270 réponses à ce sujet

[Cancermeat]

My short answer is that i like the party members' interactions better in Dragon Age but i loved the living areas( Omega) better in Mass Effect, they seemed more alive.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

grregg wrote...


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?



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.

Maria Caliban wrote...


You should understand through that I tend to be very focused on companions as not being an extention of the player or PC. For example, I'd be happy if the companions had their own level up/ development scheme and the player's only influence was in-game. (Example: hardening Leliana would have her take the assassin specialization while keeping her as is would open up a 'blessed warrior' specialization.)

Maria Caliban wrote...

There's no need to enforce a companions personality by giving them unique power, clothing, voice actor, side-quests, approval bonuses, or backstory either. There's no *need* for companion personality in the first place, it's simply a desire.

As I desire companion personality, I enjoy it being expressed in a wide range of ways. Unique designs is one of those ways and one I like.

I dunno Grregg, I'd kinda consider posts like that asking for exactly that. Less. Hell why not just make every class in DA;O the same with only 4 interchangable skills like ME2 at that point? I'm sorry but just because one person wants zero control over their companions and needs some unique clothing to help them indentify with said companion, doesn't make it a good idea.

[Onyx Jaguar]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

grregg wrote...


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?



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.

Maria Caliban wrote...


You should understand through that I tend to be very focused on companions as not being an extention of the player or PC. For example, I'd be happy if the companions had their own level up/ development scheme and the player's only influence was in-game. (Example: hardening Leliana would have her take the assassin specialization while keeping her as is would open up a 'blessed warrior' specialization.)

Maria Caliban wrote...

There's no need to enforce a companions personality by giving them unique power, clothing, voice actor, side-quests, approval bonuses, or backstory either. There's no *need* for companion personality in the first place, it's simply a desire.

As I desire companion personality, I enjoy it being expressed in a wide range of ways. Unique designs is one of those ways and one I like.

I dunno Grregg, I'd kinda consider posts like that asking for exactly that. Less. Hell why not just make every class in DA;O the same with only 4 interchangable skills like ME2 at that point? I'm sorry but just because one person wants zero control over their companions and needs some unique clothing to help them indentify with said companion, doesn't make it a good idea.

It doesn't necessarily sound like less.  ME 2 has differentiating armors for each character while DA has different armor types that can be used with any character (with some visual differences depending on race/gender).  Both use palette swaps however, ME 2 in the "alt" outfit and DA with the higher level stuff.  You get quite a few characters in ME 2 with individual clothing, as well as customizable armor for the main character.  In DA you get a character with individual clothing (Morrigan), two others who you can customize their appearance set apart from the others (Dog, Shale) and the rest of the characters utilizing similar armor sets.  The overall difference in design resources is not that far off.

[AngryFrozenWater]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

I dunno Grregg, I'd kinda consider posts like that asking for exactly that. Less. Hell why not just make every class in DA;O the same with only 4 interchangable skills like ME2 at that point? I'm sorry but just because one person wants zero control over their companions and needs some unique clothing to help them indentify with said companion, doesn't make it a good idea.

Yup. I agree with you on that.

[killingsheep24]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Well you sucked at implementing it.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

It doesn't necessarily sound like less.  ME 2 has differentiating armors for each character while DA has different armor types that can be used with any character (with some visual differences depending on race/gender).  Both use palette swaps however, ME 2 in the "alt" outfit and DA with the higher level stuff.  You get quite a few characters in ME 2 with individual clothing, as well as customizable armor for the main character.  In DA you get a character with individual clothing (Morrigan), two others who you can customize their appearance set apart from the others (Dog, Shale) and the rest of the characters utilizing similar armor sets.  The overall difference in design resources is not that far off.

The major difference is with DA:O you have choice, I can choose to put Alistair in massive armor, or studded leather for example or train Morrigan to be an arcane warrior and put her in full plate if I so desire to. Shale being made of rock and being a golem and Dog being well.. a dog, prolly shouldn't even fit into the arguement in the first place. 

 In ME2 its the original outfit, or their  black colored counterpart should you do their loyalty quest,  thats it, period end of choice. Which is a huge contrast from ME1. I have nothing against streamlining elements of a game be it GUI, or controls or what not, I would have had no issues with them possibly scaling back on how many item drops there were in ME1. What did bother me a bit was they didn't do that, they went the entire other end of the spectrum, removed any sort of inventory system at all, removed any sort of reward through the course of the game by finding better equipment aside from a few store bought N7 pieces and a static upgrade system in a game that has very few guns to begin with (2 heavy pistols total for example) and in turn stripped out half of the skills from the first game. There's streamlining and theres gutting, ME2 imo falls far more into the gutting catagory than streamlining.

So when I see someone asking for DA to get the same treatment, that it in some fantasy land would make the game better in any way shape or form, instead of it really  just taking away elements one kinda expects from a fantasy sword and spell crpg, I'm sure going to say I disagree majorly and hope that Mr Gaider and company doesn't view it as something they should do moving forward.

Modifié par CoS Sarah Jinstar, 12 février 2010 - 06:16 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

It doesn't necessarily sound like less.  ME 2 has differentiating armors for each character while DA has different armor types that can be used with any character (with some visual differences depending on race/gender).  Both use palette swaps however, ME 2 in the "alt" outfit and DA with the higher level stuff.  You get quite a few characters in ME 2 with individual clothing, as well as customizable armor for the main character.  In DA you get a character with individual clothing (Morrigan), two others who you can customize their appearance set apart from the others (Dog, Shale) and the rest of the characters utilizing similar armor sets.  The overall difference in design resources is not that far off.

The major difference is with DA:O you have choice, I can choose to put Alistair in massive armor, or studded leather for example or train Morrigan to be an arcane warrior and put her in full plate if I so desire to. Shale being made of rock and being a golem and Dog being well.. a dog, prolly shouldn't even fit into the arguement in the first place. 

 In ME2 its the original outfit, or their  black colored counterpart should you do their loyalty quest,  thats it, period end of choice. Which is a huge contrast from ME1. I have nothing against streamlining elements of a game be it GUI, or controls or what not, I would have had no issues with them possibly scaling back on how many item drops there were in ME1. What did bother me a bit was they didn't do that, they went the entire other end of the spectrum, removed any sort of inventory system at all, removed any sort of reward through the course of the game by finding better equipment aside from a few store bought N7 pieces and a static upgrade system in a game that has very few guns to begin with (2 heavy pistols total for example) and in turn stripped out half of the skills from the first game. There's streamlining and theres gutting, ME2 imo falls far more into the gutting catagory than streamlining.

So when I see someone asking for DA to get the same treatment, that it in some fantasy land would make the game better in any way shape or form, instead of it really  just taking away elements one kinda expects from a fantasy sword and spell crpg, I'm sure going to say I disagree majorly and hope that Mr Gaider and company doesn't view it as something they should do moving forward.

It seems more like a design decision to me.  In the first Mass Effect you had three armor types and the differences between the model makes in each subtype had more to do with color variations than an overall ascetic (with some exceptions).  You had more control over what your squad could look like, but not necessarily variation between what each of the characters looked like together (the human models anyway, the aliens had armor that suited their body types).  The primary problem as I see it with ME 2 is that they tease additional outfits, but they are really just palette swaps.  I was fooled by Miranda's at first because hers looks different, but once I got Garrus's I realized that all of them were really just re-colored skins, no texture work or additional work towards design (which is odd considering Garrus had a different armor texture to start out with).  In DA they give you more freedom to choose, for instance you can make a team look entirely the same if you wanted or you could differentiate, both however in terms of overall variety kind of toss it up there, ME 2 has a variety of looks while DA utilizes its variations in customization.  I'd prefer a combination of both as they've created enough models (enemy variants) in order to do this, but then again I've played too many RPGs variations to predict what the developers would find most feasable during development. 

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 12 février 2010 - 06:41 .

[Maria Caliban]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

I dunno Grregg, I'd kinda consider posts like that asking for exactly that. Less.

Only I wasn't asking for anything. I've asked for *one thing* on this thread. One. People (including yourself) seemed confused as to why I might find that thing desirable and I attempted to explain my thoughts on the matter.

I enjoy talking about my opinions and thoughts. Sometimes I even forget that some see whatever I post as ammunition to use against me. Like, for example, quoting me where I say tactical party-based gameplay has nothing to do with role-playing, but neglecting the part where I say AI isn’t sophisticated enough to handle tactics on DA’s level or where I say that enjoying the wargame aspect of the game is fine.

Hell why not just make every class in DA;O the same with only 4 interchangable skills like ME2 at that point?

Because they have nothing to do with one another. Whether Dragon Age had 20, 60, or 12 skills had nothing to do with the idea that companions should have a unique look. It has nothing to do with how much control the player has over companions.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Maria Caliban wrote...


Only I wasn't asking for anything. I've asked for *one thing* on this thread. One. People (including yourself) seemed confused as to why I might find that thing desirable and I attempted to explain my thoughts on the matter.

I enjoy talking about my opinions and thoughts. Sometimes I even forget that some see whatever I post as ammunition to use against me. Like, for example, quoting me where I say tactical party-based gameplay has nothing to do with role-playing, but neglecting the part where I say AI isn’t sophisticated enough to handle tactics on DA’s level or where I say that enjoying the wargame aspect of the game is fine.

Hell why not just make every class in DA;O the same with only 4 interchangable skills like ME2 at that point?

Because they have nothing to do with one another. Whether Dragon Age had 20, 60, or 12 skills had nothing to do with the idea that companions should have a unique look. It has nothing to do with how much control the player has over companions.

Which you then proceeded to say that you didn't like controling companions, and then tried to compare Pen and Paper role playing where you're obviously playing with a group, as opossed to playing  a single player CRPG.  I'm currently slogging my way through ME2 on insanity and I'll tell ya, if you don't control your team mates, the're dead, because they will run right at a group of enemies rambo style. Where as in DA, I can set some situational tactics, and have a much better chance of not having to directly tell them what to do every 2 seconds.   

Though what I'm really still trying to figure out is how having a unique outfit, is some how better than character defining dialog, quests, or skills or having customization options?

[Nobody Important]

Haven't read any of the posts except the first one. I want to customize companions armor. The one thing that annoyed the hell out of me about me2 was you couldn't customize their armor/clothing. It felt like a JRPG to me I hate JRPGs.

[Mordaedil]

This thread makes me realize just how much I miss NWN.

[grregg]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

(...)

I dunno Grregg, I'd kinda consider posts like that asking for exactly that. Less. Hell why not just make every class in DA;O the same with only 4 interchangable skills like ME2 at that point? I'm sorry but just because one person wants zero control over their companions and needs some unique clothing to help them indentify with said companion, doesn't make it a good idea.

I don't. As far as my understanding goes, Maria listed various features that she considers non-essential for an RPG to be an RPG. That's how I understood her statement that there is no need for these features.

Now, some people might like them to the point that the features become essential, but overall, I would tend to agree with Maria that these features do not an RPG make. In my opinion.

I honestly do not think that number of classes or number of skill levels affects how RPG'y a game is. Heck, The Witcher has one (1) class and I would consider it a pretty good RPG. Fallout (and family) has no classes whatsoever. Et cetera, Et cetera.

Or to put this argument to a thought experiment, if I created a game with 10000 classes, would that be the bestest RPG ever? Somehow I suspect that it would be an unholy mess.

To summarize, I do understand that you like customizing and controlling your companions. Check. Got that. But please understand that there are people that would consider it an optional feature that could very well be traded for something else. And some of these people object to the notion that scrapping companion customization automatically constitutes "dumbing down" and it's punishable by brain death (I'm paraphrasing here).

[highcastle]

Alright, I just skimmed this thread and figured to add in my own two cents. Personally speaking, the less DA:O is like ME2, the happier I'll be. At the end of the day, while the characters in ME2 looked unique, personality-wise they weren't quite as well defined. I'd rather BioWare sink resources into developing their characters than in making their models look all special. At the end of the day, this is a computer game. There are only so many models you're going to see. And at least the faces and features of the characters were unique. I had no trouble distinguishing one character from another. Also...loot is good. Especially in an RPG. Part of the fun is collecting that next awesome piece of armor. When you only have yourself to equip it on, and when you're working in a game that uses multiple armor types (robes, light, medium, heavy, massive), then you're going to miss out. Equipping those cool pieces on companions means you're not losing out on some of the best items in the game even if you're playing a class that wouldn't compliment it.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

grregg wrote...


I don't. As far as my understanding goes, Maria listed various features that she considers non-essential for an RPG to be an RPG. That's how I understood her statement that there is no need for these features.

Now, some people might like them to the point that the features become essential, but overall, I would tend to agree with Maria that these features do not an RPG make. In my opinion.

I honestly do not think that number of classes or number of skill levels affects how RPG'y a game is. Heck, The Witcher has one (1) class and I would consider it a pretty good RPG. Fallout (and family) has no classes whatsoever. Et cetera, Et cetera.

Or to put this argument to a thought experiment, if I created a game with 10000 classes, would that be the bestest RPG ever? Somehow I suspect that it would be an unholy mess.

To summarize, I do understand that you like customizing and controlling your companions. Check. Got that. But please understand that there are people that would consider it an optional feature that could very well be traded for something else. And some of these people object to the notion that scrapping companion customization automatically constitutes "dumbing down" and it's punishable by brain death (I'm paraphrasing here).

Honestly I don't remember ever claiming that the number of skills or classes affects how rpg'y a game is, just that I quite like the vast amount of choice in DA:O far more than the very few choices in ME2.  Really its comparing apples to oranges. The Witcher is a different approach, its for starters not a party based CRPG, CDProject chose to tell a very specific story based on their own created player character. Fallout and Obvilion are the same, the're not party based. Not that theres anything wrong with those titles mind you.

DA is fine the way it is, just like BG/BG2/NWN were fine the way they were. Scrapping elements of customization just because a few people think one outfit would somehow serve some "unique" purpose, more so than actual story elements, quests, dialog, etc, is a downright odd request in the first place. Its like coming out and saying oh hey all these skill trees make it so hard for me to build my team, can you limit it to just a few so I can have an easier time? Oh and while you're at it, make it so I can only control my own character!  That to me is the definition of dumbing down.

[Bio Addict]

I always enjoy Maria's posts and I agree with what she's saying here but as soon as I read what she had to say I knew she was going to get flamed to death by the "ME2 is not a real RPG" crowd.

[grregg]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

(...)

Honestly I don't remember ever claiming that the number of skills or classes affects how rpg'y a game is, just that I quite like the vast amount of choice in DA:O far more than the very few choices in ME2.  Really its comparing apples to oranges. The Witcher is a different approach, its for starters not a party based CRPG, CDProject chose to tell a very specific story based on their own created player character. Fallout and Obvilion are the same, the're not party based. Not that theres anything wrong with those titles mind you.

DA is fine the way it is, just like BG/BG2/NWN were fine the way they were. Scrapping elements of customization just because a few people think one outfit would somehow serve some "unique" purpose, more so than actual story elements, quests, dialog, etc, is a downright odd request in the first place. Its like coming out and saying oh hey all these skill trees make it so hard for me to build my team, can you limit it to just a few so I can have an easier time? Oh and while you're at it, make it so I can only control my own character!  That to me is the definition of dumbing down.

No, you didn't say that, but in your posts (and Abriael_CG I think) I see the conviction that complexity is somehow automatically good. Therefore removing complexity is bad (aka "dumbing down"). And that's not something that I agree with. Complexity (as in more features) is just complexity and whether it is good or bad, it depends on the design of the game.

The topic discussed back and forth in this thread was: would it be worth it to give up some companion customizability to allow making them more unique. I understand that Maria thinks it might be worth it, and I do understand that you (and Abriael_CG) think it is not.

To paraphrase, your position seems to be "DA:O feature set is fine as is, if BioWare can provide more features, they would be most welcome". While mine (and Maria's I think) is "DA:O feature set is alright, but if BioWare is willing to experiment, I can give up some of them in order to gain something else".

I honestly do not see how any of these constitutes "dumbing down".

And to offer a different example and to refer to highcastle's post...

One of the game mechanics that I do not enjoy and would be willing to trade is the loot mechanic. For me it is neither fun, nor realistic and a bit of an immersion breaker. Why does the game forces the Hero of Ferelden to strip dead bodies on the battlefield and make the living selling their possessions is a bit of a mystery. I might want to play a noble hero, or a ruthless anti-hero, but a part-time scrap metal collector and used armor salesman (used once, slightly stained!) is not really on my list of roles to play.

And yet many games, DA:O included, force me to do so. How in the world am I supposed to fit into an armor that I just pulled off from a dead dwarf? Is it made out of lycra? Even if it is, people tend to lose control over their bodily functions when they die, do I really want to wear that pants?

I can assure you that I can handle the complexity there. Managing 500 pounds of junk is what I did in NWN2 and DA:O and countless other RPGs, but since I don't consider it fun, I would be willing to see it go. Is it really "dumbing down" if I just don't like it? Why? Because more features forcing me to click more buttons is automatically smarter?

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

grregg wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

(...)

Honestly I don't remember ever claiming that the number of skills or classes affects how rpg'y a game is, just that I quite like the vast amount of choice in DA:O far more than the very few choices in ME2.  Really its comparing apples to oranges. The Witcher is a different approach, its for starters not a party based CRPG, CDProject chose to tell a very specific story based on their own created player character. Fallout and Obvilion are the same, the're not party based. Not that theres anything wrong with those titles mind you.

DA is fine the way it is, just like BG/BG2/NWN were fine the way they were. Scrapping elements of customization just because a few people think one outfit would somehow serve some "unique" purpose, more so than actual story elements, quests, dialog, etc, is a downright odd request in the first place. Its like coming out and saying oh hey all these skill trees make it so hard for me to build my team, can you limit it to just a few so I can have an easier time? Oh and while you're at it, make it so I can only control my own character!  That to me is the definition of dumbing down.

No, you didn't say that, but in your posts (and Abriael_CG I think) I see the conviction that complexity is somehow automatically good. Therefore removing complexity is bad (aka "dumbing down"). And that's not something that I agree with. Complexity (as in more features) is just complexity and whether it is good or bad, it depends on the design of the game.

The topic discussed back and forth in this thread was: would it be worth it to give up some companion customizability to allow making them more unique. I understand that Maria thinks it might be worth it, and I do understand that you (and Abriael_CG) think it is not.

To paraphrase, your position seems to be "DA:O feature set is fine as is, if BioWare can provide more features, they would be most welcome". While mine (and Maria's I think) is "DA:O feature set is alright, but if BioWare is willing to experiment, I can give up some of them in order to gain something else".

I honestly do not see how any of these constitutes "dumbing down".

And to offer a different example and to refer to highcastle's post...

One of the game mechanics that I do not enjoy and would be willing to trade is the loot mechanic. For me it is neither fun, nor realistic and a bit of an immersion breaker. Why does the game forces the Hero of Ferelden to strip dead bodies on the battlefield and make the living selling their possessions is a bit of a mystery. I might want to play a noble hero, or a ruthless anti-hero, but a part-time scrap metal collector and used armor salesman (used once, slightly stained!) is not really on my list of roles to play.

And yet many games, DA:O included, force me to do so. How in the world am I supposed to fit into an armor that I just pulled off from a dead dwarf? Is it made out of lycra? Even if it is, people tend to lose control over their bodily functions when they die, do I really want to wear that pants?

I can assure you that I can handle the complexity there. Managing 500 pounds of junk is what I did in NWN2 and DA:O and countless other RPGs, but since I don't consider it fun, I would be willing to see it go. Is it really "dumbing down" if I just don't like it? Why? Because more features forcing me to click more buttons is automatically smarter?

I'm still waiting for either Maria or yourself to explain to me how forcing single outfits for companions is somehow this major unique thing over story/dialog/quests etc involving companions thats worth giving up traditional features in a Bioware RPG.

Most people enjoy being rewarded for winning a tough boss fight, or like to feel like their character is getting stronger as they progess in the game, hense new items, armor, weapons etc. This whole debate  has less to do with complexity and more to do with choice in equipment. If its not something you particularly enjoy perhaps western RPG's aren't your cup of tea, I hear most JRPG's don't tend to have alot of gear rewards.

Also thats a pretty humerous reach you're taking there with regards to bodily functions, its a video game. 

[Nomen Mendax]

If its not something you particularly enjoy perhaps western RPG's aren't your cup of tea, I hear most JRPG's don't tend to have alot of gear rewards.

I really don't understand why you and Abriael_CG appear to be so personally affronted with Maria's suggestion that companions have their own unique costumes instead of the same gear as the PC.  I've been playing CRPGs since the Gold Box D&D games and, at least to me, the ability to dress up your companions in the same armour as the PC is not a defining feature.

On balance I prefer the way that this is handled in DA to ME2.  However if DA2's companions had their own costumes I it would hardly ruin the game for me.  Particularly if you could find additional companion specific gear for them so that they could end up with more than one possible set and style of armour.  This needn't be about less choice, it could be about different choices.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

If its not something you particularly enjoy perhaps western RPG's aren't your cup of tea, I hear most JRPG's don't tend to have alot of gear rewards.

I really don't understand why you and Abriael_CG appear to be so personally affronted with Maria's suggestion that companions have their own unique costumes instead of the same gear as the PC.  I've been playing CRPGs since the Gold Box D&D games and, at least to me, the ability to dress up your companions in the same armour as the PC is not a defining feature.

On balance I prefer the way that this is handled in DA to ME2.  However if DA2's companions had their own costumes I it would hardly ruin the game for me.  Particularly if you could find additional companion specific gear for them so that they could end up with more than one possible set and style of armour.  This needn't be about less choice, it could be about different choices.

I'd have no quams with it, IF I still had personal choice to put them in gear that would be more beneficial on the battlefield. The way this would prolly play out should it be implimented though would prolly be similar to how it is in ME2 which gives the player esentially zero choice.

DA:O was said to be a spiritial sucessor to the BG titles, for those of us with fond memories of those games and the mechanics of those games, making a major change like the one suggested would prolly not be the best of ideas in the first place. Trying to force change on a particular style of game in the genre when the're are alternatives that have the features you're looking for, say ME2, or The Witcher as examples,  is hardly fair to those who don't really want said change in the first place.

[grregg]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

(...)

I'm still waiting for either Maria or yourself to explain to me how forcing single outfits for companions is somehow this major unique thing over story/dialog/quests etc involving companions thats worth giving up traditional features in a Bioware RPG.

Most people enjoy being rewarded for winning a tough boss fight, or like to feel like their character is getting stronger as they progess in the game, hense new items, armor, weapons etc. This whole debate  has less to do with complexity and more to do with choice in equipment. If its not something you particularly enjoy perhaps western RPG's aren't your cup of tea, I hear most JRPG's don't tend to have alot of gear rewards.

Also thats a pretty humerous reach you're taking there with regards to bodily functions, its a video game. 

Say no more, an explanation coming right up...

As mentioned before, the trade-off between customizability and uniqueness is caused by limited resources. If I want every companion to have a unique body model and unique animations (body language) and, on top of that, to be able to wear any armor/equipment (aka customizability), then I have to make sure that said armor/equipment works for all the unique models and animations. At the very least that means extra testing. Very likely, it means a significant amount of extra work tweaking and re-doing things to make sure that everything gels. Abriael_CG was dismissive about the amount of work there, but from what I know, it is not negligible.

So given the limited resources, you tend to get either customizable characters with somewhat generic look, or unique characters with limited customization. Fact of life, nothing's free.

As for the loot gameplay, that was just an example to illustrate that disliking a feature is possible for reasons other than being overwhelmed by its complexity.

Detailed discussion of loot is perhaps better left for off-topic, but just to clarify, I do not object to being rewarded with some extraordinary item after a difficult battle. It is pulling underwear off some darkspawn mook that I find... misplaced.

And about bodily functions, I remember RPGs that implemented food mechanics. What goes in has to eventually come out.

[AlanC9]

grregg wrote...

One of the game mechanics that I do not enjoy and would be willing to trade is the loot mechanic. For me it is neither fun, nor realistic and a bit of an immersion breaker. Why does the game forces the Hero of Ferelden to strip dead bodies on the battlefield and make the living selling their possessions is a bit of a mystery. I might want to play a noble hero, or a ruthless anti-hero, but a part-time scrap metal collector and used armor salesman (used once, slightly stained!) is not really on my list of roles to play.

It made even less sense in ME1, of course,. At least in DA:O you're operating on your own most of the time.

I blame D&D for this. The original D&D system didn't allow for meaningful variation between characters except via their item loadouts. So the game became about loot. and that was the easy part of the game to adapt so CRPGs caught the virus. After that we were just kind of stuck with it.

[AngryFrozenWater]

AlanC9 wrote...

grregg wrote...

One of the game mechanics that I do not enjoy and would be willing to trade is the loot mechanic. For me it is neither fun, nor realistic and a bit of an immersion breaker. Why does the game forces the Hero of Ferelden to strip dead bodies on the battlefield and make the living selling their possessions is a bit of a mystery. I might want to play a noble hero, or a ruthless anti-hero, but a part-time scrap metal collector and used armor salesman (used once, slightly stained!) is not really on my list of roles to play.

It made even less sense in ME1, of course,. At least in DA:O you're operating on your own most of the time.

I blame D&D for this. The original D&D system didn't allow for meaningful variation between characters except via their item loadouts. So the game became about loot. and that was the easy part of the game to adapt so CRPGs caught the virus. After that we were just kind of stuck with it.

I don't care who is to blame. The loot system which also allows some customization of the looks of characters by distributing what you'll find would also allow unique items. I rather find uique robes and a hat for Wynne that I can choose to let her wear than to be able to make her an Arcane Warrior and to be forced to have her wear the unique robes and hat. Having her wear robes and a hat doesn't make sense when she is an Arcane Warrior. No matter how unique the robes and hat are. Besides, when one is forced to wear unique items then that makes them less unique. Also, there is less depth, because there is no background to those unique items. You will have them by default. And you will not have them because you had to clear a bandit camp to get them.

Edit: Joke removed.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 12 février 2010 - 10:03 .

[AlanC9]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Limiting freedom is not and can not be a good thing.

Freedom is not a means. It's an end.

That's the thing about freedom -- different people have different definitions of it. I'd like to be free from looting corpses. Maria would like to be free to have her characters have a distinctive look without being penalized for it (you don't take a big hit if you leave Morrigan in her robes, but leaving Leliana in the Chantry outfit she starts in will get her killed a lot). You getting your preferred freedom means that we don't.

Which is OK. I'm actually happy with DA doing what DA does; stereotypical RPG play should have a place, even if it is idiotic in itself. But there are real tradeoffs here. 

[AngryFrozenWater]

AlanC9 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Limiting freedom is not and can not be a good thing.

Freedom is not a means. It's an end.

That's the thing about freedom -- different people have different definitions of it. I'd like to be free from looting corpses. Maria would like to be free to have her characters have a distinctive look without being penalized for it (you don't take a big hit if you leave Morrigan in her robes, but leaving Leliana in the Chantry outfit she starts in will get her killed a lot). You getting your preferred freedom means that we don't.

Which is OK. I'm actually happy with DA doing what DA does; stereotypical RPG play should have a place, even if it is idiotic in itself. But there are real tradeoffs here.

Don't focus on the joke I made. I will remove it straight away. I would rather have that you said something about the contents above that joke.

[Vicious]

It would be great if the models they used to create the in-game characters actually LOOKED like the models without having to get a mod!



compare http://thehetre.vn/g...353-523-513.jpg



vs, say ME2's Miranda Lawson and her real-world model.



http://www.videogame...t-character.jpg



http://www.exposay.c...vals-qfZwQG.jpg





ME2 just did it better. Cmon modellers you can do better! And I know because amateur modelers have made Morrigans that look quite like her real world model!





.... wait. I think I completely misread the topic title.