27 réponses à ce sujet

[Tokion]

Hawke's party will still be limited to 4. [GameStar Sept 2010 article] NEW

Does this mean we will have "Mission Based" system again in DA2 like in DA:O? You know, rest of your party sitting in the base camp while you and your favourate companions are out having fun?

This system never really appealed to me as being adventurous compared to systems like Baldur's gate because in BG what you recruit is what you have. Also your base camp is much more mobile and different depending on the location.

For those who have read Dragon Age: The Stolen Throne, Maric and Loghain's party travelling down the deep roads was exactly the kind of feel I wish the dev would create. But sadly, travelling down the deep roads in DAO seems to be a drag where a rest or camp system would be appreciated.

Does anyone like the base camp attachment Bioware had put in their games recently?

[Vulee94]

Recently? What about the Copper Coronet in BG2?

[wwwwowwww]

Yes that's what it sounds like, but it also seems to be the standard since BG2.

[Massadonious1]

Eh, base camp is just a convienent place to change party members. It's not like you couldn't go to the Copper Coronet to swawp out for Minsc, Korgan, Yoshimo or Anomen, Tradesmeet for Mazzy, and so on.

[KLUME777]

Its true, they should give the other party members at least something to do in the party camp instead of standing about, like Sten cleaning his sword, Leliana playing her Flute, Morrigan making potion etc....

[Celticon]

I'd like a party a bit bigger than four, but beggars can't be choosers. But what I would like to see is more situations similar to the Battle of Denerim and Mass Effect 2's suicide mission in which you are working with your entire team. You can relegate the rest of the party to support/defense/cover duty while your main character and chosen allies do the main objective. You get to use each party in its respective subunit of the mission.

[gotthammer]

Celticon wrote...

I'd like a party a bit bigger than four, but beggars can't be choosers. But what I would like to see is more situations similar to the Battle of Denerim and Mass Effect 2's suicide mission in which you are working with your entire team. You can relegate the rest of the party to support/defense/cover duty while your main character and chosen allies do the main objective. You get to use each party in its respective subunit of the mission.

I think I'd still prefer being able to bring along EVERYONE I recruited (kinda like increasing the party size in NWN or NWN2 via the console), but still having the benefits of hearing banter or the sort. 

Maybe make party size changeable (via settings or something). And have enemies' numbers 'scale' depending on party size (I always did find the numbers of enemies in DA:O rather few, esp. in the Deep Roads. Having just finished 'The Calling', I was given the impression that, unless you had devices to hide your being a Grey Warden, you'd be hounded every step of the way; instead of small clusters of Darkspawn waiting in rooms or intersections or bends in the paths/tunnels).

I do agree on the point about events like Denerim and the final parts of ME2 and seeing everyone work together. 

Modifié par gotthammer, 04 août 2010 - 08:13 .

[Tokion]

Vulee94 wrote...

Recently? What about the Copper Coronet in BG2?

I don't think the Copper Coronet has the same effect as the base camp established in recent game because:

1. The people in the inn did not earn XP as you travel
2. Party banter will not involve anyone outside your current party
3. Travel time between the inn and your current location makes it inconvenient (an illusion of time wasted in-game anyways)

So naturally, you will feel more detached to the people you don't bring along with you in your adventure. Which is good, because you will feel closer to the ones you have and you will try to find the party make-up that makes everyone happy.

[PendragonV]

Actually, a party of 4 is good as the standard, but at times, it should lend itself to extra slots for tougher bosses or more complex tasks. Also, it gives you the option of developing a team you like and is designed for

Balance - Rogue, Warriors, Mage
Magic - 80% casters
Trickery - 80% rogue types.
Brute - 80% fighters

You get the picture.<_<

Modifié par PendragonV, 04 août 2010 - 08:42 .

[AlanC9]

Of course, the BG system also means thats you're mostly locked into a particular group for the duration of the game. And you can't integrate optional companions into the game unless you do a lot of extra work for alternative paths.

Modifié par AlanC9, 04 août 2010 - 08:44 .

[wwwwowwww]

Well honestly I don't think you should even choose who comes with you, I think they should choose wether or not to come along with you.

I mean why would someone like Alistair(a goody goody guy) want to continue to hang out with me if I'm continually doing things he drastically opposes? Answer: he wouldn't. Why do I take him? Cuz I need a tank.

Obviously that's just an example but I'm sure you know what I mean.

[Andat]

According to the PCG UK preview this month, the other party members go and do their own thing when they're not questing with you. So if one companion has a day job, during the day he'll go and do that job.



How often this will affect who you can have with you, I'm not sure. For example, you have him in your party, you're half way through a quest and his shift starts soon, I guess he won't turn round and say "well, this was fun - gotta go to work now!" and bugger off. However, you might return from a quest thinking you'll take Bob with you but you can't because he's not in the camp right then. Or if you return to your camp with Bob in your party, he might take that as a signal he can go off and do something else. It might even depend on your relationship with that character.



I think it's nice that characters are getting their own lives, even though I might occasionally find it irritating that the character who can cast Super Spell X (which would be really useful right now) is off getting her hair done or whatnot.

[Celticon]

gotthammer wrote...


I think I'd still prefer being able to bring along EVERYONE I recruited (kinda like increasing the party size in NWN or NWN2 via the console), but still having the benefits of hearing banter or the sort. 

Maybe make party size changeable (via settings or something). And have enemies' numbers 'scale' depending on party size (I always did find the numbers of enemies in DA:O rather few, esp. in the Deep Roads. Having just finished 'The Calling', I was given the impression that, unless you had devices to hide your being a Grey Warden, you'd be hounded every step of the way; instead of small clusters of Darkspawn waiting in rooms or intersections or bends in the paths/tunnels).

I do agree on the point about events like Denerim and the final parts of ME2 and seeing everyone work together. 

Ideally I'd like that too.

Except that there's a lot of skeptics who would otherwise claim "OMG it will make the game too easy" without thinking about it. Or those who claim that managing a party bigger than four would be utterly unmanageable for all the knuckledraggers.

After all, difficulty can be readjusted to even things out.

[AlexXIV]

They could fix that easily just by splitting up into teams. Much like the final battle where half your group defends the gate. More of that would make more sense than 4 people risking leg and limp while the rest sit around a campfire and sing songs.

Anyway, I prefered if your party had 5 or 6 members instead of 4, but that's also one thing we have to get used to in 'Age of Consoles' where being adaptable to consoles overrules every other feature of RPGs. I just hope some day someone develops a console that can support RPGs just as much as a PC. Then I'd actually even buy one.

[Andat]

Celticon wrote...

Except that there's a lot of skeptics who would otherwise claim "OMG it will make the game too easy" without thinking about it. Or those who claim that managing a party bigger than four would be utterly unmanageable for all the knuckledraggers.

Have you played Mount & Blade?  150-strong parties FTW!

As far as managing the party, it probably would get a bit tedious fitting 20 guys out with weapons, though maybe they could automatically loot better weapons as they quest.   In battle, they could be grouped into squads, so rather than managing 8 warriors,  5 rogues and 7 mages, I'm managing 2 groups of warriors, a group of rogues and a group of mages.

However, in some of the cramped areas (inside buildings or caves for example) wouldn't a larger party just get in the way?  I mean sometimes in DAO just the party of 4 blocks where I want to walk and I have to kind of nudge them out of the way, so a larger party seems like it would be impossible.

[Celticon]

It's up to the player to decide how many they want to bring. There's crazy people who solo this game, and there's people who think that just 1-2 additional party members would work for them.

[AlexXIV]

Celticon wrote...

It's up to the player to decide how many they want to bring. There's crazy people who solo this game, and there's people who think that just 1-2 additional party members would work for them.

And such who use console commands or mods to go with 5 instead of 3 ...

[Blumbum]

"Party of Five"

Luciano Pavoratti on a treadmill

Not going nowhere slim chance we will

Less hip than Bo Jackson bored like wood

Dick around like Frankie Goes To Hollywood

[Suron]

4 people is too much of a limitation and makes no sense.



if you're going to stick to this idiotic limitation in party size..at LEAST form some kind of REASON why more then half your "companions" are forming a circle-jerk in camp while the world is at stake and only 4 of you are bothered to try to do something about it.

[AlexXIV]

Suron wrote...

4 people is too much of a limitation and makes no sense.

if you're going to stick to this idiotic limitation in party size..at LEAST form some kind of REASON why more then half your "companions" are forming a circle-jerk in camp while the world is at stake and only 4 of you are bothered to try to do something about it.

I honestly think it is a game-mechanic issue. Actually you go there with all your companions, just for game mechanics sake (combat etc.) you only take 3, who represent the full party. But then they should at least let others talk in conversations. What breaks it for me is that at on one hand we should think everyone goes for example down in the deep roads, but then again you miss out of the conversation options of some. So it is a contradiction in itself.

[Foune]

I can't stop thinking about the warden going into a random house with 15 companions beside her/him to deliver a letter from the Blackstone Irregulars to some random farmer who's lended to much money.

[Tokion]

I think the duration of each mission area feels shorter because there are no banter or rest system in between. Like if we are allow to establish our own base camp while we are in a dungeon so our party can rest, then I think the players will feel that the mission actually last longer than a day, thus making it more epic and satisfying when you reach sunlight at the end.

Modifié par Tokion, 04 août 2010 - 02:30 .

[AlanC9]

AlexXIV wrote...
Anyway, I prefered if your party had 5 or 6 members instead of 4, but that's also one thing we have to get used to in 'Age of Consoles' where being adaptable to consoles overrules every other feature of RPGs. I just hope some day someone develops a console that can support RPGs just as much as a PC. Then I'd actually even buy one.

I'm non sure this has that much to do with consoles. NWN2 had a party of 4 most of the time, and the engine was certainly capable of handling more

[andar91]

I think that four party members works pretty well. I've honestly never had a problem with it, and I've played a lot of games with that system (NWN2, DA:O,) and some with less (KOTOR 1/2). They all worked fine.

[Andat]

AlanC9 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
Anyway, I prefered if your party had 5 or 6 members instead of 4, but that's also one thing we have to get used to in 'Age of Consoles' where being adaptable to consoles overrules every other feature of RPGs. I just hope some day someone develops a console that can support RPGs just as much as a PC. Then I'd actually even buy one.

I'm non sure this has that much to do with consoles. NWN2 had a party of 4 most of the time, and the engine was certainly capable of handling more

I think, like was pointed out earlier, that it was all about not allowing you to take every possible character setup in your questing party.  You could have a tank, a rogue and two mages for example.  But even though you have two mages, you can't have a healer and a DPS and a crowd control mage, unless you sacrifice one of your other characters.

If that makes any sense at all....