231 réponses à ce sujet

[Bob from Accounting]

I was reading GameInformer's coverage of DA:I at E3, and something that concerned me was the 'striking feature' of companions impacting the storyline. As GameInformer reports, "Depending which characters you choose to bring on certain missions, different storyline moments and relationships are affected. You unlock exclusive content with ripple effects, depending on who you choose. "

 

I have no idea how accurate this is; if the staff in question got the information directly from a developer or if they merely surmized it from whatever demo they played. I have no idea if these 'ripple effects' and 'exclusive content' are significant or trivial. I'm also aware it's almost certainly too late for anything to be done about this feature in DA:I either way, seeing as the game releases in four months. It might very well be that I'm concerned about nothing. Nonetheless, I'm here to say that having companions significantly affect the story is a bad idea, and BioWare should stay well away from such a mechanic.

 

I've found the general RPG player community is full of people who will shill any RPG-type feature that differentiates their game from Call of Duty with little to no analysis or understanding of the idea. And they do. For very many players, I doubt their understanding goes any deeper than 'Any mechanic that leads to more consequence must automatically be good, smart, mature, good writing, etc.' So this kind of thing gets plenty of support, which would of course be a factor in the developers considering it in their modern games. But hopefully, BioWare rises above that, no matter how many fans request it.

 

Why is it a bad idea? There's about a half-dozen reasons, but the simpliest and most important is that it isn't a meaningful choice.

 

I do not have magic powers. I am not able to magically divine which companions I'm going to need to get the outcome I'm looking for if the story gives me no information to work with. Getting screwed over because I wasn't able to guess who I was supposed to bring is not fun. It's not good storytelling. It's frustrating. It's 'You were lucky enough to pick the right companion, so this guy gets to live.' Or 'This guy dies because you weren't able to magically predict who you should have taken with you.' It's a dice roll. And a dice roll is not a meaningful choice.

 

BioWare has taken a great deal of flak recently for making very lofty promises of power to the player, both explicit and implicit, and not coming through when it mattered. 'The player decides.' 'It's up to the player.' And Dragon Age Inquisition has pushed that more than any other BioWare game. If BioWare wants to live up to that promise, this is not the time to be taking power out of the player's hands and giving it to a roll of the dice.

 

For a choice to be meaningful, the player must have a reasonable idea of the consequences of that choice when they make it, and the story must more-or-less follow through with player's expectation. Why bother even choosing otherwise? Why bother thinking? If there's no relation between what I expect to happen and what actually happens, I may as well just flip a coin. That would be as good of a method as any to get the best outcome.

 

That doesn't mean any variation is bad. Variation is great, so long as the outcome is ultimately just as good.

 

Additional dialogue and history if I bring certain characters along? Great.

Having to do a little less or a little more work because a companion generates trust or animosity? No problem.

 

Having a character, even a minor character, die because I did or didn't bring a certain character? No.

Having a desireable outcome locked off or even a quest automatically failed entirely because of my companions? Hell no.

 

Note that all of this only applies when there is no foreshadowing. When reasonable foreshadowing is present, all bets are off. The player can of course be punished if for some reason they ignore a clear and reliable warning of "Inquisitor, you need to bring so-and-so or such-and-such class on the next mission to deal with such-and-such threat." Or "Don't bring so-and-so, because they'll cause trouble."

[AkiKishi]

As long as you can finish the game, that's all that matters. The idea that you can have a perfect game without meta gaming or pre-knowledge makes no sense what so ever. You make your choices, you deal with the consequences. It's what makes the suicide mission in ME2 so rewarding if you pull it off first time.

[Bob from Accounting]

First of all, it makes perfect sense.

 

Secondly, I was able to get the 'Perfect Ending' for the Suicide Mission the first time, without any 'meta gaming' or 'pre knowledge.' So are sure you know what 'meta gaming' and 'pre knowledge' actually is?

[AlexJK]

I agree with some of what you say (you should, in general, have enough information available to choose meaningfully which companions to bring), but I think it's great that there might occasionally be an unexpected outcome if you have the right combination of people along with you. I don't think anyone's talking about failing quests if you bring the wrong party, are they? Just that the outcomes may be different with different companions. That sounds great, and is something we've seen plenty of times already in DA and DA2; for example taking Leliana to the Sacred Ashes, or Shale to the Anvil, and in DA2 the combinations available if you take your sibling and/or Anders to the deep roads with you.

[The Elder King]

It's a matter of opinion. I'm perfectly fine with it.
Though I'd say that in the case of the demo, there was enough foreshadowing. It's possibly
Every choices like that will present enough information for the player to decide.

[thebigbad1013]

Different situations playing out differently depending on who you bring with you actually sounds pretty cool to me. It also makes a certain kind of sense since different people tend to approach situations and problems very differently.   

[Vincent-Vega]

I think it's great. I want as much Roleplay as possible.

[Bob from Accounting]

Yes, it certainly sounds 'cool' if you only consider it in terms of 'different things happen, but they're all fun and exciting.' Which I tend to think is the subconcious assumption when people hear the idea. Instead of the reality.

 

Somehow, I don't think people would find it very 'cool' to have their favorite character be killed without any input from them. I think that would make people very angry.

[Miyaserie]

I'm cautiously optimistic about this. If most occurrences are simple "you get different dialog" / "an extra scene", I'm all for it.

Now if the mechanic punishes you for taking along wrong companions, I hope it's for logical reasons and maybe the companions themselves will notify you if you're about to make a fatally wrong choice. I also hope such chances will be used in moderation.

 

It does bring a certain depth to the gameplay, if done right. You have to learn to optimise your party depending on the circumstances.

[Dubya75]

It's pretty darn arrogant to declare "Bioware is making a huge mistake" with a mechanic that in my opinion is actually an awesome idea. Just imagine the number of playthroughs you can have, all with something unique in them.

Also, the fact that they have been working on this game for a significant amount of time. Do you REALLY think they would blindly have a non-working mechanic in there? Why would they consciously do that?

Don't forget, you are making a huge fuss over something you haven't even had a chance to experience. Hot air.

 

On the subject of "Role playing", if you have a group of 4 people doing a mission, it is quite realistic for everyone involved to "shape" the progression and outcome somewhat. Unless you are the dictator type. 

Oh! I think I just nailed it.

[AkiKishi]

First of all, it makes perfect sense.

 

Secondly, I was able to get the 'Perfect Ending' for the Suicide Mission the first time, without any 'meta gaming' or 'pre knowledge.' So are sure you know what 'meta gaming' and 'pre knowledge' actually is?

 

It's possible to do that. For some people it required a walkthrough. Getting it first time felt rewarding.

[Bob from Accounting]

You have to learn to optimise your party depending on the circumstances.

 

Except you don't, because the likelihood of any working system of 'optimizing your party' being in place is exceedingly low, and would cause several very serious problems of it's own even if it were in place.

[O_OotherSide]

Well, we still have no idea how they are written since the game isn't out yet. We may have enough intel to know that not to bring the teventer mage to a bunch of templar's we are trying to presaude to help us is a bad idea. Or the Qunari to a bunch of Teventer mages.

[Bob from Accounting]

It's pretty darn arrogant to declare "Bioware is making a huge mistake" with a mechanic that in my opinion is actually an awesome idea. Just imagine the number of playthroughs you can have, all with something unique in them.

Also, the fact that they have been working on this game for a significant amount of time. Do you REALLY think they would blindly have a non-working mechanic in there? Why would they consciously do that?

Don't forget, you are making a huge fuss over something you haven't even had a chance to experience. Hot air.

 

On the subject of "Role playing", if you have a group of 4 people doing a mission, it is quite realistic for everyone involved to "shape" the progression and outcome somewhat. Unless you are the dictator type. 

Oh! I think I just nailed it.

 

1. People who make video games include mechanics that don't really work all the time. Literally. All the time.

 

2. I have experienced this.

 

3. No. That's not how 'role-playing' works, that's not how 'realism' works, and that's not how stories work.

 

4. You whine about me being arrogant, and your reasoning why is because you think it's 'an awesome idea'? Ridiculous.

[Kidd]

I agree with this. A choice isn't meaningful if I'm not aware I'm making it. Here's to hoping BioWare simply has proper foreshadowing for those moments. Or perhaps we're misunderstanding just what Gameinformer means.

"You can only choose to harden Cassandra if you bring Solas and her to Arbitrary Mission 7" sounds like something I don't think I would appreciate if there is no hint that Solas would be a good choice for the mission, for instance.

As long as you can finish the game, that's all that matters. The idea that you can have a perfect game without meta gaming or pre-knowledge makes no sense what so ever. You make your choices, you deal with the consequences. It's what makes the suicide mission in ME2 so rewarding if you pull it off first time.

I'd say if you come out of the suicide mission with no losses on your first playthrough, then you wou probably don't know why what you just did was pretty cool. Especially since the only obvious variables to the suicide mission are the options you pick on-site, and those are also the easiest to get right, I think.

[O_OotherSide]

1. People who make video games include mechanics that don't really work all the time. Literally. All the time.

 

2. I have experienced this.

 

3. No. That's not how 'role-playing' works, that's not how 'realism' works, and that's not how stories work.

 

4. You whine about me being arrogant, and your reasoning why is because you think it's 'an awesome idea'? Ridiculous.

How is that not how "realism" works? I thought it was silly I could leave a building full of buring people to kill one merc without any fuss from my team in ME2. Or that no one steped in to stop me from selling fenris

[The Elder King]

Yes, it certainly sounds 'cool' if you only consider it in terms of 'different things happen, but they're all fun and exciting.' Which I tend to think is the subconcious assumption when people hear the idea. Instead of the bleaker reality.
 
Somehow, I don't think people would find it very 'cool' to have their favorite character be killed without any input from them. I think that would make people very angry.

I'm sure there'll be people who will be angry. I wouldn't. I'm expecting negative and tragic outcomes of certain choices.
I think that more of the companions (where I think there'll be enough info to make a decision) you should worry at choices from the previous games cutting off certain contents and outcomes. While not explicitely confirmed, Laidlaw stated during GI coverage's podcast last year that they're not afraid of doing so, and there'll be variations to the endings based on some of the previous choices.

[oceanicsurvivor]

My interpretation of our limited knowledge of how this mechanic might work was different. Using the example from the trailer/demo shown at E3 I figured that before the mission started Dorian would say to the PC 'hey, I know this guy, take me with you' and you can then decide if you want Dorian in your party, understanding that he will interact differently/provide different context, or opt for your regular party. And then, as to the lasting repercussions, I figured it was more character based. Like say, with the village of Crestwood back in that very old PAX video. If Varric is in your party he will be upset about the death and that will have a lasting impact on his relationship with the Inquisitor. None of which sounds very different from past Bioware games. Its like in the Circle quest in DA:O where Wynne gets locked into your party...only now, she won't be locked in, you'll just be told you'll have more contextual dialogue if you bring her.

[wolfhowwl]

David, have you ever even played any of the Dragon Age games?

[Revelat0]

I do not see an issue with it personally, my experience in RPGs is that if I am well-informed on the general lore of a game such as one example being: Shale is a golem, I can infer that since she is a golem she is related to the dwarves in some way. I now have adequate reason to believe (knowing different companions result in different consequences) that bring Shale to Orzammar may be worth-while. It is true you may or may not have known about Shale if you went to Orzammar first but that is also something you can infer with an RPG (I should probably do secondary objectives first in order to be best prepared). If you cannot infer based on dialogue, lore, codex, foreshadowing, or just a lack of notice, then you reap what you sow. If in DA:I we are going to engage with the Grey Wardens it may be a good idea to bring a Grey Warden with me, I don't see this as hard to infer.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Both previous games have done this to some extent. Why would it change?

[MiyoKit]

In situations like this, the game generally throws you massive hints on what the 'best' option would be (think ME:2). I don't mind it, the only down side is I have to equip all my companions equally just incase they're needed ;_;

[Bob from Accounting]

How is that not how "realism" works? I thought it was silly I could leave a building full of buring people to kill one merc without any fuss from my team in ME2. Or that no one steped in to stop me from selling fenris

 

You should think about what's really meant to be 'realistic.'

 

Is there a single game, any game, with 'realistic' consequences for commiting evil? A game where the player sits in prison for 40 years? Or at least, an open world style game with many characters such as Dragon Age?
 

You could write an entire novel about a single character's reaction to a single murder. And people have. Yet murder is something the player can do a dozen times before lunch for many games. A dozen murders. Ten or so companions. How many novels is that?

 

Would you be interesting in playing 'Sit-In-Prison-Simulator 5000'?

[Kidd]

My interpretation of our limited knowledge of how this mechanic might work was different. Using the example from the trailer/demo shown at E3 I figured that before the mission started Dorian would say to the PC 'hey, I know this guy, take me with you' and you can then decide if you want Dorian in your party, understanding that he will interact differently/provide different context, or opt for your regular party.

Well yeah, if that happens, then I'm game. That's a heads up that something is coming. Just like before going down to the Deep Roads, Hawke's mother warns you something may be up (and if you listen to her you'll end up mad any way, such is the beauty of DA2 =) but you're probably not sad at least).

[Gnoster]

I understand where the OP is coming from and to a certain degree agree with what he is saying.

 

• I agree that quests shouldn't fail or succeed based on who you bring to the party, netiher should content be locked or unlocked based on it.
• I agree that if certain companions can bring special information or outcomes during a quest or going into an area, the player should get some sort of hint of this (the examples Revelat0 of Dorian telling the inquisitor that he knows them is a great way of doing it). Whether the player picks up on said hint or not is his or her own responsibility (in the case of a hint is given, by all means let it mean total success or failure)
• I agree that small extra spoken comments by certain companions is just flavor and thus do not require any form of hint beforehand

 

However this is a case of Bioware revealing a mechanic and not explaining it thus creating debates like this (again). Best case scenario you get some form of hint, like in Mass Effect 2 suicide mission, worst case scenario you get no hint at all and it's a roll of the dice like your sibling dying in the deep roads of Dragon Age 2 unless you also bring Anders.

I am starting to think Bioware should rather stop talking about mechanics at all since they never provide any information on how they actually work, well that or pick fewer mechanics to reveal and then explain them in detail.