231 réponses à ce sujet

[Maraas]

It would. But there are better ways of adding replayability.

Such as? I'm sorry, but if you always know what you're gonna get, it's not replayability, it's a goddamn vending machine (again with that metaphor). Doesn't matter if you're choosing a companion or a line in dialogue—you can only guess what the effects will be. You can be reasonably proud of yourself if you guess correctly, but without intrigue there's actually little interest in replay. 

 

Replayability means (among other things) that you don't know what could've happen and you want to know. There's another word for when you know for certain: spoiler. 

[Bob from Accounting]

Such as? I'm sorry, but if you always know what you're gonna get, it's not replayability, it's a goddamn vending machine (again with that metaphor). Doesn't matter if you're choosing a companion or a line in dialogue—you can only guess what the effects will be. You can be reasonably proud of yourself if you guess correctly, but without intrigue there's actually little interest in replay. 

 

Replayability means (among other things) that you don't know what could've happen and you want to know. There's another word for when you know for certain: spoiler. 

 

Not really. You 'know' things all the time in stories. You go see a movie, you 'know' the protagonist is not going to be gunned down in the first five minutes. You read a book, you 'know' the threat of the villain is still there if 75% of the pages are still left even through the hero got him sent to prison.

 

For Inquisition, you 'know' the Inquisitor is going to deal with the Veil somehow. You 'know' he's not going to be killed upon meeting the first group of bandits. You 'know' he's going to survive until at least the end of the game.

[xAmilli0n]

I really don't think it's going to be a problem either way. DA has never been a thinking game. There have never been difficult puzzles or unpredictable choices (aside from the sibling/Anders/deep roads thing) it's always been cut and dry, good or evil. It's not like if you take Alistair with you to cure the werewolves he randomly dies for no reason with no warning. The companion differences will likely be along the lines of ex: if you bring Varric on your quest he talks down a group of enemies an you finish the quest, if he's not there you fight that group and finish the quest. If there is a big change based on the presence of a companion, you will likely be beat over the head with it before you go "I grew up in this alienage, I know the people, this is important to me, you're taking me with you!"

 

Pretty spot on.

[llandwynwyn]

 

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.

 

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post or I'd stay more than a minute responding.

 

But yes, it is. It's fun getting surprised.

[SofaJockey]

Who you are with matters. If not for 'realism' at least for internal consistency.

 

If you didn't bring someone who can open locks, don't whine that you can't open locks.

 

I'd like to see appropriate consequences:

 

Like in DA2 wandering around the Templars' Gallows with a party of mages with throbbing staves should have been remarked upon ! :-)

That should have triggered interest at least. It's so bizarre that Fenris and Bethany even remark upon it being a bad idea but with no consequence.