12 réponses à ce sujet

[ReallyRue]

I really loved the occasions in DAO and DA2 when the companions disagree with your decisions so strongly that they'll verbally confront you, leave you, or even fight you. It really helps the characters feel well-rounded, with feelings and opinions if there's something they feel strongly about. I would love to see plenty of situations like that, where the characters will voice their opinions, with more than just one disapproving/snarky line during the quest.

 

For example:

-Sacrifice Isolde/kill Connor when Alistair isn't with you, he will confront you the moment you return to camp. The flipside is that he will express gratitude if you take the Circle option. He will leave the party when you recruit Loghain.

-Sten will question your leadership in Haven about your choice to find the Ashes, and challenge you to a fight over it.

-Unhardened Leliana and Wynne fight you if you defile the Ashes in their presence. Wynne will always leave after finding out in camp. Likewise, Shale will defend Caridin against you, or fight/leave upon hearing the truth in camp.

-Wynne will fight you if say you intend to Anul the Circle

-Morrigan leaves if you reject the ritual.

-If you help the demon possess Feynriel, Anders will confront you after the quest, I think it also locks you out of his romance.

-Sebastian will leave you if you spare Anders, no matter the approval rating.

-Fenris/Aveline/Carver may help the templars against you, and Merrill/Anders/Bethany may help the mages.

 

What really should be avoided is no one protesting much if you harm other companions. Nobody cares much if you sell Fenris back to Danarius (just one line from each companion) or recruit Loghain (and losing Alistair), give Isabela to the Arishok, kill Leliana/Wynne/everybody. These characters explicitly had friends within the group, yet none of them call you out on your actions afterwards or try to stop you.

 

[Mes]

Yeah part of me agrees with you as that's another thing that could make the companions a bit more realistic. 

 

But another part of me hopes they don't make things too different from DAO/DA2 in this respect because, as it is, I find myself doing or not doing certain things JUST BECAUSE I don't want a companion to get pissed off and leave.

 

This is a small example, but currently I'm replaying DAO and am at Redcliffe. I literally cannot offer anyone assistance (i.e. I can't take on a single side quest) without Morrigan and/or Sten getting pissed off at me, telling me I'm wasting my time, and dropping in their approval rating. So I find myself having to swap companions out or forego certain quests just because of this. It can be friggin' annoying. 

[wolfhowwl]

It can be a pain sometimes but it is ultimately a good thing as it provides something these characters need: agency.

This was better in Origins where at least there was the goal of stopping the Blight keeping the band together. But there were still breaking points where characters had enough and acted on it.

But Dragon Age II lacks that, if party members abandon Hawke and he dies, darkspawn don't overrun the country. Nothing would happen at all.

Why does Anders continue to follow a Hawke who is a Templar supporter and is destroying everything Anders' cares about? Or why does Fenris, mage hater, set aside his feelings and agenda? Why would Aveline, law enforcement officer, tolerate a Hawke who MURDERS DIPLOMATS IN ORDER TO START A WAR that could destroy the city she is sworn to protect?

These "characters" act as if they are aware that Hawke is the PC and have stopped making decisions for themselves.

[Bob from Accounting]

In general, I'd much rather have powerful and deep moments with mandatory characters than more shallow characters who can be run off or be dismissed by the player.

[wolfhowwl]

You have played Dragon Age: Origins, right?

I feel that the game managed to deliver some "deep and powerful moments" even though characters could be removed from the party. Some of those powerful moments were the crisis points themselves.

I would rather have characters that have their own agenda and are willing to take a stand for what they believe.

Characters are damaged when they set aside who they are merely because it is the player character who is violating everything they believe in.

Shale would not be a better character because she was willing to let the player commit what she saw as a monstrous crime just because you're the PC.

You say you want a "powerful and deep moment" but it would be meaningless and false. Shale wouldn't be a person anymore, she would be a thrall.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

In general, I'd much rather have powerful and deep moments with mandatory characters than more shallow characters who can be run off or be dismissed by the player.

 

I'd rather have powerful and deep moments with characters that I can dismiss, kill, or have abandon the team at any time over ideological differences, insubordination, incompetency, and generally not liking their characters.

 

Like Dragon Age: Origins.

[CybAnt1]

I don't mind game mechanics where at crisis points, companions either leave, or in extremes, turn against you and fight you. 

 

Of course there are people who will simply dismiss them, never take them at party selection, or just kill them. Or sell them out into slavery. 

 

Although it's good to have some kind of in-game warning that if you continue down a certain path, that crisis is coming (it could be in other ways besides a visible friendship/rivalry/approval score) ... you can see them increasingly talking and acting in a way that's insubordinate and unhappy with your leadership. I think that's fine, if it's preventable... although of course, players might always reload if said crisis deprives them of a companion they want for RP/party-comp reasons. 

[Eveangaline]

Didn't they say that if you let that one village die (the one they demonstrated making choices about in the pax video), Varric will leave?

[9TailsFox]

Yeah part of me agrees with you as that's another thing that could make the companions a bit more realistic. 

 

But another part of me hopes they don't make things too different from DAO/DA2 in this respect because, as it is, I find myself doing or not doing certain things JUST BECAUSE I don't want a companion to get pissed off and leave.

 

This is a small example, but currently I'm replaying DAO and am at Redcliffe. I literally cannot offer anyone assistance (i.e. I can't take on a single side quest) without Morrigan and/or Sten getting pissed off at me, telling me I'm wasting my time, and dropping in their approval rating. So I find myself having to swap companions out or forego certain quests just because of this. It can be friggin' annoying. 

Maybe you should do what they say and stop waste time. I doubt Archdemon will wait. If Morrigan don't like what she do leave?Ok realy I like Morrigan she is awesome she disagree with everything i do. Why you destroy Anvil? Don't like it maybe you want to become golem, I don't think so.

I just don't like metagaming. Well at least for first blind playthrough and second mostly off the time. Later I just can't avoid it.

[LiketheRiver]

They could give you the option to have a "group meeting" with all of your companions at the Keep and basically go Patrick Swayze in Roadhouse on them. "My way or the Highway" I'm the inquistor if you want to be a part of this team there is going to be some decsions you don't like.

I do like the idea of having to possibly battle or see your new companion in a battle before recruiting them to be part of your inner circle and companion to see if they are worthy.

[Eveangaline]

They could give you the option to have a "group meeting" with all of your companions at the Keep and basically go Patrick Swayze in Roadhouse on them. "My way or the Highway" I'm the inquistor if you want to be a part of this team there is going to be some decsions you don't like.

I do like the idea of having to possibly battle or see your new companion in a battle before recruiting them to be part of your inner circle and companion to see if they are worthy.

I feel like most would take the highway.