1536 réponses à ce sujet

[Deviija]

Dakota Strider wrote...
Sooooo......what does that have to do with apples? 

That there needs to be more grapes so that the apples feel loved.

[Dejajeva]

If you don't like the grapples or the apples or the grapes or whatever, go to a new restaurant. I just can't with this analogy anymore...

[Esbatty]

Ooh a one-sided romance. That would be a nice option.

Companion: Alright so I say we can sneak aboard this Qunari Gunship via the-

PC: I love you. Always have. I left you notes and some of my hair.

Companion: WHAT?!?! You were the one putting that in my food? I'm allergic to most inks!

PC: We've been hanging out for like seven years. I've watched you sleep. You snore. Its cute.

Companion: Maker... just no.

[Big I]

Something I'd like for companions is a clear motivation for WHY they're companions.


In DA:O it was clear - the Warden was recruiting people to fight the Blight, and everyone had their own reasons for being there (Morrigan for the Dark Ritual, Leliana for her vision, etc). In DA2 it was a lot less obvious.  I still, for instance, don't know why Aveline left Ferelden with the Hawkes, or why characters you're rivalling (e.g. Anders or Fenris) are willing to help you out (Fenris staying a companion if you decide to have an elven slave is completely WTF). Give us good reasons for why we're adventuring with THESE particular people.


Also, I know that this is unlikely to be an issue for future games, but if companions have lives aside from the main story make it clear what those lives are. In DA2 they never mentioned how Isabella or Merrill actually earned money between acts/quests. Fenris is mentioned as being a mercenary in 1 codex entry and nowhere else, and Anders  may run a free clinic in the sewers but that doesn't explain how he survives day to day. The more information we have the more compelling the character.

[Dejajeva]

I never knew Fenris was a mercenary. Guess I need to start paying more attention to the codex entries, but they are so tedious to go through.

[Big I]

Dejajeva wrote...
I never knew Fenris was a mercenary. Guess I need to start paying more attention to the codex entries, but they are so tedious to go through.

It's in "Fenris - After the Deep Roads".

[Dakota Strider]

I actually thought they did a decent job for backstories in DA2. Probably not as good in DAO.
My opinions on the questions you raised:
-Aveline and her husband were cut off from the decimated army, by the Blight horde. They were just looking to escape with their lives. When her husband died, Aveline had no more ties to Ferelden, and considered the Hawkes adopted family.
-Anders basically was lonely for fellow adventurers, and perhaps he saw in your PC a way to solve his situation with Justice, or perhaps was hoping to use you to help the plight with the mages. And as a former adventurer, I am sure he has enough money hid away, to live off of, especially in the sewers.
-Fenris was waiting for a chance to get back at his old master, he decided he needed allies to use, regardless if he liked you or not. Once the situation with his master is resolved, he has not yet decided what else to do with his life, Besides mercenary work (if he actually did it), he would have the resources of the mansion he took over from his late master, to be able to sell things from.
-Isabella was probably not poor, and she had lots of contacts in the shadier part of town. Plus...she was good at...err mingling with other people. I am sure she had no problem sponging off of others.
-Merrill, lived in the poorest part of town, not sure how much money she really needed...I have to believe she probably went outside her house occassionally, and foraged for roots and berries and such. And its possible she got some charity.
),

[Big I]

Dakota Strider wrote...
I actually thought they did a decent job for backstories in DA2. Probably not as good in DAO.
My opinions on the questions you raised:
-snip-
 

It's entirely possible to imagine both plausible backstories for the characters (e.g. Hawke gives them a cut of the loot from any encounters) and implausible ones (e.g. Merrill is secretly Flemeth) to explain unanswered questions. The point is that we shouldn't have to come up with our own history for these characters, that information should be provided in game.

[Pasquale1234]

LookingGlass93 wrote...
It's entirely possible to imagine both plausible backstories for the characters (e.g. Hawke gives them a cut of the loot from any encounters) and implausible ones (e.g. Merrill is secretly Flemeth) to explain unanswered questions. The point is that we shouldn't have to come up with our own history for these characters, that information should be provided in game.

That's my go-to explanation whenever the story doesn't provide any other visible means of support for other characters.  I just imagine that any loot or coin the protag accumulates is net, after expenses and splitting the spoils with followers.

[Maria Caliban]

I've always assumed Hawke paid her companions when they accompanied her on adventures.

Except Aveline. I'm not sure if that would be seen as bribery or not.

[Melca36]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I've always assumed Hawke paid her companions when they accompanied her on adventures.

Except Aveline. I'm not sure if that would be seen as bribery or not.

Same here. I always thought they divided everything they found/looted too. 

[Big I]

Melca36 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
I've always assumed Hawke paid her companions when they accompanied her on adventures.

Except Aveline. I'm not sure if that would be seen as bribery or not.

Same here. I always thought they divided everything they found/looted too. 

If that was the case I'd have liked it to be explicitly acknowledged in game. As it is, if it is true you get a weird disconnect between story and gameplay. Say I only talk to Anders in his mandatory Act 1 quest and never interact with him again. Are we then to assume that Hawke keeps cutting him in for the spoils for the next 6 years? Does everyone get equal shares in the Deep Road expedition, even if they didn't go on it?

[esper]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
I've always assumed Hawke paid her companions when they accompanied her on adventures.

Except Aveline. I'm not sure if that would be seen as bribery or not.

Same here. I always thought they divided everything they found/looted too. 

If that was the case I'd have liked it to be explicitly acknowledged in game. As it is, if it is true you get a weird disconnect between story and gameplay. Say I only talk to Anders in his mandatory Act 1 quest and never interact with him again. Are we then to assume that Hawke keeps cutting him in for the spoils for the next 6 years? Does everyone get equal shares in the Deep Road expedition, even if they didn't go on it?

Considering that Hawke recruit for example Fenris with the words 'I am planning an expedition into the Deep Road and need help', I always just assumed that Hawke shares her loot in an more and less equal amount with her companions. I don't see why it is needed to be said actually since I put it on the same level as assuming your characther eats and sleeps even if it is not shown. 

[BubbleDncr]

I only read the Bioware comments on this thread, so I'm way behind in the discussion - just wanted to say something that stuck out to me.

I felt very lucky in Origins and DA2 that on my first playthroughs, I romanced Alistair and Anders - in Origins, because of that choice you have to make before the final battle, and in DA2 because of what Anders did.

Zevran and Fenris, I thought made up not being so important to the plot by having the sweeter romance arcs. But I don't think the Alister/Anders important moments would have made such an impact on me if I had romanced those characters in my 2nd playthrough, already knowing what was going to happen.

It makes me wonder if the devs have an idea going in, who the most popular romance option for each gender is going to be, and tailors that character to be the one more important to the plot? It seems like for male players (or anyone into women) that Morrigan and Isabella are the important ones.

Ideally, I would like each love interest to be equally important to the plot - to each have their own, "OMG" moment - an important choice involving them, that has an impact on your ending, or something that happens later in the game. Because that's why I enjoy romance arcs in games - my love interest will always be the most important character in the game for me, so when there's a choice in the game that affects them, or my relationship with them, it's a really emotional experience for me - especially if doing what's best for my love interest isn't what's best for everyone else.

So the more important all the love interests are to the plot, the more likely I am to always get that moment where my jaw drops and I stare at the screen for 10 minutes trying to decide what to do.

[Maria Caliban]

BubbleDncr wrote...

Ideally, I would like each love interest to be equally important to the plot - to each have their own, "OMG" moment - an important choice involving them, that has an impact on your ending, or something that happens later in the game.

I'd like all the companions to be tied to the plot in some way beyond 'follows the PC.' I think Dragon Age II did this better than DA:O.

[Jackel159357]

I hope that they will give proper reasons for characters following around the PC in DA3, in DAO I felt that characters for the most part had good reasons for following the PC and also you had the option to turn away most of them.

One of the worst ones in DA2 was Isabella who after her first quest just asks if she could tag along for a bit, didn't even get the option to say no and had no idea why she wanted to tag along. Merril and your sibling where about the only one who had a believable reason to follow the PC.

[FieryDove]

Jackel159357 wrote...

One of the worst ones in DA2 was Isabella who after her first quest just asks if she could tag along for a bit, didn't even get the option to say no and had no idea why she wanted to tag along. Merril and your sibling where about the only one who had a believable reason to follow the PC.

At least with Izzy you don't even have to talk to her then she never joins. Although not sure why anyone wouldn't but whatever.

Merril on the other hand should have followed the pc to kirkwall then if you told her to... get lost. She should have not joined the party at that point. My first Hawke was anti-blood mage/demon to the max and she would never leave. sigh

But yeah I would like more tie-ins with companions and the story.

[Allan Schumacher]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I'd like all the companions to be tied to the plot in some way beyond 'follows the PC.' I think Dragon Age II did this better than DA:O.

Is there an example you can think of?  My best example is PST, but then the plot for those characters WAS following the PC... so it's not a great example.

[esper]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

I'd like all the companions to be tied to the plot in some way beyond 'follows the PC.' I think Dragon Age II did this better than DA:O.

Is there an example you can think of?  My best example is PST, but then the plot for those characters WAS following the PC... so it's not a great example.

Alistar, Morrigian, Anders, Isabella, Varric, are the best in game examples... Zev to some degree too, but he stops being important the moment he joins which is sort of. Leliana seems to first be plot-important past the game in which she was a companion which is also not good.

Edit. I forgot Sebastian because he is dlc. But he is so tied to Elthina that for a dlc he is good.
Merrill and Fenris is both part of the theme, I guess. But they are not really tied into the plot itself. 
Aveline also have a little to do with the qunari in act 2, even if  Qunari vs. Guards could have been showed better.
Leliana and Sten are not at all deeply plot-tiedin da:o and you can really feel how they are optional companions.

Edit 2. Basically if the companion have no more plot points after they join the team. Something is wrong.

Modifié par esper, 17 avril 2012 - 07:52 .

[Firky]

I thought Sten in DA:O was following the PC but, more importantly, had a pretty convincing reason for it. Like, his purpose had been all turned upside down.

(Also. Liberated Saarebas romance FTW.)

Modifié par Firky, 17 avril 2012 - 07:47 .

[Momiji.mii]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

I'd like all the companions to be tied to the plot in some way beyond 'follows the PC.' I think Dragon Age II did this better than DA:O.

Is there an example you can think of?  My best example is PST, but then the plot for those characters WAS following the PC... so it's not a great example.

I agree with Maria; having a strong connection to the plot is a definite plus.

As for Allan's question, I thought that the companions with the strongest connection to the plot were Alistair and Morrigan in DAO, in that they directly impacted what happened, while in the others felt less influential. In DAII, I felt that pretty much all companions had a strong reason to at least hang around Hawke, although perhaps Fenris and Merril had less direct impact on the main plot than the others, since their conflicts were more of the personal kind.

After playing through DAII a couple of times, I really think that Hawkes siblings were the best addition to the cast. I always bring the surviving sibling with me when playing Legacy and Mark of the Assassin. So I hope that any future DA games might give the PC have the option of bringing family members with him/her as companions as well.

[nightcobra]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

I'd like all the companions to be tied to the plot in some way beyond 'follows the PC.' I think Dragon Age II did this better than DA:O.

Is there an example you can think of?  My best example is PST, but then the plot for those characters WAS following the PC... so it's not a great example.

controlling varric in his embelished storytelling was awesome, however a bit short. 
what i mean is, how about at some points in the game, instead of having the party member talk to us about his/her adventures while they were gone, have us play as them when they do these things for example:
- anders escaping from the wardens and coming onto kirkwall
- isabela's change of heart (or not) as she leaves the city with the qunari book
- carver's or bethany's work with the warden's or life at the templar/circle.
used sparingly could be a nice way to change up a few things.


also dungeons which require the characters to split up, ala final fantasy 6 where you picked a leader for each group and do the dungeon from 2 or more sides.

[Momiji.mii]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

controlling varric in his embelished storytelling was awesome, however a bit short. 
what i mean is, how about at some points in the game, instead of having the party member talk to us about his/her adventures while they were gone, have us play as them when they do these things for example:
- anders escaping from the wardens and coming onto kirkwall
- isabela's change of heart (or not) as she leaves the city with the qunari book
- carver's or bethany's work with the warden's or life at the templar/circle.
used sparingly could be a nice way to change up a few things.


also dungeons which require the characters to split up, ala final fantasy 6 where you picked a leader for each group and do the dungeon from 2 or more sides.

These are both very cool ideas that I also support. Putting the gamer in the companion's shoes might actually be a really neat way of making us relate to them more. I loved Leliana a lot more after playing as her in Lelliana's Song. I felt that I understood her a lot more as a character. It probably wouldn't need to be as long though; a short adventure as the companion in question might go a long way to achieve the player's empathy.

I also remember when I could choose who'd rescue me in DAO. I chose Zev and Sten, and it was awesome. I replayed that part of the game several times, just for fun! So I support similar things as well.