275 réponses à ce sujet

[Momiji.mii]

I enjoy having variety in the companions, and as others have mentioned, it's really nice to have an Aveline, Bethany or a Kaidan (ok so he's not in DA but I still love him) in the game so you can get some peace of mind and have a reasonable discussion every once in a while. But I do love companions like Anders, Fenris and Carver, because sometimes not agreeing with someone makes for the most memorable conversations. DAO, Awakening and DAII have all really delivered for me when it comes to interaction in gaming.

[Lucy Glitter]

the_one_54321 wrote...
As a rule? 

I don't disagree, but the instability you describe is of circumstance, not of character.


I do not believe it holds that reliable = uninteresting. A couple of the posts above seem to find Varic, ostensibly a fan favorite, to be a very mentally stable character.

Bah, you've misunderstood me. I've misunderstood me, too. Your OP, to me, suggested that you wanted characters that did not have conflict. Hence my original point. And I did mean circumstance, as well. A character who can't handle any situation outwardly and has tantrums with every new plot point is as bad as a character who is unaffected by everything.

What I meant was that a character who doesn't react in any way is boring. Iunno, define emotionally unstable in a time of conflict (again, that's circumstance) because it's a tricky line. To me, at least. Varric, Aragorn, Jacob... they all had their inner conflict. That's what I mean. Varric handled all the shiz going down with humour (my opinion) so in a way that shows that he was reacting. Oh god what am I saying.

Like I said. I am really sick atm, and I can't really put words down properly. I am excusing myself.

(Aerith was really boring. Sorry.)

edit: Pants, this is not an opportunity for you to link me a wikipedia article. I know you will be all over this with your... links... 

Modifié par Lucy_Glitter, 10 avril 2012 - 10:15 .

[Wulfram]

I'm not really sure what it says about Hawke that the saner members of the party were the ones that weren't interested in a romance with them.

[Arthur Cousland]

Wulfram wrote...

I'm not really sure what it says about Hawke that the saner members of the party were the ones that weren't interested in a romance with them.

They saw what happened to Hawke's family and didn't want to be next, as everyone close to Hawke seems to die.

Modifié par Arthur Cousland, 10 avril 2012 - 10:47 .

[Big I]

I'd like to see characters in the mold of Varric and Garrus.


I never cared that Garrus was always dealing with his own stuff in the ME trilogy, or that that stuff frequently meant having to help him do something. Not only were his quests interesting, his relationship with Shepard was endearing.

[wetnasty]

BillsVengenace wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Some characters will be sensible like Aveline or Wynne. Some will be filled with conflict (inner or outer) like Anders or Zevran. That's unlikely to change.

The problem isn't that they are "filled with conflict", the problem is that they are one-dimensional and not-relatable. Anders would have probably worked as a character in DA2 if he was a three-dimensional character the player could understand and relate to.  In the end he just comes off as an anti-Templar nutbag who I was more than happy to stick a knife into. 

Please, speak for yourself. He was not relatable to you, but there are a plethora of people on this site who are thinking he was saying everything they wish they could.

[Takamori The Templar]

Example of well written characters:
http://torment.wikia.com/wiki/Morte
Game: Planescape Tormenta

http://forgottenreal...ki/Jon_Irenicus
Baldur's Gate villain

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arcanum

The necromancer Khergan

Dear Mr. Gaider, I mean no offense to your person, but can you or your writer team craft a character with that complexity?

[David Gaider]

Takamori The Templar wrote...
Dear Mr. Gaider, I mean no offense to your person, but can you or your writer team craft a character with that complexity?

I wrote Irenicus, but beyond that I really can't answer your subjective question in a way that will satisfy you. Fans have a variety of reactions to followers-- some brand them "whiners" when they utter the first complaint, some love the drama, some adore them and some hate them passionately... really I'm happy with the followers being anything that isn't simply unremarkable.

As for your estimation of a complex character, you're welcome to hold whatever bar you wish. Whether we reach it is not really something I'm worried about, so long as our characters do what we need them to do.

[byzantine horse]

For all it's worth I never want a companion like Fenris. Ever. Again. Being an emo elf is bad enough, infused with lyrium is another level of ridicule entirely.

But that is probably the only DA companion I outright don't like, the rest have been all good and interesting in one way or the other. But I will also echo many others in this thread: I personally wish for more realistic (?) characters, they don't have to be royal bastards, godchild-mothers or "hey, I'm possessed by a nice demon, that's cool right?"-mages. 

Modifié par byzantine horse, 10 avril 2012 - 03:09 .

[Takamori The Templar]

Indeed I missed the remark to say about Irenicus.(Apologies for that )

I understand what you saying that you can't simply reach a universal consensus with the players of the game.
What I meant that I miss characters that make reference with higher goals that at first look simple then when you investigate and explore the game, you have the surprise that the villain isn't just a Power Hunger bastard, you understand why he became what he is today (Irenicus is a hell of example on that).

Maybe apply to the companions, have then to turn on the player mattering on choice that he did for example.
Making inevitable to hold the perfect party, putting the player like you said on that PAX in a enjoyable suffering moment of choice.
So giving then life and goals, so they actually follow the PC character because at the first moment their goals seens to cross.
During the adventure its put at test, having the NPC's to start doubting of why they proceed in this journey.
But in a more agressive way, making the PC to work on a real argument of why that character should continue.
Not just clicking in one option that says : "Silvertongue: Because bla bla", actually give a set of decent argumentsso you can craft it in order to keep him.

Modifié par Takamori The Templar, 10 avril 2012 - 03:14 .

[nightscrawl]

David Gaider wrote...

Some characters will be sensible like Aveline or Wynne. Some will be filled with conflict (inner or outer) like Anders or Zevran. That's unlikely to change.

As an option, the one major addition that I would like to see in the romance lineup is a real bad boy type like Bishop from NWN2. He was my favorite character in that game, full of complexity, personal issues, and viciousness. However, one thing he was NOT is morose. Actually, I think that a romance that can end badly, perhaps very badly (I am not referring to Anders as a possible ending here since that is 100% in the PC's control), by choosing such a character would be a refreshing change.

byzantine horse wrote...

For all it's worth I never want a companion like Fenris. Ever. Again. Being an emo elf is bad enough, infused with lyrium is another level of ridicule entirely.

Ignore this please...

Actually, I doubt Fenris's awesomeness could be duplicated. There can be only one!

Modifié par nightscrawl, 10 avril 2012 - 03:30 .

[Takamori The Templar]

Now I laughed
"Fans have a variety of reactions to followers-- some brand them "whiners" when they utter the first complaint, some love the drama, some adore them and some hate them passionately... really I'm happy with the followers being anything that isn't simply unremarkable."

See Byzantine and nightscrawl post.
Yep you are right ,

[the_one_54321]

Lucy_Glitter wrote...
Like I said. I am really sick atm, and I can't really put words down properly. I am excusing myself.

You shouldn't be staring at a computer screen right now, Lucy. It might be making your headache worse.

David Gaider wrote...

Takamori The Templar wrote...
Dear Mr. Gaider, I mean no offense to your person, but can you or your writer team craft a character with that complexity?

I wrote Irenicus, but beyond that I really can't answer your subjective question in a way that will satisfy you.

It seems that you have to directly criticize Gaider if you want to get him to answer a question or share his thoughts around here...

PurebredCorn wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Broadly speaking, though: I really do not understand this desire to have companions without problems... It was more interesting to find out about them through their struggles than interrogating them at camp.

I bolded that last part because I agree.

Again I'll say, why can't you have a companion that doesn't push all his problems onto your shoulders, but you still find out about them by sharing in struggles?

[Takamori The Templar]

Yeah camp interrogation is kind awkward.
Liked how Da2 made it.
Character said: Hey PC do you have a time? Lets chill in the tavern.

Giving the opportunity to talk about life and stuff.

[Sylvanpyxie]

real bad boy type like Bishop

It takes so much more to describe that character and his personality. Tbh. One of my favourite Obsidian characters.

Uhm, more to the point. Character complexity is entirely subjective. I consider Bishop(NwN2) to be a complex character, possibly one of the best companions written. However, i know a lot of people aren't going to agree with me.

A lot of people are going to continue to like Bioware characters, even if they continue to be the usual samey suspects of dashing rogue, conniving mage, naive ditzy chick and random <insert generic personality> hot guy.

The generic character archetypes work. It's going to please the casuals and it's going to please the hardcore BioFans. It's not going to please *everyone* cause such things are impossible, but i can understand why they're not trying to break classic personality archetypes.

I'm happy with the followers being anything that isn't simply unremarkable.

I, personally, haven't seen any Bioware character as "remarkable" since Jade Empire. But again, that's subjective. I'm glad you're able to please a larger crowd than picky little me.

Liked how Da2 made it.
Character said: Hey PC do you have a time? Lets chill in the tavern.

It was definitely better than continually returning to camp to drill people about their life stories. When a character takes the initiative to talk to you, instead of waiting for you to demand to know their favourite kind of cheese, it makes them feel more... Human?

I don't like how Dragon Age II did it though. Too restrictive to places. Hordes of the Underdark was the last Bioware game that did it well. Characters would approach you, asking to talk. After that chat you could speak to them about their history.

NwN2 Companions put in a lot of input in conversations the Player is having with other NPCs, more input on the story and how things are unfolding. I'd like to see more of this, as well. Makes it feel like the Companions are actually a part of the story, and not just along for the ride as mute side-kicks.

Modifié par Sylvanpyxie, 10 avril 2012 - 04:57 .

[Takamori The Templar]

A good way to fix the restriction, maybe give the player sometimes call the shots.
Hey why don't we meet in my tonight?
Call X,Y and Z to play some poker
*add cutscene PC playing with his party having a good time, talking about their stories*

[RosaAquafire]

I would like to make a different appeal. PLEASE MAKE ALL THE CHARACTERS MAJOR SCREW-UPS. I want my companions complicated, conflicted, and unreliable. The best part of Bioware games is sinking into the companions and learning what makes the tick, and the more emotionally unstable they are, the more there is to sink into.

[the_one_54321]

RosaAquafire wrote...
I would like to make a different appeal. PLEASE MAKE ALL THE CHARACTERS MAJOR SCREW-UPS. I want my companions complicated, conflicted, and unreliable. The best part of Bioware games is sinking into the companions and learning what makes the tick, and the more emotionally unstable they are, the more there is to sink into.

Your post makes this kitten sad;



I hope you're happy with yourself.

[LolaLei]

I loved my little merry band of misfits in DA:O and DA2. The fact that they were all a little bit odd only makes me love them more! They remind me of my friends irl... minus the blood magic and blowing **** up obviously. :-S

[Sylvanpyxie]

I want my companions complicated, conflicted, and unreliable.

This is fine, characters with issues can be excellent, as long as they evolve beyond them. After all, there's a big difference between a character that has issues and a character that is *defined* by their issues.

Valen Shadowbreath, from Hordes of the Underdark, is a prime example of a character that has issues. He's suffered in his past, and continues to suffer when he's traveling with you, but he doesn't let his suffering define who he is. He doesn't dwell on everything that has happened to him, and everything that might happen to him, he's let himself become his own person.

Fenris or Anders, on the other hand, are defined by their issues. Everything they say or do is related to them, they let themselves get eaten alive by their problems and refuse to evolve beyond that.

A character defined by their issues, is not a character. It's merely a walking drama vendor.

[Takamori The Templar]

Sylvanpyxie wrote...

I want my companions complicated, conflicted, and unreliable.

This is fine, characters with issues can be excellent, as long as they evolve beyond them. After all, there's a big difference between a character that has issues and a character that is *defined* by their issues.

Valen Shadowbreath, from Hordes of the Underdark, is a prime example of a character that has issues. He's suffered in his past, and continues to suffer when he's traveling with you, but he doesn't let his suffering define who he is. He doesn't dwell on everything that has happened to him, and everything that might happen to him, he's let himself become his own person.

Fenris or Anders, on the other hand, are defined by their issues. Everything they say or do is related to them, they let themselves get eaten alive by their problems and refuse to evolve beyond that.

A character defined by their issues, is not a character. It's merely a walking drama vendor.

Ohhh I want to give you a hug.
5 stars post.

[Pasquale1234]

Sylvanpyxie wrote...

Fenris or Anders, on the other hand, are defined by their issues. Everything they say or do is related to them, they let themselves get eaten alive by their problems and refuse to evolve beyond that.

A character defined by their issues, is not a character. It's merely a walking drama vendor.

To that, I would add that Merrill and Isabela are largely defined by their obsessions.

[Sylvanpyxie]

To that, I would add that Merrill and Isabela are largely defined by their obsessions.

Practically every Dragon Age II character is. But Fenris and Anders are the most extreme cases, so i used them as examples.

5 stars post. 

Aim to please.

Modifié par Sylvanpyxie, 10 avril 2012 - 04:41 .

[TheJediSaint]

I can't say that I mind having conflicted and/or mentally unhinged characters in my games. For example, Minsc from Baldur's gate was one of my favorite characters, but he was also completely bonkers. Granted, he was more ha-ha crazy, while in Dragon Age companions tend to have more serious brands of crazy.

Note that in Dragon Age 2, companions who had serious issues also tended to be love interests. Of the five love interests, three appeared to be downright self-destructive. Ander's had willingly become an abomination in order to free the mages, Merrill was recklessly dabbling in dangerous forms magic in order to recover a piece of elvhen history, and Fenris was simply consumed by his hatred of magic.

Now when you have only Sebastian and Isabella to serve as the comparatively "sane" love interests, I think it's easy to understand the perception that Dragon Age 2's companions, taken as a whole, had unusually high levels of crazy. The is especially true when you take into consideration the fact that Kirkwall was in many ways, a great big loony-bin.

Modifié par TheJediSaint, 10 avril 2012 - 04:51 .