54 réponses à ce sujet

[Eveangaline]

While I love collecting all the companions like pokemon, I wouldn't mind how the story could change through playthroughs if there are some companions that refuse to work with you so long as certain others are on your team. What do you all think?

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

That could be the basis of some interesting decisions.

[Mockingword]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

[Noctis]

I like this idea but I don't think it will happen

[KeraWildmane]

That would be brilliant! I loved in DA:O that you could choose to recruit Loghain at the cost of Alistair. It really made me stop and consider whether my Warden would put friendship first or was more pragmatic. I'm also hoping that certain choices will cause companions to leave or even turn on you. I was pretty shocked when I found out that all your other companions were so okay with Hawke giving Fenris back to Danarius. Isabella should have tried to gut Hawke for that.

[katerinafm]

I think fallout has this system, where depending on your player's karma you couldn't get some followers to help you. I would say baldur's gate too, but I can't remember if they don't join you or if they just disagree with you a lot and eventually attack you. And DAO sort of had this too with Wynne and Leliana attacking you under certain circumstances, though it's pretty easy to miss.

 

While this would put even more replayability to the game (by forcing players down a certain path across multible playthroughs if they want to see all sets of followers), it might be a shame for players to miss on much companion content by locking them out for some. It could work though. But I think we saw in Dragon Age 2 that companions are more about adding their different opinions to the mix and thus changing their relationship with the protagonist rather than not being in the party entirely. Arguing with your party in Dragon age 2 was potentially very amusing.

 

Edit: Whoops, just saw you meant if others were in your team that the other didn't approve of. I bet that if there was something like that, the player could persuade them to follow them anyway or something.

[Writ3Wing3r]

KOTOR 2 tried something like that and I thought the concept was a good one even thought it didn't quite work out. Though I think that had more to do with the unfinished endgame rather than the concept itself.

[smoke and mirrors]

I don`t think i want anyone telling me who can or can`t let join the group . If i don`t like someone they stay on the bench unless i need their class for something .

[Divine Justinia V]

I love and hate this idea all at the same time. Incredible.

[smoke and mirrors]

LOL

[volaticus]

While I love collecting all the companions like pokemon, I wouldn't mind how the story could change through playthroughs if there are some companions that refuse to work with you so long as certain others are on your team. What do you all think?

I believe Neverwinter Nights 2 had a system like this in a spoiler part of the game, you could recruit companions but keeping them all means a sacrifice at times because they don't all get along. It was kind of the same with the conflict between Minsc and Edwin in BG, these weren't exactly cases where they absolutely wouldn't join but they did affect whom you could bring along because the conflicts could become...deadly.

 

I myself am on the fence about this kind of idea, it sounds nice but it's also stressful at times because then you have to decide whom you want to remain in or not and whether you're willing to risk losing one likeable character for another.

[renfrees]

I would like if the companions could refuse to accompany you, based on your decisions and actions. It was pretty disappointing in DAII, when your companions sticked with you until the end (pretty much), no matter how much of a jerk you were.

[metatheurgist]

You mean like how Alistair leaves if you recruit Loghain? Personally I don't mind it but some people like to keep companions like crazy ladies keep cats.

[Former_Fiend]

Considering both games in the series have had this; Alistair and Loghain in Origins and both Bethany and Carver and Anders and Sebastian in DA2, I don't see this as a trend Bioware plans on bucking any time soon.

[KaiserShep]

I would like if the companions could refuse to accompany you, based on your decisions and actions. It was pretty disappointing in DAII, when your companions sticked with you until the end (pretty much), no matter how much of a jerk you were.

 

 

One thing I miss is that some of the DA:O departures were pretty funny. Oghren probably has my favorite departure line: "I hope you succeed Warden, but I hope it kills you."

[TheKomandorShepard]

Well if they do that so terribly like in dragon age 2 where sebastian threatens anders , us and kirkwall and all we can do is let him go because stupidity is only option and for moar drama then my answer is no... 

[Iron Fist]

Personally, I hope most of the companions are optional recruits.

[ChrisRudson]

If it makes sense, and not seem forced, why not.

[TurretSyndrome]

I'd rather not see mutually exclusive companions, unless it's like the Alistair/Loghain scenario. These characters usually end up sharing the word budget of a single companion making them underwhelming, kinda like Carver and Bethany.

 

In any case, something tells me none of the companions will be like that in Inquisition.

[Iakus]

Sounds good in principle, but I've noticed that mutually exclusive characters tends to mean a LOT less content for both of them

[efd731]

As shocked as I am to admit it, I agree with the Komandorshepard. The way anders and Sebastian were handled in the ending just made me cringe. You can go the whole game rivalmancing Sebastian as a ass***e-ish bloodmage and not a word is said. But suddenly anders kills elthina and he wants to reclaim his hometown and slaughter everyone in Kirkwall. Just seems sloppy, even if it was to set up for that DLC they never finished

[Azrielon]

I kind of like the idea tbh. Something like if we run across Templars and Mages preparing to fight, whichever side we may choose to help we get a companion from, with a third option to leave them all behind and get no companion (note very rough example of my opinion here).

[JoltDealer]

While the idea is interesting in theory, people hated Sebastian for refusing to work with you if you let Anders live in Dragon Age II.  The fact is, some players will rage and complain if having Companion X means they can't get Companion Y.  Doing something like that would increase replay value, but some people want to experience everything they can during their first playthrough.  I'm all for the idea, but I don't think it's something that is likely to happen.

[falconlord5]

While the idea is interesting in theory, people hated Sebastian for refusing to work with you if you let Anders live in Dragon Age II.  The fact is, some players will rage and complain if having Companion X means they can't get Companion Y.  Doing something like that would increase replay value, but some people want to experience everything they can during their first playthrough.  I'm all for the idea, but I don't think it's something that is likely to happen.

 

As much as I hate to admit it, I'm one of those players. I strongly dislike mutually exclusive party members.

[Eveangaline]

While the idea is interesting in theory, people hated Sebastian for refusing to work with you if you let Anders live in Dragon Age II. 

 

I killed Anders my first run through, since I hadn't gotten Sebastian yet, and was considering doing it again my second runthrough, but sebastians fit made me let him live. Honestly it made keeping Anders around more fun, I don't know why people would hate it.