89 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

Zanallen wrote...

I don't see why any arbitrary number of party members is better than another. The only time six is unequivocally better than 4 is in Suikoden and that is because you have 108 characters in those games (Though only around 70 or so are fighters).

Suikoden IV definately suffered because of the reduction.

[Allan Schumacher]

Some of the oldest, most successful and widely popular type of games in the history of mankind are extremely complex and require in-depth strategy, such as chess, and also require juggling numbers, probability and statistics, like Blackjack or Poker. Similarly, video games that are inherently "complex" are not stigmas of the gaming world.

None of the games you listed are particularly difficult to learn. I'd argue they are all quite easy to learn. I was playing Chess when I was 5 because it was fun. I was brutal at the game back then, but it was very easy to learn.

Blackjack is also a game that is ridiculously easy and straight forward, and even Poker (especially 5 card draw) is an easy enough game to pick up and play.


The games are very hard to master, though. But given the amount of statistically ridiculously poor plays average poker players can make in a game of poker, it's pretty evident that there's not much understanding of statistics actually required to play the game.

[Realmzmaster]

Fast Jimmy wrote...



Secondly (and more seriosuly), simplicity does not equal broad entertainment. Some of the oldest, most successful and widely popular type of games in the history of mankind are extremely complex and require in-depth strategy, such as chess, and also require juggling numbers, probability and statistics, like Blackjack or Poker. Similarly, video games that are inherently "complex" are not stigmas of the gaming world. 

As much as people love to knock shooters like Call of Duty, it does require a good degree of tactics, whether you want to approach it from a camping mentality, laying claymores and lobbing grenades at any who cross into your area, or by remaining light and lean, moving around the map and making surgical strikes. Similarly, Skyrim's equipment system has base stats which are then modified by your skill level, and cna be further improved on by crafting elements such as smithing or enchanting, where deciding which properties involves "crunching numbers" by the player.

The point is how easy is the game to pick up not that the game does not lack strategy. The games you mention are easy to learn how to play they are tough to master. Poker requires not only analyzing the cards but also the players. The ability to buff is important in poker. Probability is important when it comes to blackjack, but the game itself is not hard to learn. That is why I suggest a good manual or even better a great in-game tutorial is the key to getting the wider audience to play. 

Poker, Chess and Blackjack basics can be taught in very little time. Getting good at those games can take a lifetime.

Getting good at Call of Duty as you state takes effort. The tactics as you state are there. Many on this forum want to deingrate people who play COD.  The multiplayer aspect of COD watching a team coordinate themselves is an art unto itself.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't think the size of the party is necessarily the source of the problem. I think it's more our lack of options for different party constructions because of the enforced combat roles by class.

If we can build an all-ranged party, or an all-tank party, then we should have enough resources available to mix and match in a variety of tactically interesting ways.

One of the game design reasons for smaller parties is that it allows them to create fewer companions while still giving us control about the party construction. But if they didn't design the characters so rigidly, this problem goes away. DAO let us have 3 Spirit Healers, but DA2 does not. DAO let us have 4 archers, but DA2 does not.

Games with 6 person parties give us more control, but that's not the only way to get more control.

[philippe willaume]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

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.
.

seconded

[wowpwnslol]

4 is perfect

Tank (warrior) / Healer (cleric/mage) / Single Target DPS (rogue/assassin) / AoE DPS/CC (mage)

[FedericoV]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

None of the games you listed are particularly difficult to learn. I'd argue they are all quite easy to learn. I was playing Chess when I was 5 because it was fun. I was brutal at the game back then, but it was very easy to learn.

Blackjack is also a game that is ridiculously easy and straight forward, and even Poker (especially 5 card draw) is an easy enough game to pick up and play.


The games are very hard to master, though. But given the amount of statistically ridiculously poor plays average poker players can make in a game of poker, it's pretty evident that there's not much understanding of statistics actually required to play the game.

This: easy to learn and understand. Difficult to master. That's the best way to design a rule system. Honestly, DA2 wasn't a game like this. It was very easy to learn and average easy master. The better part was in the middle, but once  you unlocked the various CCC (lvl 15 more or less), the game was flat as a pankake.

Modifié par FedericoV, 11 juillet 2012 - 11:50 .

[AkiKishi]

FedericoV wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

None of the games you listed are particularly difficult to learn. I'd argue they are all quite easy to learn. I was playing Chess when I was 5 because it was fun. I was brutal at the game back then, but it was very easy to learn.

Blackjack is also a game that is ridiculously easy and straight forward, and even Poker (especially 5 card draw) is an easy enough game to pick up and play.


The games are very hard to master, though. But given the amount of statistically ridiculously poor plays average poker players can make in a game of poker, it's pretty evident that there's not much understanding of statistics actually required to play the game.

This: easy to learn and understand. Difficult to master. That's the best way to design a rule system. Honestly, DA2 wasn't a game like this. It was very easy to learn and average easy master. The better part was in the middle, but once  you unlocked the various CCC (lvl 15 more or less), the game was flat as a pankake.

I think there is a big difference between teaching someone who is already familiar with something similiar and teaching someone who has no idea what they are doing.

[Realmzmaster]

BobSmith101 wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

None of the games you listed are particularly difficult to learn. I'd argue they are all quite easy to learn. I was playing Chess when I was 5 because it was fun. I was brutal at the game back then, but it was very easy to learn.

Blackjack is also a game that is ridiculously easy and straight forward, and even Poker (especially 5 card draw) is an easy enough game to pick up and play.


The games are very hard to master, though. But given the amount of statistically ridiculously poor plays average poker players can make in a game of poker, it's pretty evident that there's not much understanding of statistics actually required to play the game.

This: easy to learn and understand. Difficult to master. That's the best way to design a rule system. Honestly, DA2 wasn't a game like this. It was very easy to learn and average easy master. The better part was in the middle, but once  you unlocked the various CCC (lvl 15 more or less), the game was flat as a pankake.

I think there is a big difference between teaching someone who is already familiar with something similiar and teaching someone who has no idea what they are doing.

The established fanbase from previous crpgs are already familar with most of the trappings of the genre. Some of us have played many different p n p systemsThis point is no longer the case. Many gamers today have not touched a p n p rpg system. 

For some DAO or DA2 might be their first cRPG. So while Ferderico and I might fine the game flat by the third act because we have mastered the system by the Act III or learned all the naunces others new to the genre may still be struggling to master it.

I started way before BG but I will use that as an example. The manual for BG is 158 pages long. Reading it is essential for a new comer if they wish to get the most out of the game. I did not have to read the manual except to learn the interface which is the first 34 pages. I was already familar with D & D and the Forgotten Realms setting. 

For someone without knowledge of D & D it was a task to get into the game. What does it mean to hit armor class zero? Why is an alignment important and how does it affect the party? Why can my neutral PC have this party member who is Lawful Evil and my Paladin PC cannot? What are weapon proficiencies? Why does armor class go negative and that is good?

Back in the day I found that stuff fun. If I had to do it now I probably would not.

NWN on the other hand had both a good manual and an in game tutorial to bring the player along that is missing in the DA games. DA2 attempted a half hearted tutorial with it opening scences, but not very good.

Chaosium (Creators of RuneQuest) had the Basic Rolplaying System to get newcomers into the genre. It serves as a bridge to their more complex systems because the other games were based on it..

Now some say well play DA on causal. That is fine but it still does not help the gamer learn the system. Use the tool tips. The tool tips are good once the player has a basic understanding of the system. Read the manual. Always a good place to start , but having an in game tutorial is priceless.

The veteran cRPGer could just skip the tutorial and go straight to character creation or use it as a refresher

A good manual and a in-game tutorial go a long way to bring newcomers into the game. 

The future lies in how many new people you bring into the genre while hopefully keeping the old fanbase satisfied or at least content.

[AkiKishi]

Realmzmaster wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

None of the games you listed are particularly difficult to learn. I'd argue they are all quite easy to learn. I was playing Chess when I was 5 because it was fun. I was brutal at the game back then, but it was very easy to learn.

Blackjack is also a game that is ridiculously easy and straight forward, and even Poker (especially 5 card draw) is an easy enough game to pick up and play.


The games are very hard to master, though. But given the amount of statistically ridiculously poor plays average poker players can make in a game of poker, it's pretty evident that there's not much understanding of statistics actually required to play the game.

This: easy to learn and understand. Difficult to master. That's the best way to design a rule system. Honestly, DA2 wasn't a game like this. It was very easy to learn and average easy master. The better part was in the middle, but once  you unlocked the various CCC (lvl 15 more or less), the game was flat as a pankake.

I think there is a big difference between teaching someone who is already familiar with something similiar and teaching someone who has no idea what they are doing.

The established fanbase from previous crpgs are already familar with most of the trappings of the genre. Some of us have played many different p n p systemsThis point is no longer the case. Many gamers today have not touched a p n p rpg system. 

For some DAO or DA2 might be their first cRPG. So while Ferderico and I might fine the game flat by the third act because we have mastered the system by the Act III or learned all the naunces others new to the genre may still be struggling to master it.

I started way before BG but I will use that as an example. The manual for BG is 158 pages long. Reading it is essential for a new comer if they wish to get the most out of the game. I did not have to read the manual except to learn the interface which is the first 34 pages. I was already familar with D & D and the Forgotten Realms setting. 

For someone without knowledge of D & D it was a task to get into the game. What does it mean to hit armor class zero? Why is an alignment important and how does it affect the party? Why can my neutral PC have this party member who is Lawful Evil and my Paladin PC cannot? What are weapon proficiencies? Why does armor class go negative and that is good?

Back in the day I found that stuff fun. If I had to do it now I probably would not.

NWN on the other hand had both a good manual and an in game tutorial to bring the player along that is missing in the DA games. DA2 attempted a half hearted tutorial with it opening scences, but not very good.

Chaosium (Creators of RuneQuest) had the Basic Rolplaying System to get newcomers into the genre. It serves as a bridge to their more complex systems because the other games were based on it..

Now some say well play DA on causal. That is fine but it still does not help the gamer learn the system. Use the tool tips. The tool tips are good once the player has a basic understanding of the system. Read the manual. Always a good place to start , but having an in game tutorial is priceless.

The veteran cRPGer could just skip the tutorial and go straight to character creation or use it as a refresher

A good manual and a in-game tutorial go a long way to bring newcomers into the game. 

The future lies in how many new people you bring into the genre while hopefully keeping the old fanbase satisfied or at least content.

It was only when I taught my kids (and mother) how to play Pokemon that I realised how much I take for granted skipping from system to system and picking them up very quickly.

[Sylvius the Mad]

wowpwnslol wrote...

4 is perfect

Tank (warrior) / Healer (cleric/mage) / Single Target DPS (rogue/assassin) / AoE DPS/CC (mage)

Not everyone wants to build a party like that.

I, for example, don't like tanks.  I tend not to include one.

[FedericoV]

BobSmith101 wrote...

I think there is a big difference between teaching someone who is already familiar with something similiar and teaching someone who has no idea what they are doing.

Oh, c'mon Bob. We live in a world where 10 million players pay a monthly fee to raid the same old dungeouns in WoW, min/maxing gear, builds and loot. That's the people you should aim for and it's as casual as it can reasonably be for a fantasy CRPG. Convince them that for a month they could stop playing MMOs and get a SP fix with a focused story and a good cast and you could make a lot of money (just look at Skyrim).

Not to say that even the most hardcore CRPG is laughable in term of learning curve/familiarity if compared to the games of 12 years ago (I will not mention the games of the 80s and 90s because it would be unfair). Games need accessibility but not at the cost of depth. The history of videogames show again and again that sacrificing perceived depth in favour of simplicity is never the road to success.

It's just (E)a shortcut and it kills game series. It's just the result of false and arrogant assumption make by marketeers and brand managers who have never really played a game, have never been a geek and pass their days reading metrics and doing focus groups instead of talking with real people who love games. Moreover, if they get paid to tell devs that "you have to cater to the casual" (implying that the casuals are stupid) I could get their job and do a lot better for a lot less. I mean, I could easily come with something better than "buttons and awesomes" or "follow the pulse". To quote the famous interview of Vince "Vault Dweller" to Rock, Paper, Shotgun "great job managing the brand, @ssholes".

Modifié par FedericoV, 11 juillet 2012 - 07:48 .

[Fast Jimmy]

^
This. How EA manages their IP series is like taking an authentic Italian dinner and when they hear that not everyone likes heavy garlic flavor, turns future dishes into Spaighetti-O's.

Also... Federico, fantastic quote by Abercrombie. He could teach McCasey a thing or two about pacing and plot threads.

[FedericoV]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^
This. How EA manages their IP series is like taking an authentic Italian dinner and when they hear that not everyone likes heavy garlic flavor, turns future dishes into Spaighetti-O's.

I am italian : what is spaighetti-o? No, don't tell me... somethings are better left unknown!

Also... Federico, fantastic quote by Abercrombie. He could teach McCasey a thing or two about pacing and plot threads.

Thanks FastJimmy. I love Abercrombie: in my opinion he is one of the better fantasy author of the last years. I love his books: he is getting better and better and I can't wait for Red Country (he cited RDR as source of inspiration). Btw, he is a gamer and he posts reviews from time to time. Mind, he loved ME3... he just admitted that the ending was meh...

[wetnasty]

I guess I'm in the minority when I say that scrolling through 5 other characters to get to one that's dying, in order to get to a health poultice ASAP, seems a bit much. Then switching back through all five of those characters to get to my main... And anything beyond that is just crazy. When's the last time you saw a group of 8+ people strolling down the street inconspicuously? I can see for big events or something, but for simple shakedowns? Seems a bit excessive.

Perhaps if it were a FF7 type thing where I had 2 separate parties doing 2 separate things but usually in the same general vicinity... And I could switch between those 2 parties.... I just really can't think of many non-crucial events IRL or in fiction where the protagonists thought it was a good idea to stroll to where they needed to be 10+ deep.

[Fast Jimmy]

[quote]FedericoV wrote...

[quote]Fast Jimmy wrote...

^
This. How EA manages their IP series is like taking an authentic Italian dinner and when they hear that not everyone likes heavy garlic flavor, turns future dishes into Spaighetti-O's. [/quote]

I am italian : what is spaighetti-o? No, don't tell me... somethings are better left unknown![/quote][/quote]
LOL Indeed, indeed. The dark, seedy underbelly of America's processed food industry is not for the faint of heart!

[quote][quote]
Also... Federico, fantastic quote by Abercrombie. He could teach McCasey a thing or two about pacing and plot threads. [/quote]

Thanks FastJimmy. I love Abercrombie: in my opinion he is one of the better fantasy author of the last years. I love his books: he is getting better and better and I can't wait for Red Country (he cited RDR as source of inspiration). Btw, he is a gamer and he posts reviews from time to time. Mind, he loved ME3... he just admitted that the ending was meh...

[/quote]

I would agree with him. I heard the reaction to ME3 before I bought or played it. I kept thinking... "Why the bad reactions? This is a pretty d@mn good game. A little too on the rails for my tastes, but I can understand that has to be because they want all the prior decisions to come together and influence the story and the end game."

And then... the ending happened. And nothing was ever the same. 

I would love to check out Abercrombie's reviews, now that I know that. Given his penchant for action scenes, that really shouldn't surprise me, but it still does.

Anywho, back on topic... I feel like a broken record here, but I would be fine with having AI (well done AI) controlling my other members, with me in control of their powers, etc. It has been shown that Bioware can do it well enough (ME 1,2 and 3 all had AI companions), so I'd be fine with DA giving it a shot if it means I get the whole crew with me in every encounter.

This would actually incentivize people to buy character DLCs, since this would, essentially, be another asset to have in battle at all times.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I feel like a broken record here, but I would be fine with having AI (well done AI) controlling my other members, with me in control of their powers, etc. It has been shown that Bioware can do it well enough (ME 1,2 and 3 all had AI companions), so I'd be fine with DA giving it a shot if it means I get the whole crew with me in every encounter.

I would find that game far less interesting than one where I could play the whole party.

[Fast Jimmy]

^
Fair enough. I just had problems with the party limit in an RPG game. I couldn't rationalize why I would be entering life and death situations with some of the most deadly, powerful heroes in the world just gathering moss on a log in camp.

I can understand if it is a system limitation, but a scene mentioned above like the battle in DA:O at Denerim shows that DA is capable of pulling this off (although that was a more massive sized battle, to be fair).

That being said, losing party control would be regrettable, but I think it might introduce more interesting opportunities, such as companion hesitation in battle if they become afraid or conflicted or real berserker companions, who lose their minds and attack irrationally, Leroy Jenkins style. It could even reflect other companions relationships, such as squabbling or even turning on each other, or friendly competition a la Gimli and Legolas, where they can even have possible combos that are unique.

When you micromanage your whole party, you lose the ability to let the companions be themselves.

[Mark of the Dragon]

I like four its leaves room for diversity among party members but it doesnt leave so many hte fighting seems crowded.

[mopotter]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

wowpwnslol wrote...

4 is perfect

Tank (warrior) / Healer (cleric/mage) / Single Target DPS (rogue/assassin) / AoE DPS/CC (mage)

Not everyone wants to build a party like that.

I, for example, don't like tanks.  I tend not to include one.

I don't either, but 4 still works for me.  My favorite group is 3 mages and a rogue.  If my mage had an open lock spell I'd take 4 mages if I had them.   DA:O  When I played my mage, I often took Morrigan, Wynne and Leliana or Zev.

 I wouldn't mind more if it was set up so I didn't have to take more.  

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^
Fair enough. I just had problems with the party limit in an RPG game. I couldn't rationalize why I would be entering life and death situations with some of the most deadly, powerful heroes in the world just gathering moss on a log in camp.

I would describe that as a problem with the camp system.  Again I point to BG as a way to do this better.

That being said, losing party control would be regrettable, but I think it might introduce more interesting opportunities, such as companion hesitation in battle if they become afraid or conflicted or real berserker companions, who lose their minds and attack irrationally, Leroy Jenkins style.

I think all characters, including the PC, should be subject to morale checks.

It could even reflect other companions relationships, such as squabbling or even turning on each other, or friendly competition a la Gimli and Legolas, where they can even have possible combos that are unique

When you micromanage your whole party, you lose the ability to let the companions be themselves.

They are themselves.  But what those selves are is partly determined by the player.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I think all characters, including the PC, should be subject to morale checks.

Yes, but how would that stay true to RP? If I don't say my character is scared enough to run away, why should it? I think this could work with AI controlled companions, but if when playing ME3, a brute came running towards me at full speed and I'm trying to lie a sniper shot or blast it with Incendiery rounds and I lose control of my character who then runs away and I get killed, that does nothing but frustrate me. Even though it is a totally believable reaction.

In fact, when playing, I often run away for dear life in a fight if things are looking grim... I fail my morale check as a player. It can cost the "lives" (such as they are without permadeath) of my companions, but this is of no concern to me, since they are immortal.

If I only control the PC, then fear of death is very real and present. I will run away, I will use potions, I will look for weaknesses and go for higher ground. If I control all companions equally as the PC, then my party, as a whole, is immortal until most of the party is unconscious. 

They are themselves.  But what those selves are is partly determined by the player.

Party control, while an old school RPG stand by, does not work with companions that have fully developed personalities.

Example: Ultima: Exodus let's you create your entire party, from stats, class and name. You can create them and their stories, if you so desire (although the game gives you no background with which to begin this, for better or worse) along with their personalities. 

However, Dragon Age has companions you recruit that have stories, histories, personalities, skills and specialities that we, as the player, have no hand in creating. We shouldn't be directly controlling them, either through dialogue or through battle, in a pure RP point of view. If we were role playing the perspective of a party, which we can create and control, this works fine. However, if we are recruiting characters that have their own life given to them by the developer, than we should have no more control over them in combat than we should the ability to control what they say in dialogue. 

If one were to have the true opportunity to NOT be the leader of the group in an RPG, then we would see this in full effect. Why would just another member of the group, not the charismatic leader or the special monk/jedi/warden/etc. member, but just another member, give orders to the others? They would follow the lead of the leader, not the PC in this case. If Leliana tried to command Sten, Morrigan, Shale, Wynne, Oghren or Zevran, things would fall apart quickly. Maybe Dog would listen, I don't know.

The point being the player shouldn't, by default, have full control of the party if the members of that party were not created by the player, from a strcitly scholastic, logical approach to Role Playing Games.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 12 juillet 2012 - 06:57 .

[Maclimes]

I like the idea of having the whole group of companions present at all times. One of the reasons:

No more min/maxing your character's own personality. In both Origins and DA2, there was a common tactic of leaving certain party members at camp when having certain conversations, because you didn't want the gain/loss of Friendship/Rivalry.

Let's use a very simplified version of things as an example.
Fenris hates all mages and loves freeing slaves.
Anders loves all mages, except for Blood Mages, who he hates, and loves freeing slaves.
Merril loves Blood Mages and elves.

If you're in a situation where you must save an elf Mage, you would take Merrill and Anders, because they both like that sort of thing. If you are hunting down a Blood Mage, you take Anders and Fenris, because they both hate Blood Mages. If you are helping elves kill mages, you take Merrill and Fenris.

But WHAT ABOUT HAWKE? He's apparently willing to do ALL of those things, without care or consequence. All he has to do is leave certain people at home. He can hunt down mages for the Templar today, taking Sebastian and Fenris. Then tomorrow, he can save mages from the Templar, taking Merril and Anders. What the hell is Hawke's personality here? What are his goals?

He doesn't have one. It's madly inconsistent, because the only real reward/punishment for decisions is companion friendship. So you avoid all consequence by just taking along people who agree with that one mission.

The way you solve that is make ALL companions aware of ALL decisions, potentially by simply having them all with you. Then you'll be forced to sort of "pick a side", as it were. I think the Friendship/Rivalry system opened the door for this option, but they didn't take it far enough.

If you did nothing but help apostate mages (except for Blood Mages, who you would destroy), then Anders would be your BFF, while Fenris and Merril would be more neutral/rival, depending on exactly how you went about things.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Yes, but how would that stay true to RP? If I don't say my character is scared enough to run away, why should it?

Terror is a non-rational mechanism.  Your personality doesn't determine your likelihood if running away.  While I think the player should have total freedom to design his character's personality, his other attributes should be stat-driven.  Both his physical strength and his strength-of-will fall into that category.

I think this could work with AI controlled companions, but if when playing ME3, a brute came running towards me at full speed and I'm trying to lie a sniper shot or blast it with Incendiery rounds and I lose control of my character who then runs away and I get killed, that does nothing but frustrate me. Even though it is a totally believable reaction.

[
Would it frustrate you as much if you could spend skill points to make him less likely to run away?  Or adopt tactical plans that put him in less terrifying situations?

Imagine if you had to take into account each chracter's ability to resist terror when planning combat strategy.  You couldn't afford to let characters with low terror resistances be surrounded.  It would waste a valuable resourse to have a terror-resistant character hang back and snipe.

They are themselves.  But what those selves are is partly determined by the player.

Party control, while an old school RPG stand by, does not work with companions that have fully developed personalities.

They're not fully developed.  If they were, then you couldn't get to choose their combat tactics, or equipment load.  You wouldn't get to choose which abilities they learned.

I would like to have as much control over the companions as DA2 granted me over Hawke.  I would like to have as much control over the PC as BioWare's silent PC games have granted me.

BioWare has met the second standard is five separate games.  BioWare has met the first standard once.

However, Dragon Age has companions you recruit that have stories, histories, personalities, skills and specialities that we, as the player, have no hand in creating. We shouldn't be directly controlling them, either through dialogue or through battle, in a pure RP point of view.

That's only true if you assume that we're only roleplaying a sinlge character.  I don't accept that.  I think I'm roleplaying a party of characters.  The membership of that party changes over time as members are added or lost, but as long as it's a party I'm in control of it.

If we were role playing the perspective of a party, which we can create and control, this works fine. However, if we are recruiting characters that have their own life given to them by the developer, than we should have no more control over them in combat than we should the ability to control what they say in dialogue.

I would agree that we should have equivalent control over the companions during dialogue.  I'd like Aveline to speak for the party in DA2, for example.

If one were to have the true opportunity to NOT be the leader of the group in an RPG, then we would see this in full effect. Why would just another member of the group, not the charismatic leader or the special monk/jedi/warden/etc. member, but just another member, give orders to the others? They would follow the lead of the leader, not the PC in this case. If Leliana tried to command Sten, Morrigan, Shale, Wynne, Oghren or Zevran, things would fall apart quickly. Maybe Dog would listen, I don't know.

The point being the player shouldn't, by default, have full control of the party if the members of that party were not created by the player, from a strcitly scholastic, logical approach to Role Playing Games.

I don't follow your logic at all.  I don't see this supposedly necessary connection between creation and control.

[Maclimes]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


That's only true if you assume that we're only roleplaying a sinlge character.  I don't accept that.  I think I'm roleplaying a party of characters.  The membership of that party changes over time as members are added or lost, but as long as it's a party I'm in control of it.

This concept I would LOVE. Instead of having a large party of fully developed companions to a single hero, have 4 or 5 heroic characters under full control of the player, none of which are the "main character". In conversations, you could choose which of them would respond, and how. (The interface would need a little work, obviously, but I'm confident it could be done).

Maclimes approves (+15)