98 réponses à ce sujet

[Galactus_the_Devourer]

I'd prefer six, or at least five, but four is a minimum.

What I would like to see is splitting up of the party (not neccessarily for special gameplay mechanics, but say, you split the party up so one group gets to defend the keep and the other gets to try to take out the enemy commander, then you get to first play as Protagonist+3 characters and then as Second character "leader"+3 characters....)

Ideally I want to be able to be flexible: Have the minimum roles filled and then one or two slots for "experimenting".

[Parmida]

I'd like to bring more party members along. :3

[nos_astra]

 I suppose I'm part of a small minority then. I'd like to see less squaddies companions. Maybe two like in ME, with a pool of four or five to choose from. Then give these guys more content, a strong personality, an agenda of their own, a good storyline that meshes well with the main plot. I've had enough of companions whose sole purpose is to provide additional firepower and fanboying.

I'd prefer that to a game like ME2 where you get a ridiculously high number of companions to choose from who are barely alive outside of their mostly tacked-on recruitment and loyalty missions.

It would be neat if they'd refrain from lore-breaking companions like golems or blood mages who are exceptionally rare and scary if the world around us doesn't give a damn.

Edit: I agree, it would be good if I can assign tasks now and then for the companions I have to leave behind.

Modifié par klarabella, 31 octobre 2012 - 05:22 .

[David Gaider]

There are several cons involved with having party members:

* Pathfinding. You ever wonder why most games that involve movement don't have party members, or greatly simplify how those characters (usually just one) follow you? This is why. The physical act of co-ordinating four or more characters through a level is challenging unless the entire level (and likely the game) is built specifically to allow for it.

* Memory budget: Party members are expensive, in terms of the active memory they must consume. Why? There are technical reasons which are, to be frank, completely beyond me as a writer. Something about their AI, their animations and/or their more detailed models. We need to balance the amount of memory they take up with the amount of memory the other models in an area (such as ambients or enemies) take up or which the level itself takes up. Having more of one means having less of the others.

Do you guys care about these things? No, I doubt it. But they are the primary hurdles we must face, above and beyond any kind of story implications party size might have.

[Bfler]

David Gaider wrote...

* Memory budget: Party members are expensive, in terms of the active memory they must consume. Why? There are technical reasons which are, to be frank, completely beyond me as a writer. Something about their AI, their animations and/or their more detailed models. We need to balance the amount of memory they take up with the amount of memory the other models in an area (such as ambients or enemies) take up or which the level itself takes up. Having more of one means having less of the others.

What? In Skyrim I can run around with a little army of followers in a town, without a significant loss of performance or raise of memory usage and you aren't able to do the same in your game?

And in Origins with extra dog slot and Ranger specialisation you could say, that you have more than 3 other party members and there aren't any problems.

Only problem with more followers is the mentioned blocking of the PC in small areas.

Modifié par Bfler, 31 octobre 2012 - 07:34 .

[alex90c]

I don't mind if the party stays at four, I just wish (and this isn't even at Bioware, it bugs me about games in general) there wouldn't be so many times where you're put down to the standard number of people fighting with you just as a gaming convenience, take Sur'kesh in ME3 for example where when you reach a certain level there's a bunch of salarians fighting and then when you arrive they just slump over dead.

[Fredvdp]

David Gaider wrote...

There are several cons involved with having party members:

* Pathfinding. You ever wonder why most games that involve movement don't have party members, or greatly simplify how those characters (usually just one) follow you? This is why. The physical act of co-ordinating four or more characters through a level is challenging unless the entire level (and likely the game) is built specifically to allow for it.

This was quite obvious in the Mass Effect games where characters would get lost and then just teleoport behind you. It doesn't bother me, though. I used to play Final Fantasy games where all party members are simply "inside" your character.

[Sanunes]

Bfler wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

* Memory budget: Party members are expensive, in terms of the active memory they must consume. Why? There are technical reasons which are, to be frank, completely beyond me as a writer. Something about their AI, their animations and/or their more detailed models. We need to balance the amount of memory they take up with the amount of memory the other models in an area (such as ambients or enemies) take up or which the level itself takes up. Having more of one means having less of the others.

What? In Skyrim I can run around with a little army of followers in a town, without a significant loss of performance or raise of memory usage and you aren't able to do the same in your game?

And in Origins with extra dog slot and Ranger specialisation you could say, that you have more than 3 other party members and there aren't any problems.

Only problem with more followers is the mentioned blocking of the PC in small areas.

Just out of curiosity, did you play on the PC or Console, for when Skyrim was first released on the consoles had major issues with lag and missing texutres and I would think memory management would have been part of the issue.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

David Gaider wrote...

There are several cons involved with having party members:

* Pathfinding. You ever wonder why most games that involve movement don't have party members, or greatly simplify how those characters (usually just one) follow you? This is why. The physical act of co-ordinating four or more characters through a level is challenging unless the entire level (and likely the game) is built specifically to allow for it.

* Memory budget: Party members are expensive, in terms of the active memory they must consume. Why? There are technical reasons which are, to be frank, completely beyond me as a writer. Something about their AI, their animations and/or their more detailed models. We need to balance the amount of memory they take up with the amount of memory the other models in an area (such as ambients or enemies) take up or which the level itself takes up. Having more of one means having less of the others.

Do you guys care about these things? No, I doubt it. But they are the primary hurdles we must face, above and beyond any kind of story implications party size might have.

That explains the linear level design.

No, serously. I understand. In Awakening, some of the levels were much larger than those in Origins. Party members often got stuck on objects or simply didn't know where to go. It was kind of a pain in the ass. I suppose the most one could ask for is more variety between party members. Oghren and Sten were almost identical combat-wise.

[Bfler]

Sanunes wrote...

Bfler wrote...
.....
What? In Skyrim I can run around with a little army of followers in a town, without a significant loss of performance or raise of memory usage and you aren't able to do the same in your game?

And in Origins with extra dog slot and Ranger specialisation you could say, that you have more than 3 other party members and there aren't any problems.

Only problem with more followers is the mentioned blocking of the PC in small areas.

Just out of curiosity, did you play on the PC or Console, for when Skyrim was first released on the consoles had major issues with lag and missing texutres and I would think memory management would have been part of the issue.

PC.  I would never buy an Elder Scrolls game on console.
And yes, at release Skyrim had problems because of the 2GB limit, but there were unofficial and in the meantime also official fixes.

Modifié par Bfler, 31 octobre 2012 - 08:10 .

[Wulfram]

Mr Gaider's post makes me think that you could maybe make an open, simple area which is light on memory demands and have a really big party. Might be fun for a particular set piece battle, though I guess the GUI might not be able to easily handle having loads more characters

[Estelindis]

David Gaider wrote...

Do you guys care about these things? No, I doubt it. But they are the primary hurdles we must face, above and beyond any kind of story implications party size might have.

I care!    Thanks for telling us.  

[Brodoteau]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I don't have a problem with a party of four (I'd love a party of five or six, but that's not a hill I'm ready to die on) but what I'd really want is more sections like in the first assault on Denerim DA:O, where the entire group is fighting at once, even if they would be operating outside my control.

Sections like the Suicide Mission in ME2 would be great, as well. Times in the game where you can order certain party members to assume certain roles, which you lead a normal sized party in a coordinated effort/attack at the same time. This could expand the size of the 'party' to be all of your companions, while at the same time not overloading the console hard-limit of four playable characters on screen at once.

Just want to echo my support for this.  I recognize the technical limitations that Mr. Gaider mentions above, so the size of the Baldur's Gate party is probably not going to come back.  
But if that's the case, I wish there was sometimes a story reason why I can't take everyone e.g. in DA:O, Riordan tells you that a small party would be able to achieve more without being noticed. I didn't agree, but at least now I have a reason for why I have to say goodbye to my super-powered party (btw that was a great line in Awakenings, when the Lieutenant says "you are an army" -- by the later stages of the game). 
Otherwise I am left with one of the major problems I always had with the BG series:
"Okay, we're going to fight Melissan, she's almost god-like in power, she has an entire dimensional realm under her control and if we don't stop her it could mean the end of life as we know it.  I have assembled 15 of the most powerful people in the realm to help me ... but sorry I can only take 5 of you with me."   It never made sense to me.   

Modifié par Brodoteau, 31 octobre 2012 - 08:36 .

[David Gaider]

Bfler wrote...
What? In Skyrim I can run around with a little army of followers in a town, without a significant loss of performance or raise of memory usage and you aren't able to do the same in your game?

I'm not saying no game can do this, just that it's an issue that we have because of our choices-- choices which every game must make in terms of what it focuses on. A game like Skyrim does some things (like "moving through an environment") better because it does other things worse... there is no way to take its strengths without also taking its weaknesses.

Why? I don't know. Like I said before, I don't get it myself and thus I'm not the person to argue the point. I'm a writer, so when someone tells me about technical limitations or resources allocations that make it more challenging for story, I stare at them quizzically until they eventually just tell me I'll have to take their word for it. Some of these things are being made easier by the new engine, but naturally there are also some things which just won't go away.

Insofar as a larger party goes, it is possible to arrange a level so that you could conceivably fit an entire party in it. The visible area would have to be small (so line of sight blocked), it would need to be free of placeables and probably couldn't have a great deal of enemies... not unless they were very simple models ("jimmies", we call them, meaning they have low poly count and incredibly simple AI). So, for very specific purposes, it can be done... but across a whole game? That's much more problematic.

[KainD]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Size doesn't matter.

But I like it on the bigger side.

 

My mind needs a reboot.

[ShaggyWolf]

One more party slot would be amazing, because then I can take the obligatory healer, tank, and rogue (If I'm not playing one) and still have room for a favorite companion that would otherwise be collecting dust.

For example, in DA3, I'm planning on playing a dual wield rogue. With 3 companion slots, I would certainly be taking whatever healer companion available, a tank, and some sort of ranged damage dealer. But if there's some 2h warrior, or a DW rogue or non-healer mage that I really like, they might get stuck unfortunately collecting dust (Like Fenris and Isabela did in DA:2, for me). With 4 companion slots, I could at least take one such companion with me.

A 5 member party would also mean that enemy groups would ideally need to be larger to compensate, which would be really fun for me, but as Mr. Gaider said, technically problematic to the developers.

Ultimately, I'd understand either way, and I'm very much looking forward to the game regardless.

[artsangel]

Using the PC console commands in DA2 you can actually put everybody in your party at once. You don't get them on the GUI, but they are on screen, they fight, they banter, and you can click them and issue commands. At least on my computer, processory/memory wise it handled it just fine.

I did it in the Legacy DLC when I wanted to get all the new party banter

(If I recall correctly though, I think it screwed up cutscenes a bit, as characters were on top of each other)

Modifié par artsangel, 31 octobre 2012 - 10:01 .

[MilaBanilla]

artsangel wrote...

Using the PC console commands in DA2 you can actually put everybody in your party at once. You don't get them on the GUI, but they are on screen, they fight, they banter, and you can click them and issue commands. At least on my computer, processory/memory wise it handled it just fine.

I did it in the Legacy DLC when I wanted to get all the new party banter

(If I recall correctly though, I think it screwed up cutscenes a bit, as characters were on top of each other)

I just imagined them on top of each others head 
Tell me this console command !!!!

Anyways, I am cool with 2-3 party members. More than that, it can get hectic and distracting(well, to me anyways it does )

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

RTS games are made using magic.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 01 novembre 2012 - 03:52 .

[Swagger7]

David Gaider wrote...

Bfler wrote...
What? In Skyrim I can run around with a little army of followers in a town, without a significant loss of performance or raise of memory usage and you aren't able to do the same in your game?

I'm not saying no game can do this, just that it's an issue that we have because of our choices-- choices which every game must make in terms of what it focuses on. A game like Skyrim does some things (like "moving through an environment") better because it does other things worse... there is no way to take its strengths without also taking its weaknesses.

Why? I don't know. Like I said before, I don't get it myself and thus I'm not the person to argue the point. I'm a writer, so when someone tells me about technical limitations or resources allocations that make it more challenging for story, I stare at them quizzically until they eventually just tell me I'll have to take their word for it. Some of these things are being made easier by the new engine, but naturally there are also some things which just won't go away.

Insofar as a larger party goes, it is possible to arrange a level so that you could conceivably fit an entire party in it. The visible area would have to be small (so line of sight blocked), it would need to be free of placeables and probably couldn't have a great deal of enemies... not unless they were very simple models ("jimmies", we call them, meaning they have low poly count and incredibly simple AI). So, for very specific purposes, it can be done... but across a whole game? That's much more problematic.

So, are the tech guys still looking into larger parties as a possibilty, or is it completely off the table?  (Or can't you say?)

[Mello]

More people = reviving more = loosing mana

[unbentbuzzkill]

@ipoohcupcakes

that's why you leave them there to die survival of the fittest and all that stuff

[Nerevar-as]

Valadras21 wrote...

One more party slot would be amazing, because then I can take the obligatory healer, tank, and rogue (If I'm not playing one) and still have room for a favorite companion that would otherwise be collecting dust.

For example, in DA3, I'm planning on playing a dual wield rogue. With 3 companion slots, I would certainly be taking whatever healer companion available, a tank, and some sort of ranged damage dealer. But if there's some 2h warrior, or a DW rogue or non-healer mage that I really like, they might get stuck unfortunately collecting dust (Like Fenris and Isabela did in DA:2, for me). With 4 companion slots, I could at least take one such companion with me.

A 5 member party would also mean that enemy groups would ideally need to be larger to compensate, which would be really fun for me, but as Mr. Gaider said, technically problematic to the developers.

Ultimately, I'd understand either way, and I'm very much looking forward to the game regardless.

We already had the summoned pets in Origins. Maybe it´s harder with NPCs? And I´d also like an extra slot. I played DA2 in NM with a DW rogue, so I couldn´t GW Bethany because it would have been suicidal to go to de DR without a tank, Varric was mandatory, and Anders had to be the other one.

[Darth Krytie]

I'm not too fussed about having a smaller party. There's only been two or three times where I wanted a larger party. And that was during the Mark of the Assassin and Legacy DLCs.

[Dave of Canada]

I've tried something with this once. Without going too technical, adding an extra person suddenly changes the gameplay pretty drastically as some things become a lot easier and you'd have to balance encounters around having four people.

It has far more impact than you'd believe, encounters need to be tuned towards four people and this often means adding more enemies on your screen and with the added party member this means you'll have dozens more spell effects going off everywhere, I haven't touched frostbyte or eclipse but the brief engines I've played with can't handle too much.

Games like Skyrim and Gears of War which have multiple characters onscreen often have other limitations which you don't see running in the back, perhaps it's integrated well enough into the gameplay which you'd never notice (corridor shooters are often corridor shooters for this reason).