231 réponses à ce sujet

[PillarBiter]

You're basing your whole rant on the fact that we would not have prior knowledge. 

 

However, they never said you wouldn't have knowledge about the fact that some companions would alter outcomes.

 

First of all, for me it would make perfect sense to bring mages to (redcliffe) the mage stronghold. It's very likely that one of them has more to say about it than a random sword-guy. Failing to grasp this isn't bioware's fault. You should've just thought about it. 

 

Secondly. I'm pretty sure bioware will hint at 'this guy knowing that guy' or 'that guy having extra knowledge or an old friend somewhere in that region' beforehand enough if you talk with your teammates. They'd never make you go in blind. 

 

Lastly, the game is about discovery and replayablility. Hearing about things that you didn't do and going 'wow, I could do THAT?' Is what dragon age is about. You're arguing kind of against it...

 

 

That said, I do agree with you for another reason. Once I find myself a good team gameplay wise, I tend to stick with it for gameplay purposes. That will cost me in terms of story, but hey, that's what difficulty settings and multiple playthroughs are for

[Dubya75]

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.

 

5. It is simply your OPINION that this mechanic won't work. BEFORE you've even seen it? Now THAT is truly ridiculous.

[aTigerslunch]

I learned from my first play through to not keep all my companions stripped to their skivvies in Origins. That was entertaining watching them punch darkspawn only wearing undies.

Just in case that popped up again, I kept em all ready in other games. I figured Shale would been good to take to Orzammar. Leliana and Wynne to ashes (especially when tried to max kill everyone in one of those play thru).

ME2, I succeeded with everyone. In a second play I tried to maximize death of everyone.

[thebigbad1013]

No, I think it sounds cool both with positive and negative outcomes. I have no problem whatsoever with having some of my decisions end up playing out in a less than ideal way, in fact, I would love to see more of that.

 

Edit: Hmm, apparently the power of quoting on these forums isn't mine to wield

[NRieh]

 

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?

I was just going to bring it in as an example. You had tons of in-game hints that loyalty missions are vital, you had a direct warning at some point, that you'd better make some things quick and you had those descriptions when assigning the teams. There was no meta-gaming in it, at all.

 

And then let's take a look at the Landsmeet. One has no clue how it works, how and why those scores count, why Ostegar is less important than poisoning Eamon etc. Not to mention  that most of the variables are gathered throughout the game, and none of them look obviously important - sidequests, extra dungeon exploring.

Another poor example of 'non-perfect' logic is the Rannoch plot. It felt very random and frustrating not to have that blue option.  

 

I like it when companions are involved (like Anders helping out Hawke with the blood magic in the Blooming Rose or Varric settling things peacefully with his charms). It makes them more real and less static. But I need to understand the possible options both as the player and as the character. Taking Warden and experienced combat healer Anders into the Deep Roads? Makes perfect sense to me. Having someone killed because saving him required two special companions, quest item from a broken barrel combined with the 'proper' set of dialogue options? Not good. 

[SwobyJ]

No, I think it sounds cool both with positive and negative outcomes. I have no problem whatsoever with having some of my decisions end up playing out in a less than ideal way, in fact, I would love to see more of that.

 

Edit: Hmm, apparently the power of quoting on these forums isn't mine to wield

 

This.

 

But on the other hand, I'm sure a degree of foreshadowing/hinting/critical-thinking-enabling material will exist in the writing that you'll have a good idea that 'hey if I bring X to Y, I may get more stuff happening in Z fashion'.

[Samahl]

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'?

This is a game about demons, and dragons, and magic, not to mention a host of fantasy races. What's "realistic" in this world need not be identical to our own conception of "realism". O_OotherSide has a legitimate point about emotional reactions not being realistic, considering companions' personalities are modeled after real world humans', but that doesn't mean other facets of the game must mirror the real world.

In short, companions having very little investment in the choices you make and the events you witness is unnatural, and one of the ways DA2 really came up short. It's easy to suspend our disbelief when it comes to certain rules not applying to the PC, but not when the characters you interact with regularly don't act like real people.

[Mistress9Nine]

Yeah, I'm not bothered by this. I'm 99% percent sure that characters will come yapping to you and telling you their life stories and not-so-randomly mentioning that their former mentor is the bad guy in Redcliffe, or that they were wronged by X who was last seen fleeing to the Exhalted Plains. We are always given queues about this. If you are not paying attention then it's hardly the the devs' fault.

[Bob from Accounting]

It's easy to suspend our disbelief when it comes to certain rules not applying to the PC, but not when the characters you interact with regularly don't act like real people.

 

I think the hard reality is that you're going to have to deal with that to a large extent.

 

Could a game be made where companions react 'realistically' to such things? Probably. But it would almost certainly involve the player being punished exceedingly for 'evil' acts. Such as every good or even neutral character abandoning, turning in, or downright executing the player character the first time they kill an innocent person. It would mean the game ending at the of the first act four hours in because the King or whoever who gives otherwise you the grand quest decides you're an animal to be put down.

 

Because that's 'realistic,' isn't it? You might be thinking it means a line or two of dialogue. But no, 'realistic' is a good and courageous character putting a knife through your back the first chance they get. 'Realistic' is a prison cell.

 

And that wouldn't be a very fun game, would it?

[thebigbad1013]

Not very courageous to stab someone in the back though....

 

Still, I would maintain that companions absolutely should react if you go around murdering people at random. They aren't just mindless sheep, they are people with their own opinions and there should be consequences to the things you do, both positively and negatively.

[Aries_cz]

I think the hard reality is that you're going to have to deal with that to a large extent.

 

Could a game be made where companions react 'realistically' to such things? Probably. But it would almost certainly involve the player being punished exceedingly for 'evil' acts. Such as every good or even neutral character abandoning, turning it, or downright executing the player character the first time they kill an innocent person. It would mean the game ending at the first act four hours in because the King or whoever who gives otherwise you the grand quest decides you're an animal to be put down.

 

Because that's 'realistic,' isn't it? You might be thinking it means a line or two of dialogue. But no, 'realistic' is a good and courageous character putting a knife through your back the first chance they get. 'Realistic' is a prison cell.

 

And that wouldn't be a very fun game, would it?

 

Actually, that would be interesting. Make people play with whatever conqsequences of their actions. Fight for their life, deal with the fact that noone wants to work with an evil bastard. Not like these new games where someone outrgiht betrays you, sells you out, and you still cannot kill or banish them for that (I am looking at you, certain companion from SWTOR)

[Mistic]

I was just going to bring it in as an example. You had tons of in-game hints that loyalty missions are vital, you had a direct warning at some point, that you'd better make some things quick and you had those descriptions when assigning the teams. There was no meta-gaming in it, at all.

 

And then let's take a look at the Landsmeet. One has no clue how it works, how and why those scores count, why Ostegar is less important than poisoning Eamon etc. Not to mention  that most of the variables are gathered throughout the game, and none of them look obviously important - sidequests, extra dungeon exploring.

Another poor example of 'non-perfect' logic is the Rannoch plot. It felt very random and frustrating not to have that blue option.  

 

I like it when companions are involved (like Anders helping out Hawke with the blood magic in the Blooming Rose or Varric settling things peacefully with his charms). It makes them more real and less static. But I need to understand the possible options both as the player and as the character. Taking Warden and experienced combat healer Anders into the Deep Roads? Makes perfect sense to me. Having someone killed because saving him required two special companions, quest item from a broken barrel combined with the 'proper' set of dialogue options? Not good. 

 

I agree. As several others have pointed out in this thread, as long as there are in-game warnings, I'm cool with this feature. The already mentioned suicide mission in ME2 is the most triumphant example: you are told many times that gaining the loyalty of your companions is crucial, during the planning characters discuss strenghts and weaknesses, and you still have a nice summary each time you make a decision in case you forgot. If you still made the wrong choice, that's your fault.

 

If that's the case in DA:I, I won't complain. If the game urges me to take or not take certain characters for certain missions, I will pay attention. However, even if after paying attention the game punishes me in an arbitrary way or those warnings were traps, that won't be cool.

[aTigerslunch]

I think the hard reality is that you're going to have to deal with that to a large extent.

Could a game be made where companions react 'realistically' to such things? Probably. But it would almost certainly involve the player being punished exceedingly for 'evil' acts. Such as every good or even neutral character abandoning, turning it, or downright executing the player character the first time they kill an innocent person. It would mean the game ending at the first act four hours in because the King or whoever who gives otherwise you the grand quest decides you're an animal to be put down.

Because that's 'realistic,' isn't it? You might be thinking it means a line or two of dialogue. But no, 'realistic' is a good and courageous character putting a knife through your back the first chance they get. 'Realistic' is a prison cell.

And that wouldn't be a very fun game, would it?

Actually I play the most evil, vile character I can create in second play throughs. Killing any and every possible npc, it would seem fair the companions that dont like it to attack me. Cause during that play through my intention may end up killing some of them as well. But that is for that play through. Most times it would not be cause I love the characters most times.

[Bob from Accounting]

No, it wouldn't make it interesting. You don't get it. You talk about 'realism,' you talk about 'consequences' but you don't really grasp what those things actually are. You're still thinking terms of video games. You no longer have that priviledge when you try and advocate 'realism.' In a video game, murder gets you a slap on the wrist. You're still the boss. You still do what you want, kill anyone you want.

 

That's not consequence.

 

You commit first degree murder in real life and get found guility, your life is over. Do you understand what that really means? You will never see the outside world ever again. You are stuck there, you are powerless, and that's the end of it. It's done. Is that a game to you? I assure you it's not. 

[aTigerslunch]

No, it wouldn't make it interesting. You don't get it. You talk about 'realism,' you talk about 'consequences' but you don't really grasp what those things actually are. You're still thinking terms of video games. You no longer have that priviledge when you try and advocate 'realism.' In a video game, murder gets you a slap on the wrist. You're still the boss. You still do what you want, kill anyone you want.

That's not consequence.

You commit first degree murder in real life and get found guility, your life is over. Do you understand what that really means? You will never see the outside world ever again. You are stuck there, you are powerless, and that's the end of it. It's done. Is that a game to you? I assure you it's not.

That is what I expect to happen. I played a game before where the second time I decided to kill the captured villians. Later on during that play thru I was murdered for all that evil. I found it awesome and told the author awesome work. I didn't expect to mass murder and live like few other games allows.

[Reznore57]

Bringing different companions along always had consequences in DA.

You get some friendship /or "non friendship" points depending on what you do , influencing the overall relationship .

Even leaving them at camp has consequences .(that's how I lost Isabela in DA2)

 

And during some quests some can loose their marble or help you.

During the Sacred Ashes quest in DAO , depending on what you're doing and who's in your party , it can end with blood all over the walls.

 

Usually my first playthrough of DA are pretty miserable when it comes to relationship.

[AlexJK]

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.

1. This happens; characters do sometimes die without player input.
2. Nobody is suggesting that companion-specific outcomes will cause this, so... what's your point there?
 

... 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.

You didn't take the Grey Warden, the only party member with any significant experience of fighting darkspawn, or any experience at all of the deep roads, on the expedition? Fail to prepare, prepare to fail...
 

And then let's take a look at the Landsmeet. One has no clue how it works, how and why those scores count, why Ostagar is less important than poisoning Eamon etc. Not to mention  that most of the variables are gathered throughout the game, and none of them look obviously important - sidequests, extra dungeon exploring.

Why is this in and of itself a bad thing? Are you saying that there should be a "Guide to what matters in the Landsmeet" in the codex?

[Bob from Accounting]

I'm certainly saying that a reasonably larger quest and choice should lead to a reasonably larger outcome in comparison to a smaller quest and choice, yes. And that whatever consequences the player encounters from a quest or choice should more or less be in line with what the player expects when they made the choice or completed the quest.

 

So while there shouldn't be an explicit 'guide,' things should be clear to anyone whose paid attention to the story.

[Shaftell]

Holy moly... I actually just thought about this and it is freaking me out. I agree with OP, I don't want to be punished for picking certain characters. In DA2, there was no prior information given that Anders would be needed to save Bethany in the deep roads. What is keeping them from not doing something similar again?

[AkiKishi]

Holy moly... I actually just thought about this and it is freaking me out. I agree with OP, I don't want to be punished for picking certain characters. In DA2, there was no prior information given that Anders would be needed to save Bethany in the deep roads. What is keeping them from not doing something similar again?

 

That just gave you a different story. Not really important since Bethany is gone either way.

[krogan warlord83]

for my own 2 cents i like this feature and  i can see why some people will be against it 

 

but at the end of the day were all fans of bioware/dragon age and i think we have to remember that we as community are along for the ride that is bioware game its still their art.

 

the more i see from this game more i think bioware has really thought this one thru or could be first dud who noes time will tell

[Samahl]

I think the hard reality is that you're going to have to deal with that to a large extent.

 

Could a game be made where companions react 'realistically' to such things? Probably. But it would almost certainly involve the player being punished exceedingly for 'evil' acts. Such as every good or even neutral character abandoning, turning in, or downright executing the player character the first time they kill an innocent person. It would mean the game ending at the of the first act four hours in because the King or whoever who gives otherwise you the grand quest decides you're an animal to be put down.

 

Because that's 'realistic,' isn't it? You might be thinking it means a line or two of dialogue. But no, 'realistic' is a good and courageous character putting a knife through your back the first chance they get. 'Realistic' is a prison cell.

 

And that wouldn't be a very fun game, would it?

There's a good example of a choice companion reacting in a meaningful way, with meaningful consequences in Origins: Alistair will leave you if you spare Loghain, no matter what. It makes sense, and is consistent with his character, considering the impact Duncan's death had on him and how much he clearly despises Loghain. Those are the sorts of consequences I'm thinking of for Inquisition. Not caring about the smaller choices doesn't mean completely neglecting the bigger choices. There's such a thing as moderation.