89 réponses à ce sujet

[Tokion]

In DA3, will we still be limited to a party of 4 + summons? Do you guys think it is sufficient to make combat tactical?

What about swapping out party members anytime during your adventure? TBH I disliked that system and much prefered the Baldur's Gate system were you can really build up your relationship with the people you are travelling with, as well as planning your party with characters that synergizes well with each other. Swapping out members breaks that immersion.

Modifié par Tokion, 08 juillet 2012 - 03:00 .

[AkiKishi]

Not realy seeing a difference. Baldurs Gate gave you 5 NPC slots as opposed to 3, but there were also more NPCs in Baldurs Gate than in Dragon Age.

Having everyone tag along is fairly standard JRPG design although non active members get reduced or no XP. WKC does party banter, but everyone in the party will talk whether they are active or inactive at the time.

[bEVEsthda]

IMO - Of course the party should be at least 6.

Four is just yet another sacrifice of something essential, for the sake of something I don't appreciate, like so they can make console combat more "appealing", for "new fans". The party pool, which I dislike for it's distasteful convenience, is a bandaid to compensate.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 08 juillet 2012 - 01:19 .

[coles4971]

bEVEsthda wrote...



Four is just yet another sacrifice of something essential, for the sake of something I don't appreciate, like so they can make console combat more "appealing", for "new fans".

....what?

*sigh*

[bEVEsthda]

coles4971 wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...



Four is just yet another sacrifice of something essential, for the sake of something I don't appreciate, like so they can make console combat more "appealing", for "new fans".

....what?

*sigh*

I wouldn't think this would be hard to understand. I'd rather have a party of 6 than fast, action'ish combat. I'd also rather see bigger battles, more adversaries, more allies. I am convinced the reduction is for performance and handling  reasons.

[Fast Jimmy]

I can only assume that not having your whole party with you in combat is either a system limitation or a perceived limitation of players not being able to manage that many characters.

I would be totally fine with having my full party traveling with me and participating in combat the entire game. If Tactics AI could be improved, I would even be tentatively okay with only having control of my own PC, a la Mass Effect.

Honestly, I think with Bioware, they likely don't want to have to account for every possible character being available at the same time during every conversation. I could be off base on that.

[Kidd]

Heh, I always play BG with three-four characters. Having a bigger party means the magical items will be distributed over more people, leading to everyone being subpar It's better to have one tank with -14AC than two with -6 and -7; that line of thought.

Wouldn't it feel incredibly crowded with six characters, too? I remember feeling annoyed it took too long to get anything done on my first BG playthrough where I used six party members. Nowadays we have so many abilities and stuff instead of just "you, attack him" over and over too, so I can only imagine how annoying micromanagement would get.

Then again, I mostly depend on tactic slots, so what do I know? =)

[schalafi]

A party of 4 is enough for me to handle, what with upgrading armor, spells, tactics, etc. I don't want to spend half my time fussing with my npcs, I would rather have more interesting quests, more good banter, and of course more meaningful romances.

[Uccio]

Six companions, thats the way to go.

[wsandista]

bEVEsthda wrote...

I wouldn't think this would be hard to understand. I'd rather have a party of 6 than fast, action'ish combat. I'd also rather see bigger battles, more adversaries, more allies. I am convinced the reduction is for performance and handling  reasons.

QFT

[AkiKishi]

Ukki wrote...

Six companions, thats the way to go.

There is very little point when you only have 3 character classes.

Also with characters being that much larger, six would crowed out the screen to the point of not being able to see what was going on.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 08 juillet 2012 - 04:37 .

[Aldandil]

Why is six characters the perfect amount? I love BG, but is six characters preferred only because the Infinity Engine games did it that way? I wouldn't mind having five characters, for instance, but I'm quite happy with four as well.

[AkiKishi]

Aldandil wrote...

Why is six characters the perfect amount? I love BG, but is six characters preferred only because the Infinity Engine games did it that way? I wouldn't mind having five characters, for instance, but I'm quite happy with four as well.

It's one of the D&D PnP holdovers.

[Aldandil]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Aldandil wrote...

Why is six characters the perfect amount? I love BG, but is six characters preferred only because the Infinity Engine games did it that way? I wouldn't mind having five characters, for instance, but I'm quite happy with four as well.

It's one of the D&D PnP holdovers.

I haven't played D&D. Are you supposed to be six persons to play?

[Kidd]

Aldandil wrote...

I haven't played D&D. Are you supposed to be six persons to play?

Depends on which edition you're playing. The default group that all maths is calculated for out of the book in 3rd edition is 4 characters, 4th edition asks for 5 characters. Dunno about the other two editions =)

[AkiKishi]

Aldandil wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Aldandil wrote...

Why is six characters the perfect amount? I love BG, but is six characters preferred only because the Infinity Engine games did it that way? I wouldn't mind having five characters, for instance, but I'm quite happy with four as well.

It's one of the D&D PnP holdovers.

I haven't played D&D. Are you supposed to be six persons to play?

Six was always considered the ideal group size. Games purely designed for console from Japan* tended to have3 or 4. I think it was the SSI D&D games that did the six party and Bioware just ran with that ball in Baldurs Gate.

Mass Effect has 2 party members so there is no right answer, it's more just what works for a particular system.


*Battle RPGs like Shining Force could have 12 with a total roster of 20+.

[wsandista]

BobSmith101 wrote...

*Battle RPGs like Shining Force could have 12 with a total roster of 20+.

Or Fire Emblem where there is 18 on some maps.
I really should play one soon....

[Fast Jimmy]

I'm surprised this conversation hasn't elicited any Matthew Fox/Jennifer Love Hewitt/Lacey Chabert comments as of yet.

[BKTZLNT]

It sounds like some of you want to turn DA into Fire Emblem...

I don't find anything wrong with a 4-party. 4-party in DA:O was pretty tactical in my opinion, and some people get really tactical on solo runs in both DA:O and DA2....

[Kidd]

Yeah, as much as I absolutely love Fire Emblem, let the turn based war game with RPG elements not influence our RPG too much, shall we? ^^;

[bEVEsthda]

It's decided by performance and control. And given the type of game Bioware want's to build it's gonna be 4. More would need a different, and less reactive/responsive, combat system.

[TEWR]

Regarding the topic itself, there are actually moments where I think having more people at your command should be used.

Like Redcliffe's night battle. If I've recruited everyone, being arbitrarily restricted into who is fighting the corpses and who isn't seems.... well... silly. Why can't I have everyone fighting with me? Why can't I have Wynne, Oghren, Shale, Zevran, Sten, Leliana, Dog, Alistair, and myself all taking part in the battle?

Not so much commanding them all in the same area, but at least being able to use them all and actually set up a better strategy.

Warden: Wynne, I want you to assist the militia by keeping their wounds healed. Shale, I want you to stay up on the hillside path, crushing the skulls of the corpses"

Shale: What fun! I'd love to squish their putrid heads!

I mean, the battle of Denerim started off well enough like that. You had all of your companions, Riordan, and some soldiers assisting you in battle. And Dragon Age II had this during the endgame.

Even if we're still restricted to a party of four, there should be moments where I can definitely command all of my companions to do strategic stuff.

wsandista wrote...

Or Fire Emblem where there is 18 on some maps.
I really should play one soon....

Path of Radiance and Radiant Dawn -- for the Gamecube and Wii respectively -- are great Fire Emblem games, known to fans as the Tellius series. There's also Fire Emblem 7 (known in the US as the first Fire Emblem game. Not the first in the series, but the first the US saw), The Sacred Stones, and Shadow Dragon.

A new one for the 3DS will be coming out soon, utilizing features from some of the older games -- as well as having cameos from characters from the older games.

I recommend Fire Emblem 7 and the Tellius series. The former because it's a pretty good introduction to how the series plays out and the latter just because... well... they're awesome IMO.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 08 juillet 2012 - 09:00 .

[Cimeas]

Four is good for me personally, a bit more and I usually stop using tactics on all of them. Also, it feels like a small team and less of a 'platoon' or 'company' if there's only four.

I guess the adventure feels less personal if I take along 5 or 6 companions instead of 3.

[Realmzmaster]

A party of six is a preference not a necessity. A party can be any size starting with 1. Temple of Elemental Evil has a party of 5 with 500 starting gold. So you can have a better equipped party if you start with less than 5. TOEE considered 5 to be a good group (Fighter, Ranger (or Paladin), Rogue, Cleric, Wizard. Might and Magic has a party of 4. Wizardry has a party size of 6. There is not optimal set size.