38 réponses à ce sujet

[Usarean]

What if they are secretly returning rivalry.

[GVulture]

You are the "leader of leaders". It only makes sense that said leaders got in those positions by holding firm to their convictions and working for it.

[Helios969]

Dean: I would tend to agree having received a similar impression.  Not necessarily a bad thing to have a group of people entrenched in their dogmas...generally that's how people really are.  I do hope that there is some ability to influence companions a at some level to soften/harden their stances as we see fit.  I've always liked the lead-by-example approach, and whether we want to admit it or not we are the culmination of those multitude interactions we have had throughout our lives.  At 45 I am much more balanced and open-minded than I was at 25, undoubtedly the result of those many encounters and events that challenged my more extreme views.  So I hope the devs recognize that and give our companions some malleability.

[Gervaise]

I think that the relationship with the companions will go through various stages.   Initially you are going to have to convince them that you are the only hope for the world and so whatever their beliefs they need to support you if they want to save it (and thus the people/organisations they care about).   Once committed to your cause, then there will be a period of consolidation when they may object to some of your actions without outright leaving over it.   However, there will eventually be a tipping point where they may say enough is enough.   You may be able to persuade them to stick with you but your argument is going to have to be a really good one.   Having strong views about something may actually give them a much better sense of purpose and commitment to your cause than if they don't care either way.

 

DA2 wasn't very convincing in that respect.   People kept banging on about issues like using blood magic but then do nothing if Hawke becomes a blood mage.   One of the worst examples is if you sell out Fenris to his old master.  Some people may verbally object but any disapproval points are likely to be irrelevant by this stage in the game so it has not impact on your relationship whatsoever.  

 

I'm thinking that with Sera she may leave if you keeping making too many decisions where the "end justifies the means" because her character description says she hates this.   She would absolutely hate Celene's speech when she says that if she has to sacrifice one city to save the rest she will do it.   That is because Sera doesn't think in terms of cities or assets but individual people.    If she kept compromising her beliefs just because she was in, say, a relationship with you, I would think less of her.   So I am pretty comfortable with the idea that the characters in this game have strong beliefs that they will stick to.

[TanithAeyrs]

The devs did say it was possible to finish the game with only one remaining companion.  I think this speaks strongly for companions who stick to their beliefs.  I would expect them to be a bit more moderate because, as Helios said, they are no longer youths burning with angst, but mature leaders who have had exposure to the shades of grey in the world.  I hope this lends itself to a willingness to bend their views a bit, but not to completely compromise them. 

 

Many of them seem to be questioning their beliefs at this point, but one of the best ways to strengthen your convictions is to question them.  I'm not sure you can truly believe in anything without having questioned it in some way. 

 

This should put the Inquisitor in an interesting position as a "leader of leaders" and provide an opportunity for some fairly deep interactions.

[VilhoDog13]

The devs did say it was possible to finish the game with only one remaining companion.

 

This just reminds me of when they said the suicide mission was going to be hard. Chances are you're going to have to go out of your way to get your companions to reject you. With that said, at least they're able to leave or despise you.

 

I'm on the fence about wanting them to either stay with you to the end - or if some of them WILL leave you. On one hand, it'd be great for the story and emotional aspect of the game (if your companions leave you for something you did) but then I'd feel like I was missing content. That, and I just love having all my companions. The more people to choose from the better (well, within reason).

[Cy.]

Cy does not onmhn

[Gervaise]

I'm wondering if companion approval or disapproval has more significance than just the loss of one character.  

 

For example, take Iron Bull.  He is the leader of a band of mercenaries.   So when you get him, presumably you get his band as well.   He travels round with you but they can be deployed somewhere to further your cause.   Whilst they are mercenaries, I imagine that they are pretty loyal to him and probably well trained and effective too.  If he leaves, you loose them as well.   If you kill him (presuming that you are allowed to), then his band may exact revenge.  

 

Then there is Vivienne.  They hint at some hidden agenda but may be it is no more sinister than she wants to be Grand Enchanter of all Thedas.   Whilst she supports the Circles she might want certain alterations made to the way they run, for example the Grand Enchanter controls the Templar order and not the Divine.   She may well still be in touch with many of the mages who didn't really want to break away but agreed to go with the majority decision, and that hung on just one vote by the leader of one fraternity.   So may be she comes to you and says she can deliver hundreds of loyal mages provided she is put in charge of them.   Then you have to decide if you want to trust her with that much power.   And of course if you gave in to her request, there would definitely be other people who would not approve.

 

That would definitely give a significance to your decisions beyond simply the make up of your party.

[schall_und_rauch]

I have to agree. I started the game thinking "Ok. Anders. I feel for you." But then I quickly realized every conversation had to deal with mages. Like....absolutely. Nothing. Else. did he say about any other topic. SOMEthing completely random would still be connected to mages suffering.

 

I felt the same way, and I even felt worse about Fenris. He was simply not capable of seeing people doing actions, for him it was always "magic". For me, that's not trauma, that's simply dumb.

 

"Look, dude, I wear a staff and throw fireballs around to help you find your sister, I even heal your skinny butt, because you can't take a spanking like Aveline, Merril her goes out of her way of blasting all the demons your master summoned back to the Fade. I even use magic to kill your old master, just for you, because I could care less about him. Now, don't you see that you might want to start judging people on their actions, rather than serving the same TEH MAGIC IS EVULZ sermon all day?" -- "No. It's all the fault of magic! And I hate you if you suggest otherwise!" -- "Ok, f!ck off, dork!"

 

I loved Isabella and Merril, liked Varric, Aveline was so-so, but I thought Anders and Fenris were badly written and simply annoying as hell.

[TheKomandorShepard]

I felt the same way, and I even felt worse about Fenris. He was simply not capable of seeing people doing actions, for him it was always "magic". For me, that's not trauma, that's simply dumb.

 

"Look, dude, I wear a staff and throw fireballs around to help you find your sister, I even heal your skinny butt, because you can't take a spanking like Aveline, Merril her goes out of her way of blasting all the demons your master summoned back to the Fade. I even use magic to kill your old master, just for you, because I could care less about him. Now, don't you see that you might want to start judging people on their actions, rather than serving the same TEH MAGIC IS EVULZ sermon all day?" -- "No. It's all the fault of magic! And I hate you if you suggest otherwise!" -- "Ok, f!ck off, dork!"

 

I loved Isabella and Merril, liked Varric, Aveline was so-so, but I thought Anders and Fenris were badly written and simply annoying as hell.

Well to be honest when fenris was bi*** he was right majority well almost all mages in dragon age 2 were corrupted he point that hawke is strong enough to ressist corruption of the magic rest is living or now dead prove that guy is right not mention tevinter it seems that in dai we have same situation with insane and corrupted mages.So to be honest he wasn't dumb he was genre savvy perhaps most of entire team.

[MrMrPendragon]

I think Bioware pruposely made those characters like that.

The third game is about builiding an organization, the Inquisition, and using that organization to save the world. Making the supporting characters hold different beliefs - beliefs that may contradict another supporting character's belief - is more of a test on the Inquisitor's leadership skills. As the Inquisitor, you are supposed to teach them a little bit of tolerance and make them work together, regardless of their pasts and convictions.

I believe that your companions being openly unapologetic about their beliefs serves as some kind of test to the Inquisitor.

[schall_und_rauch]

Well to be honest when fenris was bi*** he was right majority well almost all mages in dragon age 2 were corrupted he point that hawke is strong enough to ressist corruption of the magic rest is living or now dead prove that guy is right not mention tevinter it seems that in dai we have same situation with insane and corrupted mages.So to be honest he wasn't dumb he was genre savvy perhaps most of entire team.

A lot of it was self fulfilling prophecy. Mages were often enough treated so badly that they resorted to desperate means.
Orsino was pretty likeable before Meredith chose to kill every mage in the tower.

If you are punished for a crime you might commit in the future, I think it's perfectly reasonable to commit that crime. Because you are punished anyways.

[TheKomandorShepard]

A lot of it was self fulfilling prophecy. Mages were often enough treated so badly that they resorted to desperate means.
Orsino was pretty likeable before Meredith chose to kill every mage in the tower.

If you are punished for a crime you might commit in the future, I think it's perfectly reasonable to commit that crime. Because you are punished anyways.

Well to be honest just look at dao (mages were saner but still a lot corruption).It is false that it was self-fulfilling prophecy in fact very few mages become corrupted or possessed because of templar or chantry.

Orsino was guy who was helping insane necromancer in research hardly because he was "abused" by templars sinister type nothing less or more.