51 réponses à ce sujet

[RogueWriter3201]

As Morrigan might say, "Too the point." In Dragon Age II, one of the few places I feel smart design choices were not made were with the inability to properly build repoire with companions unless said companions were taken along on quests outside of their personal ones; the two most prominent examples being Isabela and Anders.

If neither of these two are taken along, and no Friendship or Rivalry points are accumulated, important content concerning them is not triggered. In the case of Isabela, not building up enough points leaves Hawke without the means of gaining her loyalty/assistence during the Act II final confrontation with the Ariskok. Namely that the Book Isabela stole is not returned by her because of the impact Hawke has had on her.

For Anders, likewise, not bringing him along denies you proper resolution to his personal quest in Act II, namely that his post "Questioning Beliefs" dialogue does not trigger and a key aspect of his character is never revealed. In Dragon Age Origins this was never a problem one would encounter.

Via dialogue at camp, coupled with gifts and taking some companions out at the "right time", companion quests would always trigger and, save for some unique dialogue during conversations triggered by Party Banter, no content would be denied the player. While we are given the option of giving each companion one gift in DA2, I've found it's not nearly enough.

Again, to the point, my Question is if the approach to companions in Dragon Age II will be duplicated for companions in Dragon Age 3 or if the system will return to something similar to Origins? The simple fact is forcing players to have party builds that are not to one's liking or forcing us to play out of character by "saying the right things" to companions really breaks the immersion of the experience for me and I hope this will not occur in Inquisition as it did in DA2

I also recognize that this was not a problem for some. However I've seen mention of it enough to give me some pause for concern. While I know DA3 will be something really great, I am none the less hoping to avoid this particular frustration.  

[Fredward]

Actually Morrigan would say "To* the point."

And I actually think DA2 took a step in the right direction with the whole friendship/rivalry thing. That's exactly when you DIDN'T need to tell companions what they wanted to hear to gain their loyalty. You just had to let them tag along enough. And let it be known that I never had a problem maximizing everyone's friendship or rivalry through my many playthroughs. Whereas in Origins I definitely felt like I was pandering to their opinions just so they wouldn't get mad at me.

The friendship/rivalry thing needs refinement but I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that the game forces you, or at least encourages you, to play with a variety of party members.

[Asch Lavigne]

I found myself taking certain party members on quests based on who would gain what kind of points, rather than taking who I wanted. I also found myself having to agree with certain things characters said regardless of what my Hawke thought because I wanted their friendship to go a certain way. I hated that.

[Plaintiff]

I don't see the problem. People should be required to make an effort to keep their companions. People should be required to complete certain prerequisites in order to access certain story content.

[The Night Haunter]

Asch Lavigne wrote...

I found myself taking certain party members on quests based on who would gain what kind of points, rather than taking who I wanted. I also found myself having to agree with certain things characters said regardless of what my Hawke thought because I wanted their friendship to go a certain way. I hated that.

I'm sorry but that is your problem. Wanting to be a mage lover and be friends with Fenris shouldnt be easy. Wanting to be Merrils friend while being severly antiblood magic shouldnt be easy. If you decided to make your Hawke flip-flop to be popular then that was your choice. If you could easily be friends with someone while disparaging their beliefs and taking the opposite stance as them then there would be a problem.

[Navasha]

Yeah, I am not seeing the issue here either. Why would you expect to have a deep insightful view of a character who you never really interact with in the game.

To me, thats what multiple playthroughs are all about. Learning about the characters that I never bothered to get to know or understand the first time through.

[Gyrefalcon]

It would be nice to bring back the camp location and be able to do some build-up there. And more gifts would be welcome. I was more frustrated that the incredibly rare companion armor upgrades could be in locked chests in a spot I could not access again if I did not have a rogue in the party.

I guess I am hoping DA3 will strike a balance. You can't just send gifts to people and never actually spend time with them in real life and have them just like you. They will think of you in a more favorable light, but they don't know you. And we have to choose between voicing our opinion or getting along with others sometimes. I think the game reflects that, but it lacks a more neutral tone in DA2. The focus was how emotions were running high and how everything was coming to a head that would lead to the mage-templar war. But I expect we will see more moderation of our responses in the next one. It should not be as black and white as the player will have to decide how far is too far...probably.

So again, I am hoping we get a few more companion gifts back and some ability to talk to the companions outside of missions that can have meaning instead of always on missions. It can be hard when you have a good combination going to sacrifice it for dialogue options.

[Isaidlunch]

Fenris was the biggest offender for me, I hated feeling forced to leave him behind in mage related quests. It wasn't an interesting choice to make and felt too much like metagaming. I'm glad that they won't be using friendship/rivalry to unlock interactions again.

Modifié par Kazanth, 18 novembre 2012 - 07:54 .

[Jonata]

Navasha wrote...

Yeah, I am not seeing the issue here either. Why would you expect to have a deep insightful view of a character who you never really interact with in the game.

To me, thats what multiple playthroughs are all about. Learning about the characters that I never bothered to get to know or understand the first time through.

Pretty much this. I spent many of my multiple playthroughs in DA:O just to bring Shale to Orzammar or Alistair to Redcliffe and see what I missed before.

[Chaos Lord Malek]

They are not forced companions at all. You don't have to complete everything - and you can always tell them to leave after finishing their quest - you need just the maps for deep roads from Anders, and that's pretty much like any other quest for NPC.

And yours "you miss important content" and "in origins it was better" - it was not. You can tell Morrigan to go away - and you miss her content, you can leave Sten to die and miss his content. Actually the one forced companion on you is Alistair, who i don't think its possible to send away. At least we can kill him though, that's good in my book.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

The need to spread out dialogue options throughout the game is the biggest problem for me to interact with the companion. The dialogue are spread way too thin to feel any need for caring. The loop talks such as "We'll talk later" is more annoying than ever. And the companions primary conversation strictly confined within "Questioning Belief" is making the entire companions sound like a preprogrammed AI rather than a real person. The whole conversation lack of dynamic drive and feel shallow as puddle.They shouldn't lump all expository dialogue lines into party banter. Those expository dialogues are what making them a person who have other priorities in life than belief system problem. I would be more interested to learn their other core values presented in party banters than repeated rantings of Anders regarding the templars for 7 goddamn years,

[The Night Haunter]

Kazanth wrote...

Fenris was the biggest offender for me, I hated feeling forced to leave him behind in mage related quests. It wasn't an interesting choice to make and felt too much like metagaming. I'm glad that they won't be using friendship/rivalry to unlock interactions again.

Where are you getting that from?

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

Kazanth wrote...

Fenris was the biggest offender for me, I hated feeling forced to leave him behind in mage related quests. It wasn't an interesting choice to make and felt too much like metagaming. I'm glad that they won't be using friendship/rivalry to unlock interactions again.

You do know it's possible to achieve maximum rivalvry with certain characters as opposed to maximum friendship. You can totally bring Fenris along on mage-related quests if you want, just be prepared to build a different kind of relationship with him. It's even possible to romance a rival, FYI.

[NRieh]

The simple fact is forcing players to have party builds that are not to one's liking or forcing us to play out of character by "saying the right things" to companions really breaks the immersion of the experience for me and I hope this will not occur in Inquisition as it did in DA2

No one FORCES you into anything. On my mtagame-free run I did not care for Isabella and she ran away. Even after I found out that there are ways to avoid it - I'll never "say right things" just to make her happy and keep her in party. Missed content? May be, but I'm playing for MY story, not for "see all possible best outcomes".

Forced companions are those you can't get rid of. Like Tallis in MotA and Liara across the whole ME trilogy. Love her or hate her - she's locked into your party. Wynne was forced in the Circle Tower. Oghren is forced at some point of Deeproads. 

Fenris was the biggest offender for me, I hated feeling forced to leave him behind in mage related quests.

Guess what? I friendmanecd Anders and on my last PT 90% of time I had Fenris-Anders-Varric party. And Fenris had enough friend points not to leave me after siding with mages. Was surprised myself, it must be myHawke was such a cool girl.

Modifié par Nrieh, 18 novembre 2012 - 10:05 .

[RogueWriter3201]

I feel some folks are missing the point here. If you didn't have problems with the DA2 companions, for whatever reason, then that's fine. I, however, did, and it was mainly due to simply not having enough conversation options to build Friendship or Rivalry. I don't have a problem with the F&R system, I thought it was fantastic. The ability to agree or disagree and have the relationship reach a point where you express your views and either win them over or don't.

The *problem* is that, unless you take many of them along (i.e. Anders, Isabela, Carver/Bethany, and Sebastian) the build of Friendship or Rivalry points is negligible at best. You are given one gift to offer to each and, sometimes, it actually makes things worse by inching the points bar towards friendship when what little conversation you've had has resulted in mostly Rivalry.

As such, what I would like for DA3 is not a removal of the F&R system, but rather an addition to it. Don't punish the player for not bringing characters along. Offer *more* conversations instead of just personal quest dialogue. In Origins you could still develop the stories of all your companions by merely talking to them every time you returned from a quest hub and moved the story along, with gifts being a bonus.

I never had to Meta-game any of my Origins companions. I could tell Morrigan exactly what I thought and she disagreed. However, being able to ask about her life and building a relationship/repoire, coupled with the occasional gift, allowed me to get her full story and quests, with the game even ending with her considering me something of a friend even though we didn't see eye to eye.

In DA2, due to the limited conversation options, if you don't drag Anders or Isabela into your party there isn't even a *chance* to build a relationship, easy or not. If I want my party to consist of, say, just Aveline, Merrill, Varric, and me I should not be punished by not being able to get to know all the *other* companions and get all their story content.

While some of you were able to avoid that (Yay for you) others were not; as such I do feel as if there is room for expansion/improvement. The easiest being allowing the player to get to know companions fully without forcing them into your party build (and, no, I don't mean forcing you to keep them around, I mean in your *party*, i.e. when you go out questing) as was done in Origins. This isn't a "Origins was Better!" Thread. I enjoyed both games almost equally. But I do think DA3 could benefit from the intergration of companion elements from *both* games, especially where relationship building/conversations is concerned. Hope that clears things up.

[Plaintiff]

Well, I don't want to miss out on content just because I choose not to do a sidequest. I should get the EXP and rewards anyway.

[Isaidlunch]

ghostmessiah202 wrote...

Where are you getting that from?

http://25.media.tumb...g8r9o1_1280.png

The Teryn of Whatever wrote...

You do know it's possible to achieve maximum rivalvry with certain characters as opposed to maximum friendship. You can totally bring Fenris along on mage-related quests if you want, just be prepared to build a different kind of relationship with him. It's even possible to romance a rival, FYI.

That's extremely difficult to do if you're nice to him and share his stances on slavery. My first playthrough involved no metagaming and his approval ended up at 60% friendship, it definitely wasn't going to turn into a rivalry.

Nrieh wrote...

Guess
what? I friendmanecd Anders and on my last PT 90% of time I had
Fenris-Anders-Varric party. And Fenris had enough friend points not to
leave me after siding with mages. Was surprised myself, it must be
myHawke was such a cool girl.

Are you accusing my Hawke of being uncool?

[NRieh]

In DA2, due to the limited conversation options, if you don't drag Anders or Isabela into your party there isn't even a *chance* to build a relationship, easy or not.

Limited conversations IS a problem, no matter if we are talking about "forced" (I still do not think this word is used right here) or "prefered" companions. That's true and there is much to be improved about it. Talking to your companion once per chaper is NOT enough, period.

But on the other hand - think how often it is possible to build relations with someone you don't even communicate with? I mean - you leave Isabella drinking at the bar (or Anders healing his patients in Darktown), you see them once per week (at best). Does it have much sense you can make friends with them same as with any "prefered" companion you see 24\\7 while killing big things, exploring dangerous areas and doing great deeds?

In one of my DAO Pts I did not care for Leliana, never used her (being rogue-archer). And while she was friendly - I heared her singing only on my second PT, where I needed her skills in party and could have more aprove. And it looked fine.

To put it short - I do not advocate DA2 lack of interaction with companions, don't get me wrong. But I also do not think that relations options for "prefered" and "missed" companions should look same.

[Rawgrim]

Plaintiff wrote...

Well, I don't want to miss out on content just because I choose not to do a sidequest. I should get the EXP and rewards anyway.

Meaning your characters fighting abilities should improve when you don`t do anything to get more experienced with weapons?

[Newschmoo]

I don't have an issue with the friendship/rivalry set up. I find it an interesting concept.

I tended to bring along companions that I felt were the best set up in dealing with the quests, rather than trying to get so many friendship/rivalry points. I did not know that Isabella returns the book and helps with the Arishok if you had enough friendship points. Had I known!

I always had Anders in my party, because he is the healer and one rogue and one warrior (my Hawke was a damager mage). I tried to give most of my companions an opportunity to come on the quests with Hawke (particularly for the party banter).

I have to admit that I did not use Merrill that much (apart from her own quests). She just didn't fit in with my set up, which was a shame. My Hawke is also almost at 100% rivalry with her (despite the lack of screen time with her) due to his anti-blood magic views. I shall definitely use her on my next play through as a warrior or rogue.

As my Hawke if pro-mage I thought he would be more into rivalry territory with Fenris, as it started out that way, but no, they are really good friends due to having the same views on slavery (and also killing quite a few slavers).

I kinda of miss the camp set up, having all the characters in one place, being able to speak to them, find out a lot more about them and also the gifts. Giving gifts (whether giving friendship or rivalry points) would be good.

I also miss the opportunity speaking to companions during the quests. Yes the downside is that you could end up having a romance conversation covered in blood after a battle. But I am finding in DA2 that the companion conversations are a little bit restrictive.

[Plaintiff]

Rawgrim wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Well, I don't want to miss out on content just because I choose not to do a sidequest. I should get the EXP and rewards anyway.

Meaning your characters fighting abilities should improve when you don`t do anything to get more experienced with weapons?

Yep.

I'm actually half-serious. It's been intimated that the next DA game will offer more alternative, non-violent resolutions to quests. But if I don't get EXP for taking those alternative routes, then my combat skills might end up being gimped when I need them, meaning I won't be able to complete the main campaign.

That would be a serious design flaw, because it would mean my playstyle wasn't actually valid.

OP's problem with the companions is actually more trivial in comparison. She's not being prevented from completing the main campaign, she's just missing out on optional content, and what she considers to be a "perfect" ending. She actively chose to ignore Isabela and Anders, but doesn't want to suffer the consequences thereof. It'd be like saying "I chose to annul the Ferelden Circle and now I can't access Wynne's content. I shouldn't be punished for making the choice to murder her!"

[Direwolf0294]

Yeah, it's stupid. I was a rogue in DA2, which meant two of my party slots were already filled with the required tank and healer (Aveline and Anders). My third slot went to my LI, Merrill, because I always bring my LI along with me. I really liked Isabla, but there was no room in my party for her, and it annoys me to no end that she skipped out on me at the end of Act 2 and I never saw her again or experienced her story because of that.

[smallwhippet]

glenboy24 wrote...




In DA2, due to the limited conversation options, if you don't drag Anders or Isabela into your party there isn't even a *chance* to build a relationship, easy or not..

There are, however, other opportunities outside of the 'action' part of quests: when accepting or declining quests around Kirkwall, or ,say, talking to the Grand Cleric, your companions frequently have strong reactions and friendship/rivalry points are gained accordingly. As you know, after accepting quests, you have the option of changing your party because you don't have to rush off straight away and complete them.

As I frequently change my party  for running around the city, without the need for considering who would form the most useful combinations in a fight, I am still hearing new banter and finding hitherto undiscovered friendship/rivalry opportunities, even after seven full playthroughs...

[Rawgrim]

Plaintiff wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Well, I don't want to miss out on content just because I choose not to do a sidequest. I should get the EXP and rewards anyway.

Meaning your characters fighting abilities should improve when you don`t do anything to get more experienced with weapons?

Yep.

I'm actually half-serious. It's been intimated that the next DA game will offer more alternative, non-violent resolutions to quests. But if I don't get EXP for taking those alternative routes, then my combat skills might end up being gimped when I need them, meaning I won't be able to complete the main campaign.

That would be a serious design flaw, because it would mean my playstyle wasn't actually valid.

OP's problem with the companions is actually more trivial in comparison. She's not being prevented from completing the main campaign, she's just missing out on optional content, and what she considers to be a "perfect" ending. She actively chose to ignore Isabela and Anders, but doesn't want to suffer the consequences thereof. It'd be like saying "I chose to annul the Ferelden Circle and now I can't access Wynne's content. I shouldn't be punished for making the choice to murder her!"

When they simplified the game, they also added "scaling" when it came to enemies, i belive. its impossible to get gimped at all, with a feature like that.

Choices and consequences is pretty much the heart of any rpg. Adds to the replay vallue too.

[NRieh]

Yeah, it's stupid. I was a rogue in DA2, which meant two of my party slots were already filled with the required tank and healer (Aveline and Anders).

It's not game itself that restricts your party setup in DA2, it's you.

You try to build some kind of "classic" strategy-tactics party setup, which is just not needed. Most of the time while on normal - you can play without tank, without healer, 3 rogues or 3 mages all melee or all ranged. It does not change a damn thing, as all battles are just hack-n-slash waves.

Aveline is slightly better at tanking than Fenris is, but in both cases they will lose aggro without constant micromanage.

Even healer is optional, though he can make your life easier. Because - long CD on basic heal spell. Many times I had Anders with full mana using potions instead of healing himself up.

So - from gameplay point of view - you have no reasons neither to leave nor to pick companions in DA2 for some "strategical" purposes (unless, possibly, you play on hard modes - that's when any extra dps, hp or crit % counts). The only exeption - rogue is needed for traps and locks. But I can't remember any non-optional locked object or door.

Modifié par Nrieh, 18 novembre 2012 - 02:00 .