170 réponses à ce sujet

[deuce985]

10 companions adds diversity. As long as the writers get proper time with them, that's ok. I could see negatives to this. Like, less customization on your companions because you have so many. However, it seems like Bioware recognizes DA3 needs to be more diverse based on all the information that is coming out. So, I'm not really concerned about it at this point. Companion customization was the first details they revealed about DA3. That tells me it's something very high on their list to do in development(hopefully).

Less companions is risky, IMO. It means you have to develop personalities that align with player interests. Not everyone is going to agree with their personalities. Having 10 just increases the odds you'll find somebody you really like. The positive to less companions probably means they can devote more resources to customization.

And let's face it...gaming today has a trend with customization. So, it's important to a lot of people.

Modifié par deuce985, 12 octobre 2012 - 07:09 .

[Aslanasadi]

legbamel wrote...

I love the idea of more and varied companions as well as different party sizes for different situations. Ten sounds like a good number to me, allowing for me to run through the game in a a variety of ways and try permutations of party members to unlock evey delicious morsel of conversation and party banter.

Besides, more sompanions equals more LIs, right?

I totally agree with you

[Rawgrim]

The more companions, the better. It adds to the replayability of the game.

[cindercatz]

Yeah, the more the better, so long as they're all fleshed out and fully integrated, with their own dialogue points throughout the game and plenty of party banter, and with the unique customization. Whatever that maximum number is, I don't know, but BioWare knows its budget and it's workload, so I'm not worried about numbers. Ten sounds good, as always.

[DRobin13]

Bioware has always been great when it come to creating companions. Both DA:O and DAII both had 9 companions. Each personality was unique and creative, so adding 1 more wouldn't be a problem for them but I do see the difficulty with making armor that changes depeding on the campanion it's placed on.

But with the time they have and their team I think they'll pull it off. I doubt the banter, ractions and dialog will be hurt from 1 more compainon.

[Eveangaline]

legbamel wrote...

I love the idea of more and varied companions as well as different party sizes for different situations. Ten sounds like a good number to me, allowing for me to run through the game in a a variety of ways and try permutations of party members to unlock evey delicious morsel of conversation and party banter.

This. Yes. One of the best ways to replay a game is with different party members.

[Chaos Lord Malek]

I strongly suggest having fewer companions. 6 well done companions is more then enough. That's creates like 36 combinations for just playing whole game through and through, and they can be better integrated into the main story.

In Dragon Age 2 only Isabella and Anders got anything to do with main plot (Varrick a bit too, especially first act and final boss). Fenris and Merril were totally out of place, and if you outright send them away, nothing is lost at all. Aveline and Sebastian (though i hate that guy) had at least something with it, being related to the events, one as captain of guards and other as revered mother pet. Then we had siblings - those were done good, each could have multiple different fates, which is exactly how it should be.

[Medhia Nox]

I think they should have 402 possible companions... but only 47 could join you in your campaign... and only 4.2 could quest with you and any given time.

And I never - ever - want an NPC to overshadow me again like Anders did. Ever.

[Massakkolia]

It's likely we'll get about the same number of companions as in DA:O and DA2. In my opinion that's too many but I'm sure the companions will be fairly well developed in any case.

It would be an interesting experiment if a Dragon Age game would only have three companions (a rogue, a mage and a warrior). That would mean that the party would be fixed and the same team would be present in all scenes and all battles.

We'd hopefully get much deeper interaction with companions, more banter, much better character development, complex relationships and a different kind of combat, which could be designed around the specific skills of those three companions.

This solution would shake up the formula and bring some fresh thinking to Dragon Age. It wouldn't diminish the choice element but it would change it to a more focused approach. The player could concentrate to manage a small group of companions both in combat and in narrative.

The usual complaint is that a small team wouldn't necessarily have companions that everybody likes or wants to romance. In my opinion, that's not important as long as the companions are exceptionally well-written. I don't especially like Leliana or Sebastian but I consider them both good characters. DA:O and DA2 are more enjoyable because of them. Liking the characters is not necessary for a game to be good, disliking or hating a character can be pretty entertaining as well.

As far as romances go, not all romance options have to be companions. In any case, great character development is much more important than a mediocre romance.

Modifié par Ria, 12 octobre 2012 - 08:43 .

[LinksOcarina]

I will be honest, I think ten is too small.

But I am kind of a glutton in terms of companions, the more the merrier, especially if they are all different and actually well written.

Of course, the caveat is that many may fall through the cracks then. Still, considering the numbers in previous games, ten is fine.

[Quicksilver26]

I play bioware games for the companions so the more there the better (10 is good lets leave it alone now pulse Mr.Gaider has spoken and the companions are already set so get over it)

[Jadebaby]

David Gaider wrote...

HeriocGreyWarden wrote...
Up to 10 companions will join your party this time out, with battle groups including as many as 4 support characters, doubling the usual BioWare party size.

Well, then I would say don't trust everything you read in that source. It's incorrect.

Either way, if we thought the cost of an individual companion made having X number of companions too expensive then we would have less companions. If we thought that having more visual customization of companions was a feature worth spending some money on, and which would get us some bang for our dollars, then we would spend it.

Gosh it really has come down to this, hasn't it? What are EA giving you for a budget, Peanuts?

They're a multi-billion dollar company. This is why people hate them.

[Tiguaje]

Chaos Lord Malek wrote...

I strongly suggest having fewer companions. 6 well done companions is more then enough. That's creates like 36 combinations for just playing whole game through and through, and they can be better integrated into the main story.

 

I Support...

[legbamel]

Ria wrote...
It's likely we'll get about the same number of companions as in DA:O and DA2. In my opinion that's too many but I'm sure the companions will be fairly well developed in any case.

It would be an interesting experiment if a Dragon Age game would only have three companions (a rogue, a mage and a warrior). That would mean that the party would be fixed and the same team would be present in all scenes and all battles.

We'd hopefully get much deeper interaction with companions, more banter, much better character development, complex relationships and a different kind of combat, which could be designed around the specific skills of those three companions.

This solution would shake up the formula and bring some fresh thinking to Dragon Age. It wouldn't diminish the choice element but it would change it to a more focused approach. The player could concentrate to manage a small group of companions both in combat and in narrative.

The usual complaint is that a small team wouldn't necessarily have companions that everybody likes or wants to romance. In my opinion, that's not important as long as the companions are exceptionally well-written. I don't especially like Leliana or Sebastian but I consider them both good characters. DA:O and DA2 are more enjoyable because of them. Liking the characters is not necessary for a game to be good, disliking or hating a character can be pretty entertaining as well.

As far as romances go, not all romance options have to be companions. In any case, great character development is much more important than a mediocre romance.

Where's the replay value in a fixed party?  I would hate having only three companions and being forced to take all of them with me everywhere.  Inevitably, BioWare makes a companion I love to hate (or simply can't stand) and am more than happy to leave standing around wherever I left him or her.

I don't understand how removing my choice in party composition "wouldn't diminish the choice element".  If I have no choice then how is that not less choice than, y'know, having choices?  

[Massakkolia]

legbamel wrote...

Where's the replay value in a fixed party?  I would hate having only three companions and being forced to take all of them with me everywhere.  Inevitably, BioWare makes a companion I love to hate (or simply can't stand) and am more than happy to leave standing around wherever I left him or her.

I don't understand how removing my choice in party composition "wouldn't diminish the choice element".  If I have no choice then how is that not less choice than, y'know, having choices?  

You would still have plenty of of choice in your game but it would be aimed differently. Companion-related choices wouldn't be thinly spread around a large flock of characters. Instead there would be depth to the choice.

The replay value would be in your interaction with the companions, how the PC would influence them and how they would influence the PC (something along the lines of hardening Alistair but much more in depth). The relationship structure would be complex and you could see a completely different side of one companion on another playthrough. It would allow writers to really invest in character development.

When it comes to combat, the choice could be implemented through robust skill trees and specializations.

I know this isn't something most people prefer. It was just a suggestion that I know is very unlikely to happen. I'd like Bioware to try a fixed party in some of their games in the future though, perhaps with a new IP.

Ideally we would have a huge party with endless customization and interaction. Unfortunately developers operate within limited resources, which is why I prefer small parties.

[marshalleck]

Ten companions is too many. Five or siz at the most is more like it. Make them actually complex characters, not just misfits with daddy issues and deep down, hearts of gold. 

All of you saying six would be too restrictive, are simply too accustomed to shallow Bioware characters.

Modifié par marshalleck, 13 octobre 2012 - 01:30 .

[AppealToReason]

Zkyire wrote...

HeriocGreyWarden wrote...

 They said they are going to make every armor peice in the game different looking for every companion,+ they need to make dialouge,banters,reactions and much more,I think making 10 companions is a waste of reasurces,I think 6-8 would be a perfect number of companions.

Do you know how much work does it take to desgin a companion,and then how much work it takes to make disscusions and  banters and different combinations of banters between them???

I hope that the leaked survey chose 10 companions and that you needed to vote on them and that they then pick 6-8 of them depending on your votes.

Let them spend reasurces to make companions more special and epic like Morrigan,Alistar,Sten,Leliana,Isabella and Varric not too many of them.

And if we have fewer companions; people will complain about a lack of variety.

What're you talking about? No one complained about that in ME3!

Oh wait they did. Lots.

[Vilegrim]

David Gaider wrote...

HeriocGreyWarden wrote...
Up to 10 companions will join your party this time out, with battle groups including as many as 4 support characters, doubling the usual BioWare party size.

Well, then I would say don't trust everything you read in that source. It's incorrect.

Either way, if we thought the cost of an individual companion made having X number of companions too expensive then we would have less companions. If we thought that having more visual customization of companions was a feature worth spending some money on, and which would get us some bang for our dollars, then we would spend it.

please make companions optional... pretty please?   I cam think of several across both DA and ME that I would far rather have not had in the party, not even in the 'left in crap gear in camp' style.

Modifié par Vilegrim, 13 octobre 2012 - 01:47 .

[AppealToReason]

I don't see any issue with that. Everyone needs to fill a certain role so you're never screwed as the PC for not picking a specialization. Plus it makes it more likely I can find my perfect party of jerks.

Besides, DAO had 10 possible ones and there was 10 in DA2 although Tallis buggered off.

[Thrillian]

Vilegrim wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

HeriocGreyWarden wrote...
Up to 10 companions will join your party this time out, with battle groups including as many as 4 support characters, doubling the usual BioWare party size.

Well, then I would say don't trust everything you read in that source. It's incorrect.

Either way, if we thought the cost of an individual companion made having X number of companions too expensive then we would have less companions. If we thought that having more visual customization of companions was a feature worth spending some money on, and which would get us some bang for our dollars, then we would spend it.

please make companions optional... pretty please?   I cam think of several across both DA and ME that I would far rather have not had in the party, not even in the 'left in crap gear in camp' style.

They have already made many of the companions in both games optional.

In DA:O Sten, Zevran, and Wynne were all optional.

In DA2 Isabela, Fenris, and Anders were all optional.

(there may be more, I'm not positive)

It seems that they only make one companion of each class mandatory.

[AppealToReason]

Thrillho_82 wrote...

Vilegrim wrote...

please make companions optional... pretty please?   I cam think of several across both DA and ME that I would far rather have not had in the party, not even in the 'left in crap gear in camp' style.

They have already made many of the companions in both games optional.

In DA:O Sten, Zevran, and Wynne were all optional.

In DA2 Isabela, Fenris, and Anders were all optional.

(there may be more, I'm not positive)

It seems that they only make one companion of each class mandatory.

I'm pretty sure you could tell Merrill to leave at some point and I think I read that you could skip Fenris as well.

In Origins I think Leliana and Oghren were optional as well.

Modifié par AppealToReason, 13 octobre 2012 - 02:12 .

[Vilegrim]

Thrillho_82 wrote...

Vilegrim wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

HeriocGreyWarden wrote...
Up to 10 companions will join your party this time out, with battle groups including as many as 4 support characters, doubling the usual BioWare party size.

Well, then I would say don't trust everything you read in that source. It's incorrect.

Either way, if we thought the cost of an individual companion made having X number of companions too expensive then we would have less companions. If we thought that having more visual customization of companions was a feature worth spending some money on, and which would get us some bang for our dollars, then we would spend it.

please make companions optional... pretty please?   I cam think of several across both DA and ME that I would far rather have not had in the party, not even in the 'left in crap gear in camp' style.

They have already made many of the companions in both games optional.

In DA:O Sten, Zevran, and Wynne were all optional.

In DA2 Isabela, Fenris, and Anders were all optional.

(there may be more, I'm not positive)

It seems that they only make one companion of each class mandatory.

unfortunelty the ones I didn't like (tho I don't recall Anders being optional)  like oh... Aliester [hated him soo much, only good thing about him was him storming off to drink himslef to death].  Really didn't care about Aveline(he verbal sparing with Isabela was good, but that was Isabela being cool, rather than Aveline imo), wasn't that fussed about Ogren (he was funny, for a bit, but that was it for me, liked Shale far more for comic relief).

What I am trying ot say is: if some one is abo****ly plot vital, let us know, don't rail road us into taking them, have some event introduce them.   (Or taking a quest that doesn't make sense, hello escorting the Qunari mage, awful railroad of a thing that q) 

[SafetyShattered]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

DAO had 9 and so did DA2. I don't see how adding 1 more will just kill it.

This.