89 réponses à ce sujet

[Fallstar]

There isn't really a set number of party members that is better or worse than another. PC+4 would have been perfect for me in DAO, PC+3 was ideal for me for DA2.
And the DA games have never been heavy on the tanking aspect of things. You can swap that tank out for more dps and just kill things faster. The damage output of enemies, even bosses, doesn't necessitate a tank. Which is a good thing, people who want tanks can have them, those who'd rather not have one, can go without one.

If Bioware want to work on party banter more, having a larger party would let them show that off more too.

[Wulfram]

Maclimes wrote...

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

It would also allow the writers to write stuff in the knowledge of who would be present.  Rather than having to do a whole bunch of different lines depending on who is in the party.

On the con side, it's nice to not have to take that guy you hate with you.  And in DA2 at least it would be hard to justify why you would take someone you really disliked with you.

[Maclimes]

Wulfram wrote...

On the con side, it's nice to not have to take that guy you hate with you.  And in DA2 at least it would be hard to justify why you would take someone you really disliked with you.

Easy fix: Kick that guy out of the group. If the hero hates that guy, why is he with you?

[Fallstar]

Maclimes wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

On the con side, it's nice to not have to take that guy you hate with you.  And in DA2 at least it would be hard to justify why you would take someone you really disliked with you.

Easy fix: Kick that guy out of the group. If the hero hates that guy, why is he with you?

If we are given the option, that's fine. In DAO we had the option for a lot of companions. In DA2 sadly we had to wait until they decided to leave us, if they did so at all.

[Sylvius the Mad]

DuskWarden wrote...

Maclimes wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

On the con side, it's nice to not have to take that guy you hate with you.  And in DA2 at least it would be hard to justify why you would take someone you really disliked with you.

Easy fix: Kick that guy out of the group. If the hero hates that guy, why is he with you?

If we are given the option, that's fine. In DAO we had the option for a lot of companions. In DA2 sadly we had to wait until they decided to leave us, if they did so at all.

Did you even get to choose whether they joined?  I know it was was possible to avoid meeting at least some of them (Fenris, Isabela), but once you met them didn't they join the party automatically?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maclimes wrote...

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).

BG did it pretty seamlessly.

[Maclimes]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Maclimes wrote...

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).

BG did it pretty seamlessly.

I think the easiest thing would be simply to make the dialogue wheel slightly smaller, and have 4 of them, one for each party member, along the bottom of the screen, with that companion's face in the middle.

Modifié par Maclimes, 12 juillet 2012 - 07:43 .

[Fallstar]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Did you even get to choose whether they joined?  I know it was was possible to avoid meeting at least some of them (Fenris, Isabela), but once you met them didn't they join the party automatically?

I'm not sure, I don't remember any such option (to tell them you don't want them). On the other hand only Morrigan, Alistair, Dog (I think) were the only compulsory companions in DAO. Even then Morrigan and Alistair can leave the party before the final battle. Which would make it possible to fight the final battle with just dog perhaps.

Ah yes, but if Alistair left the party you'd get Loghain instead. I didn't recruit Loghain often so I'm not sure if you can tell him to leave.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 12 juillet 2012 - 07:49 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

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.

I would only accept this if this stat was improved, naturally, over time. The first time into battle, any man might flee. But a seasoned vet knows to push forward. So I'll accept this on an ad-hoc basis. I don't think skill points would be appropriate, as if I've killed two dozen dragons and a legion of darkspawn, it seems counter-intuitive that if I don't spend points to level up a Willpower-like stat, either in character creation or upon subsequent level ups, I would still be just as likely to run away from a lone bandit as I am at level 1.

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.

This could possibly lead itself to a bit of circular logic. If the current character design works one way, then it must be correct, even if it is not...? Just because you have, or don't have, control over a given aspect of either the NPC or the PC in a current or previous game does not make it 100% in-line with the absolute true nature of RP logistics.

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.
That's a fair enough request. I'll touch on it in a second.

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.

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.

That's a fair enough request. I'll touch on it in a second. 

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

And this is the crux of our lack of consensus. If one does not create the character, one inherently has less control over them, as they have, at the very least, history, class and skills already assigned for them, not to mention personality and prior relationships. 

This is fine, as I like having characters that are either flat and non-existent in terms of the story, or all created by head-canon. 

However, if we cannot create the character, and there inherent biases, then we should be incapable of knowing their inner workings. 

For instance, in the DA:O Fade section saving Conner, you can command a mage companion in the Fade. During this time, you can only give paraphrases (ironically enough) and then the lines come out and are voiced depending on how the character spins or views the intent of that line. However, the mage companion you control will not partake in the discussion to make a deal with the demon. This is because they, through their own back history, know not to deal with demons, whether it is Jowan who learned his lesson, Morrigan who was taught demons will betray or Wynne who views any such deal as irreprehensible, it is still off the table. 

Whether that is more for gameplay reasons than story/RP is, for the most part, irrelevant.

So even in a scenario where the game gave you the same (or nearly the same) amount of control as we have over Hawke, it STILL did not allow us to make a decision for them that invalidated their core beliefs. This means that even if we are given control over a character's dialogue, their personality and beliefs will STILL trump the control of the player. Which means they are inherently their own (or, to be realistic, Bioware's) character. 

Yet, in the same token, we can control Sebastian to kill Templars. We can control Anders to capture apostates. We can force Fenris to defend slavers. We will receive negative reaction from them, sure. But we take control of them, make them do something out of their character, and then have them speak dialogue in the game that violates that act a second time. We can make Wynne a blood mage, and then have her say she despises blood mages. 

This violates the ability to make companions believable when looked at from a holistic point of view. Sure, people are contradictory, hypocritical animals, but our general behavior does its best to be cohesive to our views not just of the world, but of ourselves in the world. Therefore, we should not be able to guide our companions directly in either dialogue or combat, as it works to only undermine their core beliefs. I agree there should be a hardening option for the PC to "turn" the companion to a different mindset of thinking, but at the same time we should not be able to take possession of them and control them like a voodoo doll without good reason or explanation why.

That's why I stand on the policy that if we don't create the character, we can't control them. So unless we go back to generating our entire party from scratch, I think relinquishing control of a companion during combat (or to relegate it back to just a powers-control basis, like in ME) is perfectly justifiable from a player point of view.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 12 juillet 2012 - 08:01 .

[Wulfram]

The "forcing" characters to kill people who it doesn't make sense is a totally seperate issue. They'd do that if we didn't control them in combat too, so long as they remained in the party. It's an issue that should be solved by having them leave the party if you act in a way incompatible with their viewpoints

And it seems that the inevitable consequence of taking away player control of companions in combat is turning those companions into weak incompetents who can barely hold their own against enemy mooks. And that sucks.

[Fast Jimmy]

DuskWarden wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Did you even get to choose whether they joined?  I know it was was possible to avoid meeting at least some of them (Fenris, Isabela), but once you met them didn't they join the party automatically?

I'm not sure, I don't remember any such option (to tell them you don't want them). On the other hand only Morrigan, Alistair, Dog (I think) were the only compulsory companions in DAO. Even then Morrigan and Alistair can leave the party before the final battle. Which would make it possible to fight the final battle with just dog perhaps.

Ah yes, but if Alistair left the party you'd get Loghain instead. I didn't recruit Loghain often so I'm not sure if you can tell him to leave.

Dog was not, unless you did the HN origin. You could even murder knife Dog in Ostagar if you so desired. 

And you could be forced to recruit Morrigan, but you could make her leave. As I believe you could Allistair.

I just got the sudden urge to go through and play a DA:O run through and see if I can get away with no companions. Just alienate and send away anyone who tried to join. That sounds like a lot of fun.

[Fast Jimmy]

Wulfram wrote...

The "forcing" characters to kill people who it doesn't make sense is a totally seperate issue. They'd do that if we didn't control them in combat too, so long as they remained in the party. It's an issue that should be solved by having them leave the party if you act in a way incompatible with their viewpoints

And it seems that the inevitable consequence of taking away player control of companions in combat is turning those companions into weak incompetents who can barely hold their own against enemy mooks. And that sucks.

Not neccessarily. Companion AI can be done well, many games have shown this. Bioware just seems to want to make them stupid in order to prevent it from seeming like the companions are doing all the work and the PC can just stand around being a mook.

Also, in regards to forcing characters to kill people/enemies, this isn't true. You could have them actively avoid those enemies, or view them as friendly neutral in a fight, so that they wouldn't encounter them or could even turn on your group to defend them if they had reached a breaking point in your relationship.

[Maclimes]

DuskWarden wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Did you even get to choose whether they joined?  I know it was was possible to avoid meeting at least some of them (Fenris, Isabela), but once you met them didn't they join the party automatically?

I'm not sure, I don't remember any such option (to tell them you don't want them). On the other hand only Morrigan, Alistair, Dog (I think) were the only compulsory companions in DAO. Even then Morrigan and Alistair can leave the party before the final battle. Which would make it possible to fight the final battle with just dog perhaps.

Ah yes, but if Alistair left the party you'd get Loghain instead. I didn't recruit Loghain often so I'm not sure if you can tell him to leave.

How to not have certain companions in DA:O:

Alistair/Loghain - You must have either Alistair or Loghain as a companion. No choice to avoid that. You get to pick which one, near the end. But you're stuck with one of them.
Morrigan - Stuck with her until the Dark Ritual. Then she stays or leaves based on your decision. 
Dog - For human nobles, you're stuck with him. But for others, just don't recruit.
Leliana - Don't recruit, or kill at Sacred Ashes. 
Shale - Don't recruit, or kill at Anvil of Void.
Sten - Don't recruit, or kill at Haven.
Wynne - Don't recruit, or kill at Sacred Ashes.
Zevran - Don't recruit.
Oghren - Not sure... I THINK you might be stuck with Oghren, of all people. Can't recall if there's an option to not recruit him.

Modifié par Maclimes, 12 juillet 2012 - 08:13 .

[Wulfram]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Also, in regards to forcing characters to kill people/enemies, this isn't true. You could have them actively avoid those enemies, or view them as friendly neutral in a fight, so that they wouldn't encounter them or could even turn on your group to defend them if they had reached a breaking point in your relationship.

But, as I said, they could equally well be scripted to leave the party (temporarily or permanently) if the party was attacking people they didn't want to.

It's a question of whether the writers want to do this, not whether the player has control over them in combat or not.

edit:  Fairly sure you can tell Morrigan to leave by talking to her in camp.  Though I think she'll come back to offer the DR.

Modifié par Wulfram, 12 juillet 2012 - 08:18 .

[Maclimes]

Wulfram wrote...

edit:  Fairly sure you can tell Morrigan to leave by talking to her in camp.  Though I think she'll come back to offer the DR.

That true? I've actually been planning a "solo" playthrough of DA:O lately, and am thinking of undertaking it soon.

Same for DA:A, also.