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
But... but that made a ground for so many fanfics! 
I really don't mind the idea of mutually exclusive companions. The only down side to it is that it sometimes lead me to metagame if I really like one of the companions better than the other. And, I agree with the poster who said that they sometimes become fill-in's for each other by playing the same role.
I think that ME 3 did it pretty well with Ashley and Kaidan. Even though Ashley is the more common companion, I never got the impression that Kaidan was just "male Ashley", in fact, he was one of my favorite squad members.
Fanfic about rivalmancing Sebastian as an ******* bloodmage? Or fanfic about the chantry blowing up and Sebastian throwing a hissy fit?
Whatever floats your boat.
I think the Jagged Alliance series must have been the first to implement a mechanic like this; there were all sorts of mercenaries you could hire who wouldn't be willing to work with you if you had already hired someone they don't like (there was a particularly nutty character named "Unusually Ruthless" Reuben who hardly anyone was willing to work with. It's a good idea in a lot of ways, although I do share some of the concerns about one character's worth of content being split between them (for instance, the interchangeability of many of Kaidan and Ashley's lines post Virmire).
Another possible mechanic might be to have two characters who are willing to work with each other (albeit not on very good terms), but at a later point in the game, the conflict between the two characters comes to a head, and there's no way to stay on the good side of both. That might be a way of alleviating concerns about split content while preserving the sense that the PC isn't the world's greatest psychoanalyst and can't always get everyone to get along.
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.
I assume it has something to do with the fact that people don't like having doors metaphorically closed on them. It's a tad juvenile, but it's a legitimate complaint nonetheless.
As much as I hate to admit it, I'm one of those players. I strongly dislike mutually exclusive party members.
I can understand that. People like enjoying everything a game has to offer. It can be a real pain in the ass being forced to replay an entire 15-20 hours, just to see what life was like with that other party member.
Not too big a fan of mutually exclusive, but BIG fan of companions who hate each other's guts but tolerate each other to follow you. And banter. Hilariously.
Also like the idea of optional or "secret" companions. Not DLC, like Shale. More like as a reward for checking such and such dungeon more thoroughly (I have very vague memories of recruiting Vincent from FF7 like this).
Not too big a fan of mutually exclusive, but BIG fan of companions who hate each other's guts but tolerate each other to follow you. And banter. Hilariousl
Love the possible banter .
I am fairly indifferent when it comes to mutually exclusive companions, although they can be interesting characters if done well - Chai Ka and Ya Zhen in Jade Empire come to mind.
I'd like to have eventually mutually exclusive, but I'd prefer to have the chance to get to know both companions first, and thus for the choice to have real impact. And also limit the resources problems.
Definitely no companions excluded by a choice made before the game proper begins. Particularly not arbitrarily based on gender like in KotOR2.
Guest_Lady Glint_*
I would rather something like this happen because of the decisions my Inquisitor makes over time, once both companions are in the party, rather than choosing between one or the other follower when first meeting them and without really knowing much about either. I want followers to have their own goals and agendas, and if they don't match up with my Inquisitor's goals then it's best they leave.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 think a Mira-Hanharr situation would be cool, minus the morality surrounding it of course.
You make a decision (or a series of decisions) that locks off a particular companion, but opens up another one.
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.
I hope none of those people are the ones complaining that their choices didn't matter and that everything gets streamlined together.
As much as I'd love to have Bethany and Carver together, I actually enjoyed the fact that they were mutually exclusive. They have completely different personalities, and they develop differently over the course of the game, especially depending on their fate. And with them being different classes, it added a little extra difference. The Kaidan/Ashley choice was similarly good.
I think the Alistair/Loghain choice was done well enough considering it was late in the game so there's not much more to do, but I would've liked a bit more reaction from the rest of the party about it.
Sebastian/Anders was ok. I actually liked that Sebastian felt that strongly about it to pull an ultimatum, instead of the 'yeah, ok, if you say so' attitude of the others. Still not much reaction from the party.
As for the Samara/Morinth choice in ME2, that was a little underwhelming, and downright lousy in ME3 if you chose Morinth, since the game basically treats it as if Samara wasn't recruited/died on the suicide mission.
In short, I like mutally exclusive companions, but not when it's just this for that. There should be some noticeable differences in recruiting/keeping one or the other.
If you can ditch the others to get the ones you want, sure. I wouldn't want to be locked away from the Varric because I got the Carver before I knew better.
I hope none of those people are the ones complaining that their choices didn't matter and that everything gets streamlined together.
Based on my experience on the BSN, they usually are. They don't like the idea of having to play the whole game over again just to see another perspective. It's ridiculous, but to each their own.
Not a big fan of this, and I don't think they're going to go this route but it doesn't mean they won't do something interesting and force some situations and scenarios depending on your choices and actions that should add to more replayability.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 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.
Personally, I hope most of the companions are optional recruits.
Not too big a fan of mutually exclusive, but BIG fan of companions who hate each other's guts but tolerate each other to follow you. And banter. Hilariously.
From the things they've said this is the most likely route for them, Gaider talked about it in this thread here.I would rather something like this happen because of the decisions my Inquisitor makes over time, once both companions are in the party, rather than choosing between one or the other follower when first meeting them and without really knowing much about either. I want followers to have their own goals and agendas, and if they don't match up with my Inquisitor's goals then it's best they leave.
Oh, that's very good, i'm looking even more forward to DAI then.
I'd rather have a party member disagree with me to the extent that they feel they have to leave than simply be a bunch of sycophants. It must be consistent with their character as revealed over the course of the game, not just a whim that you could not have anticipated. What annoyed me with DA2 was that once maxed out on the friendship/rivalry scale it didn't matter what you did, the person would stick with you even though you might have totally changed your outlook or have done something that was completely contrary to what they believed. I never handed Fenris back to Denarius but was amazed that if you did, no one left you as a result.
However, I think it should be a case that you are given a chance to put forward your point of view to justify your actions to the companion and that it may be possible to persuade them to your point of view, particularly if it is a "first offence" rather than coming at the end of a series of decisions and thus being a "final straw".
Having characters respond to you differently according to the way you behave is part of the fun and certainly makes for replayability. With Origins I devised a human noble warden of a certain character so that they would make choices that my other wardens would not, in particular sparing Loghain. If all companions had always been available to me, this would have limited the need for replay.
I liked the Ashley/Kaiden dynamic in ME, and the Bethany/Carver in DA2. I would have liked a bit more randomness to who survives the ogre encounter. I know it was to balance the party, but life's not always convenient that way.
I had the idea that it would work better from a companion system if you had say rather than 9 total companions or whatever you had 18 or 20, but you could only recruit say 9, and certain companions were completely impossible to have together.
Say you have to choose between two at some point, the characters flat out prejudices prevent working together-say an Imperium Magister vs. a templar, or choosing between say a casteless dwarf and a noble who refuses to associate with each other.
Where your actual gameplay and the views you hold in game actually truly impact and affect the makeup of your party from game to game.
I had the idea that it would work better from a companion system if you had say rather than 9 total companions or whatever you had 18 or 20, but you could only recruit say 9, and certain companions were completely impossible to have together.
Say you have to choose between two at some point, the characters flat out prejudices prevent working together-say an Imperium Magister vs. a templar, or choosing between say a casteless dwarf and a noble who refuses to associate with each other.
Where your actual gameplay and the views you hold in game actually truly impact and affect the makeup of your party from game to game.
That would take tremendous amount of time to write fully fleshed out arcs for each one of them. As great game as BG II was, it pains me to admit, that about half of the characters were kinda dull to have around on a constant basis.
That would take tremendous amount of time to write fully fleshed out arcs for each one of them. As great game as BG II was, it pains me to admit, that about half of the characters were kinda dull to have around on a constant basis.
Granted it would be a huge scale. This is completely a pie in the sky idea.
Retour en haut
