45 réponses à ce sujet

[Medhia Nox]

As long as this game doesn't end with me being overshadowed by an NPC that I could have had imprisoned the minute he showed me his underground mage railroad somewhere in the 2nd act...

[Giltspur]

Well, the survey seems to have had a least a bit of truth.  (And by that I mean pretty much completely and totally accurate.)

It says you're a member of the Inquisition.  It also says you can be a mage, rogue or warrior.  If you can be a mage that means, drumroll, that you can be a mage.  Therefore, mages can be in the Inquisition.  You're also a leader.  So mages can be in leadership roles in the Inquisition.  Oh ho.

This means, the new Inquisition is not the Inquisition of old.  

At any rate, I hope there are multiple paths through the game.  But I hope it works like this.  Here are factions A, B, C and D.  How will you approach faction A?  Will you use diplomatic approach, a stealthy approach (spying) which can then inform "diplomacy" or outright combat.  Okay, now given what you did with A, how will you approach B?

I doubt the game will have that much choice and replayability, but it could be cool.

[Northern Sun]

Darth Death wrote...

Why only two? Why not three or even four for that matter?

Yeah. We've got the rebel mages, the rogue Templars, the Chantry Seekers, and the Qunari who are probably just waiting for the opportunity to attack Thedas again. I'd love it if they did something along the lines of Fallout: New Vegas with these factions.

[Dessalines]

They never said how much of the survey is true, and Dragon Age 2 did have two different paths. That is neither here or there.
1)You should have companions be neutral, for the inquistion, and against the inquistion.
2)Let some companions be able to be killed or dismissed during the story,. I think that adds a little bit more realism, but there should be consequences for it. Like if you killed Wynne, and didn't have another mage that healed, then the game was different.
3)Depending on which companions you keep or take, then the game should be easier or harder. I am even go as far as stating that the length of the game should change too by the decisions you make..

[Uccio]

Well, being this religious zealot is not my cup of tea. Only way to accept it is to have a change to totally blow the chantry out of water and maybe kill divine.

[CuriousArtemis]

I do hope there really are multiple paths available to us. Inquisition does suggest a relationship to the church. And I really could not stomach playing a game as a Chantry supporter. I have no problem allow people to worship as they please, but I'm not a religious person myself and have trouble playing a religious character, plus I'm not really into the repression of innocents. I really hope BW doesn't force me to play a tyrant!

[Little Princess Peach]

Kevin Lynch wrote...

Similar to DA2, "Inquisition" suggests that there are going to be at least two major paths through DA3, siding with the "inquisitors" or against them. If this is likely, do you think it better to have companions that are entirely neutral, joining your group whether you side one way or the other? Or would it be better to have opposition from joinable NPCs such that they will never join you and may actively oppose you if you make certain choices?

For my part, I'm on the fence. On the one hand, I like being able to maintain a particular party make-up from the very beginning and hate having to switch out companions for various purposes or based on choices. On the other hand, I like that the companions have more personality when they have the option to disagree with you and oppose you; otherwise, they are just an extension of your main character and not autonomous in any way.

What's the general opinion out there?

[Edit] Adjusted the title a bit to remove the suggestion of "very different" paths.

I would like to see companions in the oposit role to the main char, but that has conflits with there belifes. for eexample the npc at the start could strongly belive in what they think is right to them and tries to divert the main player away from there gaol, but in time the main player makes the npc change how they feel about there role.

im sorry if this made no scene or if it's unrelated to what you said

[Izhalezan]

Hmmm, different paths with recruit able party members dependent on side taken, could be good, as long as 2 or 3 will side with either, and so long as both paths don't have the same ending...

[Iosev]

I personally would like a combination of companion interactions. For example, I'd like a few companions to either refuse to join the party or leave if you either believe or act, respectively, in a way that contradicts their personal belief system. It would probably have to occur during critical points in the story (recruitment, ending, etc.), so that it doesn't constantly change your party.

I also would like the ability to influence some of your companions to reconsider their worldviews. Realistically, it would have to be more of the moderate members of your party, as I thought Leliana's "hardening path" in DA:O was just so unbelievable (she seemed like an entirely different person in the epilogue).

Ultimately, I prefer the player's group of companions to be diverse, with a range of beliefs that compete with each other, because it makes the social dilemmas in the game more personal. Ugh, I guess I'm on the fence as well, lol.

[Ramus Quaritch]

Vilegrim wrote...

wait DA2 had different paths? I didn't notice....

You win this thread.

[Ramus Quaritch]

If you're the Inquisition, will anyone expect you?

[Applepie_Svk]

I think that whole plot will be around the magic itself, you know templars against the mages it´s the war which started with the end of DA2 so I highly doubt that it will be just ignored. Maybe we even get into understanding the creation of Darkspawn, which are the fruit of wicked mages.

[Robhuzz]

Ukki wrote...

Well, being this religious zealot is not my cup of tea. Only way to accept it is to have a change to totally blow the chantry out of water and maybe kill divine.

Aye, I've never liked the chantry much and mindlessly following their orders is not something I'd enjoy doing. But the DA team spent all their lineair points on DA2 and received their well deserved criticism for it so I'm sure they'll try harder this time. As long as EA doesn't meddle in things they do not understand and the EA yes men stay as far away from the game as possible, I'm sure they can still do it.

[revo76]

Kevin Lynch wrote...

...siding with the "inquisitors" or against them. If this is likely, do you think it better to have companions that are entirely neutral, joining your group whether you side one way or the other? .....

I hope this wont happen, because i saw and played this idea on Witcher 1. I hope BW will remember that ME3 is the ending from Deus Ex Machina, we dont need ending of Witcher 1 in DA3.

[eroeru]

Kevin Lynch wrote...
Or would it be better to have opposition from joinable NPCs such that they will never join you and may actively oppose you if you make certain choices?

Yes.

[Rpgfantasyplayer]

Why do I have to choose? I like that my companions may not have liked my choices, but for the most part if they liked me enough in the end they supported me. Like with Merrill when I sided with the Templars she didn't like my choice but because I was her friend, she supported my decision against the Mages. But then again in DA2 I felt that neither side was the better choice. I was forced to make one so I did, but to me both sides were in the wrong and so I chose what side I wanted to on different playthroughs. To be honest I didn't like or agree with either side.

[RolandX9]

Wulfram wrote...

I think you need to detach the innocent semantic meaning of 'inquisition' with the horrible violent meaning it has in the real world and part of DA lore.

Except it's not remotely that simple. Not only does Thedas' Chantry have some equivalently ugly history and baggage, that word is a very hot button -- IMO, the only worse examples are literally unusable (racial slurs and Godwin's Law go here).

<snip>

Wulfram wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

A new Inquisition (remember the old religious one in DA was disbanded to form the Seekers/Templars) doesn't have to carry the baggage of the old one. It could, quite simply, investigate things. 

Well, Bioware aren't using the word without knowing it's baggage.  The expectations the term creates must be deliberate, even if the ultimate intent is to subvert them.

After DA II and the end of ME3, I take nothing for granted any more. I will say this: I will categorically not pre-order DA III, and I won't be buying it at all if I have to play a character loyal to the gorram Inquisition. Now if I can play a character who's been conscripted and can subsequently take them apart from the inside...that's another matter entirely.

The game will, of course, have to be playable out of the box, with a story that actually makes sense from beginning to end, but that's a matter of proper construction rather than taste.

Edit:

Ramus Quaritch wrote...

If you're the Inquisition, will anyone expect you?

WIN.

Modifié par RolandX9, 17 septembre 2012 - 08:05 .

[Kevin Lynch]

arcelonious wrote...

I personally would like a combination of companion interactions. For example, I'd like a few companions to either refuse to join the party or leave if you either believe or act, respectively, in a way that contradicts their personal belief system. It would probably have to occur during critical points in the story (recruitment, ending, etc.), so that it doesn't constantly change your party.

It's that last point that makes me wary about my companion choices. In past games, I've tried to take companions along based on whether I thought those NPCs fit my character's personality and beliefs. But since the games could have dozens of choices where companions may disagree enough to oppose you openly and irrecovably, and the story isn't known in advance, it's hard to tell if they are going to react in a predictable manner throughout. While that unknown makes the NPCs far more realistic than the blind following of the PC "no matter what", and very much adds to the story, it's extremely frustrating, too.

So, ultimately, it's a balancing act for the writers and I don't envy them the task of choosing which is "best" for the majority of fans.

[Samzo77]

I'm definitely for characters that maintain their principles thorough the story. If you make certain decisions throughout the game to act hostile towards the chantry, or Templars, then I would expect dissaproval from a chantry related character, or maybe just a deeply spiritual character. Likewise, if you are anti-Orlesian, then an Orlesian character may become fed up with you.
I'm sure they will set it up with "approval" and "disapproval" from your party members, as they have in the past, but I would like to see it go to point in which certain companions will leave you/fight you for acting a specific way, favoring a specific group, or so on. It adds to the replay value.
I love playing through these games th first time, with no guide or helps, just trying to do what I think my character would do, and seeing the results. Like my first DA:O when I tried to do the "right thing" and let Loghain atone through being a Grey Warden. I never thought it would create the reaction it did.

[upsettingshorts]

Why does it suggest that?