I saw a thread with this title on the GOG.com forum, and instantly thought about a reply:
I've an idea - why not reverse the idea you're against and implement an
option of assigning a myriad of quests to your henchmen. Most quests
would serve the purpose of giving them more XP and loot/gear, some would
trigger unique dialogue, and maybe more story. And it would be specific
to the character you assigned quests to. The characters would gain
different stuff, and perform differently depending on their abilities.
Also, it's optional to play them through, but most would be rather
simple fetch-quests with some story and post-quest cut-scenes attached
to them.
Just an idea I had when reading the topic title
and instantly thinking about one of my most frequent thoughts - what would have
made DA2 more interesting. :happy:
"I hate being an errand boy in every stupid RPG. I say it's time for a change."
Débuté par
eroeru
, juil. 10 2012 02:08
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 10 juillet 2012 - 02:30
David Gaider
-
- BioWare Employees
-
- 4 514 messages
I like the idea of assigning quests to henchmen... in theory.
If you had to play through (either as those henchmen or as the player accompanying those henchmen), then that's really no different than doing the quest yourself. A different context, perhaps, but is the issue simply being the errand boy or doing quests that make you feel like an errand boy?
Meanwhile, if you sent henchmen off to do quests without you, we run into a problem of a different sort-- namely one of quest design. Such side quests exist, after all, to provide content for the player. If the player feels the content isn't worth doing, that's a different problem... but it's not one that you eliminate by letting the player skip, as then what's the point of including the content in the first place? You replace what's essentially cheap content with very expensive content (dialogue, meaning we must now discuss the experience which you didn't think was worth doing yourself).
If there was content that was specifically set up this way, as in the player simply can't go and do these quests-- he has to send a follower/henchmen and they "do" the quest on their own... that might be a little different. You're not telling them to do quests you could otherwise do yourself, but it's instead a mechanic of its own. So that might be something. It certainly wouldn't be cheap (especially if you talked to them about these quests they're doing), but it might have some interesting flavor.
If you had to play through (either as those henchmen or as the player accompanying those henchmen), then that's really no different than doing the quest yourself. A different context, perhaps, but is the issue simply being the errand boy or doing quests that make you feel like an errand boy?
Meanwhile, if you sent henchmen off to do quests without you, we run into a problem of a different sort-- namely one of quest design. Such side quests exist, after all, to provide content for the player. If the player feels the content isn't worth doing, that's a different problem... but it's not one that you eliminate by letting the player skip, as then what's the point of including the content in the first place? You replace what's essentially cheap content with very expensive content (dialogue, meaning we must now discuss the experience which you didn't think was worth doing yourself).
If there was content that was specifically set up this way, as in the player simply can't go and do these quests-- he has to send a follower/henchmen and they "do" the quest on their own... that might be a little different. You're not telling them to do quests you could otherwise do yourself, but it's instead a mechanic of its own. So that might be something. It certainly wouldn't be cheap (especially if you talked to them about these quests they're doing), but it might have some interesting flavor.
