skeleton.
Equipment will work with animations.

3. Treating developers, especially developers of a game you say you like, like a bunch of little, lazy kids that will take any opportunity to "slack off" is, in my opinion, impolite. I'd suggest you scratch various instances of "easily", "lazy", "slacking off", etc. Unless you happen to be a game developer and can present a convincing argument that these things really are easy...

Software houses are businesses, mate, expecially software houses that respond to big publishers. No matter if I like them or not, modelers/artists have to respond to leads, leads have to respond to accountants, this means that given a chance to lower their workload and to cut corners, they most likely will, expecially when deadlines are involved. Mass Effect 2 is quite the example of that. The Mako wasn't great? Let's replace it with a boring timesinkish minigame that takes much, much less effort and resources to do. Inventory management was clunky? Why bothering to redesign it in order to solve it's flaws? Just rip it away. The way we made stats is a bit counterintuitive? Why reworking them, let's just give character 4 bars and do away with it. Why people should be able to remove their helmet? Let's just have them drink through it.
Luckily I'm not the only one that sees some major corner-cutting there... I simply wouldn't want to see the same methods applied to DA.

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 11 février 2010 - 06:41 .

[grregg]

Abriael_CG wrote...

grregg wrote...
1. Gameplay elements have no objective value. Period. Their value depends entirely on whether you like them or not. Which is obviously subjective. If you have an example to the contrary, I am all ears.

Replayability has an objective value. It makes you enjoy the game longer, getting more for what you paid. Customization adds variation, variation adds to replayability.

2. Uniqueness of a character is to some degree contrary to the character's customizability. A simple example, you talk about character's body language. I presume that this means unique animations, correct? Well, the more you can customize the character, the more chances you have that some of these animations won't work with the given customization. Of course you can work around most of that, but it requires extra resources. Given limited resources, more customizability generally means less uniqueness.

This is not necessarily true, mind you, it's actually quite false. Character animation (wether it's frame-by-frame or mocap) is based on a skeleton, more or less complex. Different kinds of equipment are modeled to fit that skeleton. Characterizing body language doesn't necessarily require a more complex skeleton. It simply requires making different animations that still fit that skeleton. If you work on animations for Oblivion you'll notice that quite easily.
Of course making many different animations requires time and resources, but the fact that you have, or not, different equipment doesn't matter, simply because, unless your characters/equipment models are very messy and badly implemented, that equipment will adapt to the skeleton.
Animations are made to work with the skeleton.
Equipement is modeled to work with the skeleton.
Equipment will work with animations.

3. Treating developers, especially developers of a game you say you like, like a bunch of little, lazy kids that will take any opportunity to "slack off" is, in my opinion, impolite. I'd suggest you scratch various instances of "easily", "lazy", "slacking off", etc. Unless you happen to be a game developer and can present a convincing argument that these things really are easy...

Software houses are businesses, mate, expecially software houses that respond to big publishers. No matter if I like them or not, modelers/artists have to respond to leads, leads have to respond to accountants, this means that given a chance to lower their workload and to cut corners, they most likely will, expecially when deadlines are involved. Mass Effect 2 is quite the example of that. The Mako wasn't great? Let's replace it with a boring timesinkish minigame that takes much, much less effort and resources to do. Inventory management was clunky? Why bothering to redesign it in order to solve it's flaws? Just rip it away. The way we made stats is a bit counterintuitive? Why reworking them, let's just give character 4 bars and do away with it. Why people should be able to remove their helmet? Let's just have them drink through it.
Luckily I'm not the only one that sees some major corner-cutting there... I simply wouldn't want to see the same methods applied to DA.

If you don't mind I'll coalesce my responses.

1. I do not necessarily agree that replayablity has objective value, but I'll accept that for a moment. Even if it does, whether any given feature adds to replayablity, it depends on whether you like the feature. I do understand that you like customizability and for you it adds to replayability, but that is very subjective.

If I do not enjoy customizing my companions, then what do I care whether it is possible or not. Even if companions are infinitely customizable, it will not add to replayability at all.

In other words, please understand that your preferences are just that, your preferences. As shocking as it might be, other peoples' tastes are different than yours.

2. I would encourage you to tell any professional animator that animations works for all body models/equipment and watch their reaction. Imagine something as simple as a character scratching his nose. Simple, right? Well, not really. Outside of a fact that if you customize their nose, the animation might look weird, even something as simple as putting on a closed helmet will render the animation silly.

If armor models (aka equipment) are something more then just a different body texture, you will run into a lot clipping issues (and the like) trying to apply the same animations to various armors. Of course you can arrive at a set of "safe" animations that works for all models but generally do not look very unique.

3. Game companies are obviously companies. And they obviously have to watch their bottom line. If you think that coming here and insulting them is going to motivate them to greater efforts on your behalf then I suspect you are mistaken. But what do I know, maybe they like being treated like little kids.

Modifié par grregg, 11 février 2010 - 07:19 .

[Abriael_CG]

grregg wrote...
1. I do not necessarily agree that replayablity has objective value, but I'll accept that for a moment. Even if it does, whether any given feature adds to replayablity, it depends on whether you like the feature. I do understand that you like customizability and for you it adds to replayability, but that is very subjective.
If I do not enjoy customizing my companions, then what do I care whether it is possible or not. Even if companions are infinitely customizable, it will not add to replayability at all.
In other words, please understand that your preferences are just that, your preferences. As shocking as it might be, other peoples' tastes are different than yours.

The fact that someone might personally not enjoy a feature, doesn't subtract from the objective value of such feature. Replayability has an objective value because it adds to the time people can enjoy a product for the same price. The fact that some people can't care the less about replaying the game more than once doesn't change that, because many people still enjoy it multiple times.
Customization and variation add to replayability for a whole lot of people, and as such they add value to the game objectively, even if some people might not care about them.
LACK of customization, on the other hand, doesn't add anything to the replayability value of the game. You have some value for many opposed to nothing. hence, the fact that it adds value os objective.

I personally don't care about strawberries. This doesn't mean that strawberries don't have an objective value.

2. I would encourage you to tell any professional animator that animations works for all body models/equipment and watch their reaction. Imagine something as simple as a character scratching his nose. Simple, right? Well, not really. Outside of a fact that if you customize their nose, the animation might look weird, even something as simple as putting on a closed helmet will render the animation silly.
If armor models (aka equipment) are something more then just a different body texture, you will run into a lot clipping issues (and the like) trying to apply the same animations to various armors. Of course you can arrive at a set of "safe" animations that works for all models but generally do not look very unique.

Well, I talk with professional animators and modelers almost on a daily base, that's where I get my info, other than from a not completely negligible personal experience with a wide array of 3D and animation programs. As I said, there are no terrible problems unless the skeleton/animation/equipment is badly made.

The assumption that "safe" animations (which normally means not stretching parts of the body to innatural extremes, which isn't needed to make a creative and characterized set of animations) generally don't look very unique is your assumption, and it's not really reflected in reality. Working with a well made skeleton, there are plenty variations available without causing conflicts, if all the elements are made with a decent degree of compatibility in mind. And everything in a game needs to be developed with compatibility in mind, so it's not like a developer that does that has to go to that terrible extra mile.
A character doesn't need to bend over twice to be characterized.
As of clipping issues, as long as they aren't extremely visible, they're normally considered acceptable by many developers (Bioware included, mind you). Modern games are completely ridden with clipping and it has nothing to do with changeable equipment, as much as simply the fact that the skeleton has limitations.

As for the helm, Bioware already solved the problem by making the helm invisible during cutscenes, that's pretty appropriate. As such helms aren't an issue.

Game companies are obviously companies. And they obviously have to watch their bottom line. If you think that coming here and insulting them is going to motivate them to greater efforts on your behalf then I suspect you are mistaken. But what do I know, maybe they like being treated like little kids.

For sure telling them "please give us less, we have too many options" isn't going to motivate them any more. Quite the contrary. You're free to see criticism as insult if you like. I saw cutting corners in ME2, and I'm not afraid to criticize it. But you seem to be quite keen in putting words in other people's mouths.

On a completely unrelated and slightly humorous note, someone at Bioware must have a thing for grannies, Wynne's back, but in elvish form <_<

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 11 février 2010 - 07:57 .

[grregg]

Abriael_CG wrote...

grregg wrote...
1. I do not necessarily agree that replayablity has objective value, but I'll accept that for a moment. Even if it does, whether any given feature adds to replayablity, it depends on whether you like the feature. I do understand that you like customizability and for you it adds to replayability, but that is very subjective.
If I do not enjoy customizing my companions, then what do I care whether it is possible or not. Even if companions are infinitely customizable, it will not add to replayability at all.
In other words, please understand that your preferences are just that, your preferences. As shocking as it might be, other peoples' tastes are different than yours.

The fact that someone might personally not enjoy a feature, doesn't subtract from the objective value of such feature. Replayability has an objective value because it adds to the time people can enjoy a product for the same price. The fact that some people can't care the less about replaying the game more than once doesn't change that, because many people still enjoy it multiple times.
Customization and variation add to replayability for a whole lot of people, and as such they add value to the game objectively, even if some people might not care about them.
LACK of customization, on the other hand, doesn't add anything to the replayability value of the game. You have some value for many opposed to nothing. hence, the fact that it adds value os objective.

I personally don't care about strawberries. This doesn't mean that strawberries don't have an objective value.

2. I would encourage you to tell any professional animator that animations works for all body models/equipment and watch their reaction. Imagine something as simple as a character scratching his nose. Simple, right? Well, not really. Outside of a fact that if you customize their nose, the animation might look weird, even something as simple as putting on a closed helmet will render the animation silly.
If armor models (aka equipment) are something more then just a different body texture, you will run into a lot clipping issues (and the like) trying to apply the same animations to various armors. Of course you can arrive at a set of "safe" animations that works for all models but generally do not look very unique.

Well, I talk with professional animators and modelers almost on a daily base, that's where I get my info, other than from a not completely negligible personal experience with a wide array of 3D and animation programs. As I said, there are no terrible problems unless the skeleton/animation/equipment is badly made.

The assumption that "safe" animations (which normally means not stretching parts of the body to innatural extremes, which isn't needed to make a creative and characterized set of animations) generally don't look very unique is your assumption, and it's not really reflected in reality. Working with a well made skeleton, there are plenty variations available without causing conflicts, if all the elements are made with a decent degree of compatibility in mind. And everything in a game needs to be developed with compatibility in mind, so it's not like a developer that does that has to go to that terrible extra mile.
A character doesn't need to bend over twice to be characterized.
As of clipping issues, as long as they aren't extremely visible, they're normally considered acceptable by many developers (Bioware included, mind you). Modern games are completely ridden with clipping and it has nothing to do with changeable equipment, as much as simply the fact that the skeleton has limitations.

As for the helm, Bioware already solved the problem by making the helm invisible during cutscenes, that's pretty appropriate. As such helms aren't an issue.

Game companies are obviously companies. And they obviously have to watch their bottom line. If you think that coming here and insulting them is going to motivate them to greater efforts on your behalf then I suspect you are mistaken. But what do I know, maybe they like being treated like little kids.

For sure telling them "please give us less, we have too many options" isn't going to motivate them any more. Quite the contrary. You're free to see criticism as insult if you like. I saw cutting corners in ME2, and I'm not afraid to criticize it. But you seem to be quite keen in putting words in other people's mouths.

On a completely unrelated and slightly humorous note, someone at Bioware must have a thing for grannies, Wynne's back, but in elvish form <_<

I'll coalesce again...

1. What pray tell is the objective value of strawberries? Do you mean market value? If that's what you mean, then please tell me where is the game features' market located and while we're at it what is the current price of companion customization? Or would it be a game futures market?

Again, I do not deny that any given feature might be valuable to you. Or to a number of people. But how does that transform into an objective value?

And again, if I do not care about a feature, any amount of it will not increase replayability, at all. Actually it might decrease the replayability, since the effort put into implementing the feature I don't care about might have came at the expense of features I do like.

As for wanting the lack of customization, as I mentioned before, no one is objecting to having a feature. What Maria was saying is that she is willing to trade. As in, exchange something of lesser value (for her) for something she'd prefer. Surely that's not such a foreign concept?

2. Really? That's what they said? Honestly? I'd really like to talk to them. Or send their contact info to BioWare. I am sure BioWare would love to hire a bunch of animators that don't consider their work to be much effort.

And to adjust my example, imagine that the character is scratching his behind. The gesture does not make much sense if he's wearing plate armor. What are you going to do? Remove his pants?

By the way, these problems are obviously solvable. But solving them requires extra work and given limited resources, something has to give. So you get customizable, less unique characters, or unique, less customizable ones.

3. As far as I can tell, no one said "give us less." I've said that before and I'll keep repeating it until you get it. Maria was willing to trade. Trade. Trade. Repeat after me. Trade.

Now that we got that out of the way, yes, I would consider words like "lazy" or "slacking off" mildly offensive. You wouldn't? If I was looking at your work and use them, how would you react? I do understand that it is a subjective qualification.

[CaptainAlex2000]

Merci357 wrote...
 (well, maybe not "right", but looks more natural in my eyes, smaller hands, smaller breasts), and at least the companions (plus some main NPCs, think Aria)

smaller hands ~  YaY!!

Smaller breasts ~  Boo!!

:happy: