156 réponses à ce sujet

[KainD]

@andy69156915

What if Elton John is dead was serious? What exactly is the problem with that request?

[Angrywolves]

Because they're not going to do it.

[KiwiQuiche]

robertthebard wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

krul2k wrote...

you dont need to pick fenris up at all in DA2

But if you do, you can't get rid of them once you have them until later on. That's the issue.

Then don't?  Seriously, it's not complicated; you have an option to not recruit the character, and then complain when you choose to recruit him anyway?  Who's fault is that really?

Stop being a smartass.

[Eternal Phoenix]

If the plot calls for it otherwise Bioware (for whatever reason) might decide that that optional party member should play a huge role in a later title. Killing them then means Bioware have to disregard the player's action and explain the "death" of the character. That didn't go down too well with the Lelianna thing.

Sending the companion off, imprisoning them, handing them over to some enemy or whatever means that they can always return in future titles or a future date if their role is so important. Meanwhile the player is able to be rid off them. Likely (unless we're betrayed by a companion) the only way to be rid of a companion in Inquisition would be by these methods.

Personally I'd prefer it if we never see the companions from a previous game again. It makes it seem like the protagonists are living in a small world and just happens to be too convenient that Hawke meets several of The Warden's companions/associates who just happen to be in Kirkwall. "Oh so you worked with The Warden huh? Small world eh? What? You three worked with him as well? Tiny world!"

I just hope they don't come out with "Merril needs an important role in DA:I alongside Anders again" because they're both dead in my playthrough. Not to mention that I don't want possessed mages/blood mages/mages in pacts with demons (or whatever) forced upon me again.

Can you imagine the WHINING we'd hear on the forums if the pro-mages had a templar or Chantry zealot forced upon them? Lelianna and Sebastian are both optional (with the later foolishly being made into DLC only included in the Signature Edition)  so they don't count. We pro-templars pretty much have Anders and Merill forced down our throats not to mention we have to listen to their preaching about mages. To add insult to injury we have to put up with Anders' manifestos littering our house even when we have nothing to do with him (apparently).

Seriously I just want them to force a templar or Chantry zealot on us in the next game who sends you "Andraste Letters" trying to convert you. That way pro-mages can feel the way we feel with DA2.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 04 août 2013 - 10:02 .

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Cowboy Saunter wrote...

If it suits you.How about murdering that party member.simple,easy,effective and one time fix.its not mean its called Downsizing

You can kill more than half of your companions in DAO and DA2.

Modifié par DarkKnightHolmes, 04 août 2013 - 11:49 .

[ggghhhxxxpuf]

First Elton, your suggestion wasn't bad until that whole "lol, female tranquil plaything".
One, if it was coming from the writers and being implemented in the story: I wouldn't mind, it serves a purpose to player choices and consequences, the more choices the better.
But, coming from a player in such a casual manner, in such detail and with such a "lol" attitude.... Dude, you creepy. I have stomach for these things, but that creeped me out hard.
Your funny wasn't funny at all, even when it was mocking an evil choice.

Next, on topic, I support the dissmissal of companions as long as the story and gameplay allows it, killing them only in extreme occasions like sacred ashes or the choosing sides at the end of DA2.
More variety? Yes. More opportunities? Sure, if they are backed by the story and context.

As long as I remember, neither game foced you into including companions that you hated into missions that weren't their personal ones, and in DA2 you could kick some of them out in certain quests. True, you didn't have the "get out" line in every conversation like the one you had in Origins, but the options were there.

Resuming, I may not need an in-game reason to tell some companion to scram and leave the party (become unselectable), but I need a good reason to kill them: being part of different factions, a controversial mission, a bad relationship, etc, not because of a whim. Story for me is everything, and so is coherence.

[Twisted Path]

I kind of liked the idea of the rivalry system but I did an evil playthrough of DA2 where my Bloodmage character lived up to everything Fenris feared about mages and it got kind of silly that he was still sticking around. When Fenris saw my character take an elven slave or make a deal with my second demon in the game he really should have taken the hint and turned on me or left before I inevitably sold him back into slavery.

Having more mid-game turning points where a companion sees you do something they consider unacceptable and leaves would be nice.

[PsychoBlonde]

 I'm indifferent--I generally attempt to avoid killing anyone if I possibly can.  Which is pretty funny in a game where you murder half the population of the city in combat.  I don't kill people who disagree with me in RL, why would I do it in a game?  Because I can?  Well, if I CAN do anything I want, I want to be heroic and reasonable.

[Eternal Phoenix]

ggghhhxxxpuf wrote...

First Elton, your suggestion wasn't bad until that whole "lol, female tranquil plaything".
One, if it was coming from the writers and being implemented in the story: I wouldn't mind, it serves a purpose to player choices and consequences, the more choices the better.
But, coming from a player in such a casual manner, in such detail and with such a "lol" attitude.... Dude, you creepy. I have stomach for these things, but that creeped me out hard.
Your funny wasn't funny at all, even when it was mocking an evil choice.

I was deathly serious....

ggghhhxxxpuf wrote...

Next, on topic, I support the dissmissal of companions as long as the story and gameplay allows it, killing them only in extreme occasions like sacred ashes or the choosing sides at the end of DA2.
More variety? Yes. More opportunities? Sure, if they are backed by the story and context.

As long as I remember, neither game foced you into including companions that you hated into missions that weren't their personal ones, and in DA2 you could kick some of them out in certain quests. True, you didn't have the "get out" line in every conversation like the one you had in Origins, but the options were there.

Resuming, I may not need an in-game reason to tell some companion to scram and leave the party (become unselectable), but I need a good reason to kill them: being part of different factions, a controversial mission, a bad relationship, etc, not because of a whim. Story for me is everything, and so is coherence.

True but it was them popping up at points in the game as though to suggest they're working with you or are your friends. One does wonder why we have to complete Anders' side quest in Act II just to tell him to leave. We should have had such an option as soon as we acquired the Grey Warden maps from him.

[ggghhhxxxpuf]

I know you weren't serious, that doesn't mean the text wasn't less creepy. Just an opinion, no hard feelings.

Now, Morrigan popped up out of nowhere to offer you the dark ritual, even when she wasn't part of the party anymore.
Character arcs or important plot points are valid for a character to reappear into action. But, I admit, if the relationship with said character wasn't good or we ignored them, it has to be reflected in the dialogue with him/her.

[Angrywolves]

Morrigan is always part of my party.
Don't understand some players need to kill or run off other party members.

[Red by Full Metal Jacket]

Angrywolves wrote...

Morrigan is always part of my party.
Don't understand some players need to kill or run off other party members.

The reason most people who kill off their party members is less because they want to role play in a certain way and act out what their character would do.  It's more like "Waah Waah Character X was mean to me!  I'm killing him/her off when I get the chance!"

Modifié par Red by Full Metal Jacket, 06 août 2013 - 02:40 .

[BlueMagitek]

Angrywolves wrote...

Morrigan is always part of my party.
Don't understand some players need to kill or run off other party members.

If the character is working against your goal (or ulterior motive), it is best to remove them before they become a problem.  Or if you don't trust them, there's no good in keeping them around.

For example, it is perfectly valid to kill Zevran (he just tried to kill you, and Morrigan and Sten are correct in their comments about him).  He does wind up betraying you, if you don't get his approval high enough.

Now, apply the same to Merrill or Fenris.  If you don't max out their relationship points, you end up fighting and killing one of them depending on the choices you make.  However, if you had the option to kick them out of your party or Kirkwall, you wouldn't have an additional enemy.

While you could argue that in the face of a Blight or whatnot, the threat could hold people together, but DA 2 didn't really have that excuse and DA:O only used it for Alistar (and Morrigan for the Dark Ritual).

[Angrywolves]

To me it's like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
With DAI supposed a consequences driven game I expect a lot of that wilk backfire on the people who who do it.

[deuce985]

Contrary to what Mr. Gaider would say about this, I think this little tool here is a fan favorite:



Doesn't talk. Can't annoy you. Always by your side. The most loyal companion you could ask for. Always there when you need to get rid of that annoying NPC.

"He bothered me"

Modifié par deuce985, 06 août 2013 - 03:15 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

Murder Knife for LI in Inquisition please Bioware.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 06 août 2013 - 04:34 .

[Jorji Costava]

Should you be able to dispense with characters you don't like or don't agree with? I don't see why not, but I think that at least once in a while, there should be some cost to the PC of doing so, particularly if you choose to do so violently. In the above plot I just sketched, you could have your pro-mage PC get rid of the Templar, but as a result, you no longer have access to that MacGuffin, forcing you to miss out on some valuable loot or another questline. What I don't think the game should do is enable the following mentality: "Such-and-such character is getting in the way of my power-trip, so I should be able to dispense with that character however I please with no consequences to myself." So if you regularly stab NPC's you don't like in the back (literally or metaphorically), this should sometimes have an effect; maybe your other companions will start to think something like, "Uh oh, this person is totally nuts! Better not stick around lest I be the next person to get bumped off."

On a related note, I actually think that occasionally having to work with someone who totally disagrees with you about very fundamental things can make for interesting dynamics, if done correctly. For instance, suppose that you're playing a radical pro-mage PC, but you have to work with Crazy Templar for at least a quest or two because said Templar is the only person who knows the location of some MacGuffin. That could set up some compelling tension within the party. Silence of the Lambs would have probably been a lot less interesting if Agent Starling and Hannibal Lecter got along great and agreed about everything (including the virtues of cannibalism). The "working with the enemy" trope has a long and storied history, and I see no reason why it couldn't be occasionally exploited in a party-based RPG like Dragon Age, as long as there are plausible in-game reasons for you to be working with the enemy. My two cents, anyway.

[BlueMagitek]

Angrywolves wrote...

To me it's like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
With DAI supposed a consequences driven game I expect a lot of that wilk backfire on the people who who do it.

It's more like cutting off a gangrene limb. 

[HiroVoid]

Red by Full Metal Jacket wrote...

Angrywolves wrote...

Morrigan is always part of my party.
Don't understand some players need to kill or run off other party members.

The reason most people who kill off their party members is less because they want to role play in a certain way and act out what their character would do.  It's more like "Waah Waah Character X was mean to me!  I'm killing him/her off when I get the chance!"

I would actually make the argument it takes a bigger leap of logic not to kill Zevran when you first meet up with him.

[Angrywolves]

I don't kill Zevran.
He's funny.
I hope we have a way to just reject potential party members so they don't join.
Some players enjoy killing party members, so they would do it anyway.
I did kill Anders in DA2, but he blew up the chantry without hawke's permission.

[Nefla]

Who says there would be no consequences for booting/killing/not recruiting a companion? I would gladly take a hit to loot/gold/companion quests to not be saddled with characters I hate such as Anders and Merril.

[Shadow Fox]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Enigmatick wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...

We've got to wait till they do something terrible to actually kill them.

...

That's what my problem was with the companion system in DA2 and that's what I going on about in my original post.

Yeah. How dare the protagonist be reasonable. 

Why am I forced to be reasonable? 

Because Dragon Age is not The Elder Scrolls. Dragon Age actually has a continuous story line with recurring characters.

Allowing the protagonist to become completely insane and randomly violent (like you could in Skyrim) would make it impossible for the writers to do their job.

So, you either give up the story (why would you, since you're playing a BioWare game) or you accept that you can't just kill anybody at any time on a whim.

Except TES also protects quest-relavent npcs.

[Shadow Fox]

Ash Wind wrote...

wolfhowwl wrote...

Why would you want to get rid of Merrill?

Because she's an annoyingly naïve dope who has just enough knowledge to think she knows better than everyone else... no shock how it turned out.

As for the OP, I agree, we should have total control of our group. You could even toss Morrigan out in DAO, even though she still appeared at the end. I just hope there is more player agency that allows for this kind of thing in DAI rather than being pigeon holed into some Companion's awesome storyline that's really not so awesome.

TBF Flemeth says the same of Morrigan.