50 réponses à ce sujet

[Leoroc]

 What are your thoughts on playthrough exclusive companions? For example in Kotor2 you could get Hanharr OR Mira and Handmaiden OR Disciple but not both. Me being someone who playsvthrough three or four times I love em.

[Maclimes]

Sort of like Bethany and Carver?

I like the idea that choice matters, but I dislike the idea that a lot of resources (time, art, voice) went into a character that you'll only see 50% of the time.

[MisterJB]

I am open to the idea of altercations during the game that force you to pick a side, but I think part of the fun of having companions expressing different view points is placing them together on the team.

[Wulfram]

If it's based on a choice by the PC, then in principle I support. Though it does have a cost in terms of resources of course.

Not so keen on the choice being because of your class or gender choice.

[Nerevar-as]

Interesting... as long as we can choose who we want. I remember how lacking I found the Disciple compared to Brianna, which also was a far more interesting dinamic with Mexile than Mical with Fexile. Same thing in DA2, I liked much more the relationship between Carver and Hawke than Bethany, but I just didn´t have enough suspense of disbelief to do a full playthrough with a mage in that game. Hanharr vs Mira was better done, as who would join Exile depended on the aligment, thus a variable chosen by the player.

[Leoroc]

I would also prefer it to be an ingame decision rather than meta. Like picking between a warden companion or a talking darkspawn.

[TsaiMeLemoni]

As long as we have a choice, that could be interesting. Would help inject replayability, at least if the different companions offer something very unique.

[DragonKingReborn]

Wulfram wrote...

If it's based on a choice by the PC, then in principle I support. Though it does have a cost in terms of resources of course.

Not so keen on the choice being because of your class or gender choice.

Seconded...for what it's worth.

I also liked the Hanhaar/Mira way, not exactly a choice, but a result of your character being a certain way.

[Rawgrim]

I wouldn`t be opposed to it. It would add replay value to the game, I guess.

[deuce985]

I'm honestly not a fan of this. I really didn't like it in DA2. I wanted Carver in my party all the time, not just because I picked a mage class...

Carver's only flaw was me picking a warrior. RIP Carver.

[King Cousland]

I can't speak for how KOTOR 2 included it since I've yet to played it, but based on the precedent that DA II set I'm apathetic. I personally found the Hawke twins to be very bland, and I'm unsure as to whether they could have been improved if the writers had decided to just go with one and always have, for example, Carver die in the Blightlands.

What I wouldn't mind seeing is a dynamic where you must choose between two companions, such as with Kaidan and Ashley in ME (though obviously it would have to be handled differently).

[JWvonGoethe]

I'd like to see it more often, and I'd also like the option not to recruit certain companions if it doesn't make sense for my PC to do so - Wynne, Sten and Zevran are good examples of what went right in Origins with this. Those characters added a lot, but if recruiting them doesn't make sense then I'll see them on another playthrough.

The worry about exclusive companions is that it can end up being presented as a binary choice, or, as others have said the choice can be removed completely from the player (in a bad way), eg if it is based on the PC's class - this occurred with Bethany/Carver in DA2.

So I think it is difficult to do well, but definitely worth it.

[Scott Sion]

I think it would be awesome if they did more choice based companions like Samara/Morinth in ME2. You can get either one no matter which way your Morality goes.

[Foolsfolly]

Eh. It depends on how it's done. I mean for a while there even when I played Dark Side I'd go to Nar Shadda first and stay a Grey Jedi just to pick up Mira instead of Hanharr. I really disliked that wookie.

I think the problem with exclusive characters is that they don't have much content. Carver/Bethany are gone for most of the game. Ashley/Kaidan are gone for most of ME3 and have 2 maybe 3 (but I seriously think 2) scenes where you talk to them on the Normandy.

KOTOR2 had Mira and Hanharr speak a lot but I think this was due to the fact that Hanharr didn't need to record lines. He just screams the same four canned Wookie noises over and over again.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Loghain or Alistair and Kaidan or Ashley were much better done. You actually got to know their character (even Loghain) before they went out and got themselves killed.

[Terrorize69]

Would be nice if some companions were limited to choices made in DAO and DA2.

Like say..

Hawkes younger sister/brother if they lived.
Mother Petrice if you sided with her in DA2.

Modifié par Terrorize69, 24 octobre 2012 - 09:58 .

[JWvonGoethe]

Terrorize69 wrote...

Would be nice if some companions were limited to choices made in DAO and DA2.

Like say..

Hawkes younger sister/brother if they lived.
Mother Petrice if you sided with her in DA2.

I agree: even if it meant not getting another companion as a replacement this would still be great.

[Ianamus]

It would add a lot more depth to decisions, but if I feel that one incredibly developed companion would be better than two less developed companions that you have to choose between. The Carver/Bethany decision was interesting, but since your sibling was only really there for act 1 it didn't really have the impact it could have.

If they feel they can give us a choice between two heavily developed companions I'm all for it though.

[Iosev]

I liked the twins and how they were implemented, because I thought that their differing relationships with Hawke added complimenting perspectives regarding the conflict on magic. For example, I thought that Carver's rivalry with a mage Hawke was a symbol to illustrate the wedge between mages and normal people, whereas Bethany's friendship with a non-mage Hawke was more of a symbolic bridge between mages and normal people by making her an example of a mage of fears her own power and doesn't seek to advance it.

Honestly, I don't think their relationships would have been as symbolically impactful if they both had survived, because part of Carver's bitterness deals with him being the only non-magic sibling and Bethany's torment deals with her being the primary reason that the Hawke family had to stay in hiding.

Overall, I would have loved to have the surviving sibling remain in the party for a greater period of time, but I can see why they were removed due to the story. In regards to the topic, I would love to see exclusive companions based on playthrough return in some form, but hopefully more permanent than how Carver and Bethany were in DA 2.

Modifié par arcelonious, 24 octobre 2012 - 10:14 .

[King Cousland]

JWvonGoethe wrote...

I'd like to see it more often, and I'd also like the option not to recruit certain companions if it doesn't make sense for my PC to do so - Wynne, Sten and Zevran are good examples of what went right in Origins with this. Those characters added a lot, but if recruiting them doesn't make sense then I'll see them on another playthrough.

The worry about exclusive companions is that it can end up being presented as a binary choice, or, as others have said the choice can be removed completely from the player (in a bad way), eg if it is based on the PC's class - this occurred with Bethany/Carver in DA2.

So I think it is difficult to do well, but definitely worth it.

I agree with this. Hawke's relationships with companions sometimes felt forced, simply because I had little choice over who could and couldn't join me, I had no choice over who to boot out or keep (apart from Anders and Isabela), and (while I do believe it was an improvement over approval/disapproval) the friendship/rivalry system just wasn't realistic in some cases. 

If I'm playing as a hardline Andrastian, I don't want to be anywhere near Merrill. Likewise, if my character is a libertarian mage, why would Fenris want to associate with me? 

[Scott Sion]

Terrorize69 wrote...

Would be nice if some companions were limited to choices made in DAO and DA2.

Like say..

Hawkes younger sister/brother if they lived.
Mother Petrice if you sided with her in DA2.

I think making one of Hawkes siblings a companion would be interesting, however there's a chance that neither Bethany or Carver survived and I don't think it's a good idea to waste resources on a companion that a lot of people aren't going to get.

[King Cousland]

scyphozoa wrote...

I like choice-exclusive followers. I do not like class-locked followers like Beth/Carver in DA2.

Essentially this. 

[brushyourteeth]

deuce985 wrote...

I'm honestly not a fan of this. I really didn't like it in DA2. I wanted Carver in my party all the time, not just because I picked a mage class...

Carver's only flaw was me picking a warrior. RIP Carver.

You inconsiderate prig. *shakes head*

[Scott Sion]

King Cousland wrote...

JWvonGoethe wrote...

I'd like to see it more often, and I'd also like the option not to recruit certain companions if it doesn't make sense for my PC to do so - Wynne, Sten and Zevran are good examples of what went right in Origins with this. Those characters added a lot, but if recruiting them doesn't make sense then I'll see them on another playthrough.

The worry about exclusive companions is that it can end up being presented as a binary choice, or, as others have said the choice can be removed completely from the player (in a bad way), eg if it is based on the PC's class - this occurred with Bethany/Carver in DA2.

So I think it is difficult to do well, but definitely worth it.

I agree with this. Hawke's relationships with companions sometimes felt forced, simply because I had little choice over who could and couldn't join me, I had no choice over who to boot out or keep (apart from Anders and Isabela), and (while I do believe it was an improvement over approval/disapproval) the friendship/rivalry system just wasn't realistic in some cases. 

If I'm playing as a hardline Andrastian, I don't want to be anywhere near Merrill. Likewise, if my character is a libertarian mage, why would Fenris want to associate with me? 

You honestly don't have to interact with these characters at all. If you don't put them in your party or go talk to them at their "home" then basicly they aren't part of your group.

On my Libertarian mage I befriended Fenris. I understood why his views were extreme and wanted to show him that not all mages are evil. Other then that convo in the Gallows you can pretty much ignore his mage hating dialogue.