Ok, so he's only required for the Anvil of the Void and then the Warden can tell him to go away once they leave Orzammar.
Yes
Ok, so he's only required for the Anvil of the Void and then the Warden can tell him to go away once they leave Orzammar.
Yes
Isn't using "gay" for anything but sexual preference a TOS violation? I believe I've seen such posts flagged as hate speech.He was still pretty Gay..and i'm not talking about his sexual preferences.
Ok, so he's only required for the Anvil of the Void and then the Warden can tell him to go away once they leave Orzammar.
Annoying that Oghren always comes back during Awakening even if he's killed in Origins, he has to be the most unlikable companion in the game
Id almost rather they force them. For one, they might be important to the overall story. Isabela really shouldn't have been optional given she basically causes act 2. Two, I have missed Leliana simply because I didn't go into the tavern... at the very least they should be introduced in a better way then just in some tavern with no quest or anything telling you to go in there. Three, gameplay wise you need a few companions to do like anything, so.
I don't. I hated the fact that Merrill was forced down my throat and I couldn't just not recruit her. She even showed up in my house a few times despite me saying I don't want to be her friend. I don't need BioWare to hold my hand and force companions on me. Maybe they should make it obvious where you can recruit the companions or there could be a short guide included with the game that tells you where to get them for those who don't thoroughly explore or even have the recruitment quest be mandatory but then you can choose to tell them to take a hike. "Here's your random amulet keeper, and no I will not take Merrill with me." I don't want to be stuck with annoying characters I hate
Sometimes Bio deliberately gives something another shot if they think it didn't come across well in a previous game.
Oghren was sooooo much worse in Awakening than Origins so I'd consider that an epic fail. Any character development he'd had in Origins is wiped away as well as any actual character or intelligence. He became a parody of himself.
Sometimes Bio deliberately gives something another shot if they think it didn't come across well in a previous game.
It didn't seem to work for Oghren's character in Awakening, though. He becomes even more obnoxious and unlikable...
Sometimes Bio deliberately gives something another shot if they think it didn't come across well in a previous game.
He seems to reverse his character development in Awakening though, from wanting to settle down with Felsi & be somewhat responsible at the end of Origins to being the unfunny drunken idiot again in Awakening, id say his expansion version of his character is worse then his main game version.
The best thing the Warden can do for Oghren is DIE in the Ultimate Sacrifice. It has a positive effect on him in the epilogue.
Oghren accepted a position as a general in the army of Ferelden, the first dwarf ever promoted so high, and eventually both sobered up and married. When his first son/daughter was born, Oghren held him/her in his arms and wept--and named him/her after the friend who had changed his life so long ago.
Oghren was sooooo much worse in Awakening than Origins so I'd consider that an epic fail. Any character development he'd had in Origins is wiped away as well as any actual character or intelligence. He became a parody of himself.
That's unfortunate.
This studio has certainly had some issues with returning characters although many of the most egregious cases were in the Mass Effect series.
Its not that the non-straight companions were optional in Origins, it is that EVERY companion is optional. (Bar Morrigan and Alistair)
Mabari - Don't heal him.
Leliana - avoid the tavern.
Sten - Don't talk to him.
Wynne - Kill her in the tower when you first meet.
Zev - Slit his throat while he is unconscious.
Shale - DLC so obviously optional.
Oghren - Might be the only non-optional companion, I never tried that hard to ditch him, but he always forces into your party in the Anvil map.
The Dog is only optional if your not a Human Noble as they get there's in their Origin story
I would never use the options (I am obsessive about collecting Companions like trading cards and making them happy) but I do like that there are the options available in DAO.
The more options in an RPG the better, that's the rule.
Like people are saying though, I'm sure this will be the case, at least for a small number of the available Companions.
This! *cough*CullenI don't want to be stuck with annoying characters I hate
This! *cough*Cullen
I wonder if the advisors are optional?(probably not though T_T) I'm more worried about Leliana. I had more than enough of her in DA:O and still had to see her in DA2 and now she's back again. ![]()
I don't. I hated the fact that Merrill was forced down my throat and I couldn't just not recruit her. She even showed up in my house a few times despite me saying I don't want to be her friend. I don't need BioWare to hold my hand and force companions on me. Maybe they should make it obvious where you can recruit the companions or there could be a short guide included with the game that tells you where to get them for those who don't thoroughly explore or even have the recruitment quest be mandatory but then you can choose to tell them to take a hike. "Here's your random amulet keeper, and no I will not take Merrill with me." I don't want to be stuck with annoying characters I hate
I wonder why Merrill is an essential companion. The only main quest she's required for is on Sundermount in Act 1, and she isn't even a party member during that.
Leliana could be problematic as she is obviously pro-Chantry. What if we play an Inquisitor that opposes the Chantry? Though this applies to (most) other companions as well depending on what the Inquisitor's attitude is towards the various factions.I'm more worried about Leliana. I had more than enough of her in DA:O and still had to see her in DA2 and now she's back again.
I wonder why Merrill is an essential companion. The only main quest she's required for is on Sundermount in Act 1, and she isn't even a party member during that.
I assume its so if you killed Anders you still definitely had a mage option for the final battle ![]()
I assume its so if you killed Anders you still definitely had a mage option for the final battle
Maybe, but it's still possible to lose Merrill as a companion for the final battle if Hawke sides with the Templars. So, Hawke can be totally mage-less (just like the Warden can be in DA: O
).
It'll all be worth it, if at some point we get the option to kill him.This! *cough*Cullen
Leliana could be problematic as she is obviously pro-Chantry. What if we play an Inquisitor that opposes the Chantry? Though this applies to (most) other companions as well depending on what the Inquisitor's attitude is towards the various factions.
We still don't know what her or Cassandra's priorities will be in Inquisition, they are both joining an opposing group despite being hands of the Devine. Leliana was pro-Chantry in Origins but she had her own idea's and opinions about some things and she certainly wasn't a zealot. She obviously didn't tell the Warden everything though.
Maybe, but it's still possible to lose Merrill as a companion for the final battle if Hawke sides with the Templars. So, Hawke can be totally mage-less (just like the Warden can be in DA: O
).
I haven't tried it myself, but I think someone on the forums said that if you kill Anders, they wrote it so Merrill will stick with you no matter what, even if you side with the templars? I dunno if that person was right or not, but it wouldn't surprise me if they programmed the game to prevent people from ending up with an unbalanced party in the end.
I haven't tried it myself, but I think someone on the forums said that if you kill Anders, they wrote it so Merrill will stick with you no matter what, even if you side with the templars? I dunno if that person was right or not, but it wouldn't surprise me if they programmed the game to prevent people from ending up with an unbalanced party in the end.
Hmm, maybe. That makes sense, then.
I haven't tried it myself, but I think someone on the forums said that if you kill Anders, they wrote it so Merrill will stick with you no matter what, even if you side with the templars? I dunno if that person was right or not, but it wouldn't surprise me if they programmed the game to prevent people from ending up with an unbalanced party in the end.
According to the Wiki, Merrill will stick with you unless Anders is in a state where he can be persuaded to stay with a pro-Templar Hawke. So, yes, one of them must always be available to the player. Although a player is free to end up with neither, of course.