140 réponses à ce sujet

[Beerfish]

This topic comes from me because I have been replaying 'Awakenings'.  I've always said that BioWares greatest strength is their ability to create great companions that you care about one way or the other, love of hate.  One thing they have done far too often for my liking is thrust the flaws of the companions in your face as soon as you meet them.  I believe this is often done so that as you travel with them you can turn them around or redeem them so to speak.

 

The problem is that if i am playing a rational player in far too many cases I would at best not take on the companions and more likely want to kill the or have them executed.  Some examples:

 

Anders - I meet him and he is in a room full of dead darkspawn and dead templars, he admits he is an escaped apostate and talks about the dead templars in a dismissive fashion.  Shortly there after we meet a templar captain  that wants to take Anders in for being a repeat escapist from the circle.  Anders loudly proclaims that he will just escape again anyways.  So as a rational person I am supposed to take this guy on as a companion?  Nope I gave him to the templar.

 

Nathaniel Howe - Meet him in jail where he immedaitly rails at me for all the bad things I have done to his family and his father, he admits he came here to kill me.  I'm supposed to pat him on the head and take him on as a companion?  Nope, I had him executed.

 

Vellana - Tries to kill me repeatedly, has killed a bunch if innocent humans, seems to be half out of her tree.  I am supposed to take her on as a companion?

 

Sten - In a cage, admits to mass murdering an innocent family and is a quanari to boot.  I'm supposed to shake his hand and take him into my team?

 

Zevran - Pulls a trap on me and he along with a bunch of other assassins  hired to kill me fail and he jokes about it an expects me to take him into my team?

 

There are other instances as well.  I'm not opposed to a companion having secrets or having some character flaws or needing to be redeemed but as a rational thinking player character I would simply not take any of these on with total trust.  By all means have problems with companions but don't thrust them in my face 2 seconds after I meet them.

[upsettingshorts]

My favorite example is Sten.  At least in some of the other cases your companions will object to the absurd notion of recruiting the individual.

 

For Sten?  Your party falls over itself trying to out-do each others' endorsement of freeing Sten.

 

I don't mind the occasional "take a risk" companion recruitment, and in the case of Zevran the fact it can come back to bite you is a good thing.

 

Keep in mind that not everyone plays their character as rational, and they need options to take too.

[Hrungr]

In my first playthrough, I pretty much missed Sten altogether and killed Zevran.

 

Later I grew to appreciate those encounters more on the basis of "How pragmatic is my Warden...?" and "Just how desperate am I for help...?"

 

So I think it works pretty well on that basis and simply having the choice whether to recruit them or not. Dragon Age: Origins tagline was, "Not all heroes are good..."

[Mockingword]

No, they should tailor their characters to my personal taste, not yours!

[Beerfish]

Most of them work out okay to great in the long run but at first meeting even as a desperate warden these people are more of a potential hazard than anything else.  Either being mentally unstable or having committed a heinous act or attempt.  Finding out about these things over time via convo and realizing these guys were riskier than you orignally thought would be fine but to have their acts and deeds stuffed in your face the 1st 10 seconds you meet them is a bit much for me to set aside.

[Beerfish]

No, they should tailor their characters to my personal taste, not yours!

They should tailor them to however they want but I don't like playing my character as a dunce who continually takes on comapnions that you have every reason  to think could slit your throat in the night the 1st night in camp.

[Abraham_uk]

The first time I went through Awakening, I didn't know that Vellana was a recruitable follower.

 

I saw a crazy Elf killing humans and decided to take decisive action.

[TheChris92]

Given that the Wardens take in anyone, from deranged killers to humble knights, I'd say it isn't that odd. It doesn't seem to be their place to judge someone, based on their past. Good or evil - They are both relative terms.

[falconlord5]

No, they should tailor their characters to my personal taste, not yours!

 

This, basically.

[thats1evildude]

Anders - I meet him and he is in a room full of dead darkspawn and dead templars, he admits he is an escaped apostate and talks about the dead templars in a dismissive fashion. Shortly there after we meet a templar captain that wants to take Anders in for being a repeat escapist from the circle. Anders loudly proclaims that he will just escape again anyways. So as a rational person I am supposed to take this guy on as a companion? Nope I gave him to the Templar.

You're concerned about Anders escaping the Templars, so you give him to the Templar? That doesn't strike me as terribly logical.

And the Templar wanted to have Anders hanged for murder, which he pretty clearly wasn't guilty of.

[KainD]

I don't care who my companions are, or what they have done. All that matters is how they greet/treat me personally and how useful they could be in the future. 

I was playing a warden, mages/templars was not my concern,innocent people that are being killed are not my concern, politics are not my concern. I recruited golems and werewolves would recruit Uldred and his abominations too if such choice was given ( shame it wasn't ). Don't care what happens after the blight is dealt with. 

 

I recon Inquisition is going to be very similar. Solving any conflicts will not be the concern of inquisition, the concern is the ''big bad'', and the best force/companions that can stop it. 

[AppealToReason]

No, they should tailor their characters to my personal taste, not yours!

 

No, mine!

[goat_fab]

It all depends on how you're playing your character. Your idea of a "rational" hero may not be the same as mine. My "rational" hero looked at Nathaniel as a man who had no clue what his father had truly done, a man who just knows that the Wardens killed and disgraced his family. My "rational" hero felt the plight of the mages, knew that being locked in the tower was a terrible fate. I knew he hadn't killed the Templars. Of course I wasn't going to turn him over. Besides, my rational thoughts were harbor an obviously powerful mage who hates Chantry rule, or try to thwart a talking Darkspawn rampage of northern Ferelden without any Wardens. The same thought applies to Sten. He explained what happened, knows he's guilty. He's obviously not a sociopath. He knows what he did, and he knows that it was wrong. He's an extremely strong and competent soldier, and I'm trying to track down an Archdemon after 1 day on the job, with only one other guy to help. Of friggin' course I'm going to take him on.

As others have said, some people like the way the companions worked. A few companions I can see hiding their true story and intent. Anders in DA2 comes to mind. Same with Morrigan in DA:O. Them hiding what they were after makes sense. However, if Joe Shmoe from the Inquisition comes up to hire you, and he is one of the most famous people in the entire world and an extremely capable world, are you going to have the balls to lie to his face and work your way into being his top companion?

[Iron Fist]

Every companion should be a pudding cup. Everybody loves pudding. 

 

And boobs.

[Beerfish]

You're concerned about Anders escaping the Templars, so you give him to the Templar? That doesn't strike me as terribly logical.

And the Templar wanted to have Anders hanged for murder, which he pretty clearly wasn't guilty of.

 

Pretty clearly, the fist thing I thought the 1s time i met him was that he had killed not only the dark spawn but the templars that had come to arrest him.  And it's very logical to give him to the templars, it is their job to capture apostates which is what anders was.  I didn't want him in my group so the next best thing is to give him to the autorities.

[Beerfish]

Given that the Wardens take in anyone, from deranged killers to humble knights, I'd say it isn't that odd. It doesn't seem to be their place to judge someone, based on their past. Good or evil - They are both relative terms.

Which I find to be utterly  bizarre, to trust any derganged killer or worse yet people who have tried to kill you specifically and have a huge grudge and just pat them on the back, say join the wardens and believe they will not do you in.  If I was a guy like Nat Howe and the warden was dumb enough to let me live and take me in I'd be more than happy to kill him in the night, the 1st night.

[Beerfish]

I don't care who my companions are, or what they have done. All that matters is how they greet/treat me personally and how useful they could be in the future. 

I was playing a warden, mages/templars was not my concern,innocent people that are being killed are not my concern, politics are not my concern. I recruited golems and werewolves would recruit Uldred and his abominations too if such choice was given ( shame it wasn't ). Don't care what happens after the blight is dealt with. 

 

I recon Inquisition is going to be very similar. Solving any conflicts will not be the concern of inquisition, the concern is the ''big bad'', and the best force/companions that can stop it. 

Nice of all the wardens being so trustworthy simply because they know in game that these criminals, human hating golems, people that have a personal grudge will happily stay with them and work with them.  If you weren't concerned about any of these people your character was stupid imo.  There is nothing at all to prevent zevran from killing you one day after you let him live, same thing with Howe, Sten, etc etc etc. 

[Beerfish]

It all depends on how you're playing your character. Your idea of a "rational" hero may not be the same as mine. My "rational" hero looked at Nathaniel as a man who had no clue what his father had truly done, a man who just knows that the Wardens killed and disgraced his family. My "rational" hero felt the plight of the mages, knew that being locked in the tower was a terrible fate. I knew he hadn't killed the Templars. Of course I wasn't going to turn him over. Besides, my rational thoughts were harbor an obviously powerful mage who hates Chantry rule, or try to thwart a talking Darkspawn rampage of northern Ferelden without any Wardens. The same thought applies to Sten. He explained what happened, knows he's guilty. He's obviously not a sociopath. He knows what he did, and he knows that it was wrong. He's an extremely strong and competent soldier, and I'm trying to track down an Archdemon after 1 day on the job, with only one other guy to help. Of friggin' course I'm going to take him on.

As others have said, some people like the way the companions worked. A few companions I can see hiding their true story and intent. Anders in DA2 comes to mind. Same with Morrigan in DA:O. Them hiding what they were after makes sense. However, if Joe Shmoe from the Inquisition comes up to hire you, and he is one of the most famous people in the entire world and an extremely capable world, are you going to have the balls to lie to his face and work your way into being his top companion?

How did you know Anders did not kill the templars?  How did you know sten would not stab you day one.  How did you know that howe who had a major grudge with you would not kill you at the 1st oppo.  I just find it not beleivealbe that people are able to make all of these character judgements based on nothing really other than the fact that after playing the game they did not back stab us.  When you 1st meet them and the decision to let them live or not is presented all we know about them is they have comitted heinous acts or have tried to kill you.

[daveliam]

This topic comes from me because I have been replaying 'Awakenings'.  I've always said that BioWares greatest strength is their ability to create great companions that you care about one way or the other, love of hate.  One thing they have done far too often for my liking is thrust the flaws of the companions in your face as soon as you meet them.  I believe this is often done so that as you travel with them you can turn them around or redeem them so to speak.

 

The problem is that if i am playing a rational player in far too many cases I would at best not take on the companions and more likely want to kill the or have them executed.  Some examples:

 

Anders - I meet him and he is in a room full of dead darkspawn and dead templars, he admits he is an escaped apostate and talks about the dead templars in a dismissive fashion.  Shortly there after we meet a templar captain  that wants to take Anders in for being a repeat escapist from the circle.  Anders loudly proclaims that he will just escape again anyways.  So as a rational person I am supposed to take this guy on as a companion?  Nope I gave him to the templar.

 

Nathaniel Howe - Meet him in jail where he immedaitly rails at me for all the bad things I have done to his family and his father, he admits he came here to kill me.  I'm supposed to pat him on the head and take him on as a companion?  Nope, I had him executed.

 

Vellana - Tries to kill me repeatedly, has killed a bunch if innocent humans, seems to be half out of her tree.  I am supposed to take her on as a companion?

 

Sten - In a cage, admits to mass murdering an innocent family and is a quanari to boot.  I'm supposed to shake his hand and take him into my team?

 

Zevran - Pulls a trap on me and he along with a bunch of other assassins  hired to kill me fail and he jokes about it an expects me to take him into my team?

 

There are other instances as well.  I'm not opposed to a companion having secrets or having some character flaws or needing to be redeemed but as a rational thinking player character I would simply not take any of these on with total trust.  By all means have problems with companions but don't thrust them in my face 2 seconds after I meet them.

 

So your group in Awakenings was just you, Oghen, and Sigrun?  (I'm assuming that if you weren't down with recruiting the other three then the scary possessed decomposing corpse companion was also not welcome.....)  If you were a dwarf, that's a pretty fun little dwarf group.

[TheChris92]

Which I find to be utterly  bizarre, to trust any derganged killer or worse yet people who have tried to kill you specifically and have a huge grudge and just pat them on the back, say join the wardens and believe they will not do you in.  If I was a guy like Nat Howe and the warden was dumb enough to let me live and take me in I'd be more than happy to kill him in the night, the 1st night.

I don't know - From Velanna's point of view, she isn't a deranged killer, she's avenging years of intolerance that elves have had to suffer at the hands of humans. From our point of view, she's just a murderer/killer etc. Nathaniel Howe wanted justice for his family obviously and I could totally understand it from his point of view. Good & Evil aren't universal, they are all relative. They could just as well be allies as much as being enemies tomorrow.

[daveliam]

You dislike a few or most? Boo ****** hoo. You're not going to love EVERYTHING about the game, nor every single companion. Focus on the ones you like and move on.

 

Yeah, this is pretty much exactly how I felt about ME2.  I actively disliked (Miranda, Jack, Thane, Legion, Zaeed) or were completely indifferent to (Jacob, Grunt, Kasumi, Tali) all of the squad members, but I made do.  I used the characters for the missions where I had to or felt that I should for the story, and for random missions just stuck with the ones that I liked:  Samara, Mordin, and Garrus. 

[goat_fab]

How did you know Anders did not kill the templars?  How did you know sten would not stab you day one.  How did you know that howe who had a major grudge with you would not kill you at the 1st oppo.  I just find it not beleivealbe that people are able to make all of these character judgements based on nothing really other than the fact that after playing the game they did not back stab us.  When you 1st meet them and the decision to let them live or not is presented all we know about them is they have comitted heinous acts or have tried to kill you.

Because I'm the friggin' Warden-Commander. I killed an Archdemon. I'm not going to be killed by some pansy who just broke into our keep. Besides, Howe never attacked anyone. They caught him trying to steal. He wasn't a murderer. My character, knowing Qunari and their sense of honor, knows he wouldn't try to just kill me for absolutely no reason. I offer him a way to get his honor back.

 

See, you as the player may not know anything, but your character's might. Your character might be more trusting, he might know more about Qunari than you, he might be more willing to accept these people. Maybe next time, don't try to play as yourself. Play as your character.

[Ispan]

I enjoy the tension that comes from disagreeing with or mistrusting a companion.  I want to make hard decisions and suffer the consequences of my actions.  One of my Wardens might feel that it's worth it post some sort of guard at night if it brings in an ally against Darkspawn, while another prefers a good night's sleep.

 

If I accept a lying, scheming thief into my party and one day she decides to steal all of my materi-- ahem, runes-- then so be it.  At least there's some exciting repercussion from my choices.