231 réponses à ce sujet

[Knight of Dane]

I think it's nice to have a branching story depending on your party composition, but I also think that as a game it has to make sure the player is aware when a situation is more dire. Character death simply because you brought one character over another is player punishment and will make a "right way" to play the game, which should not be the case.

[metatheurgist]

Sometimes bad things happen. Having them happen in a game can be meaningful and good story telling. Besides it's a game. You can always reload after you pick your jaw up from the floor, if you aren't prepared to accept the outcome.

[Bob from Accounting]

Absolutely true. There is such a thing as moderation. Consequences for evil actions that give characters depth and meaning to the story. But my point was that we shouldn't, in general,  pretend that such consequences are 'realistic.' 

[AkiKishi]

I think it's nice to have a branching story depending on your party composition, but I also think that as a game it has to make sure the player is aware when a situation is more dire. Character death simply because you brought one character over another is player punishment and will make a "right way" to play the game, which should not be the case.

 

There is often a right way to do something. As long as you can finish the game, the player has no right to dictate what story will play out. Or to have the knowledge to do so without looking outside the game.

 

In the case of Bethany, she is gone as a party member what ever you do. It's only the manner that changes.

[The Elder King]

Absolutely true. There is such a thing as moderation. Consequences for evil actions that give characters depth and meaning to the story. But my point was that we shouldn't, in general,  pretend that such consequences are 'realistic.'

Consequences can be present for 'good' choices as well.

[Wulfram]

One problem with having consequences for not bringing someone along is that it highlights the artificial cap on party size.  It shouldn't really be impossible to take the relevant guy along on the quest with your regular party.  And with only 3 slots for NPCs, your party make-up can start to feel very constricted as you effectively force characters into the party.

 

Also, I have no problem with a stupid evil player character being killed/imprisoned for their crimes.

[Bob from Accounting]

Consequences can be present for 'good' choices as well.

 

Not really to the same degree. 'Evil' characters might roll their eyes at a good character, but an evil person not is 'realistically' going to have a huge reaction to the protagonist taking a good action. It would be perfectly 'realistic' for them to remark that it's stupid and let it go.

 

Not so with evil actions. A 'realistic' reaction of a good character to an act of evil would be immense. It would be life-changing.

[Knight of Dane]

There is often a right way to do something. As long as you can finish the game, the player has no right to dictate what story will play out. Or to have the knowledge to do so without looking outside the game.

 

In the case of Bethany, she is gone as a party member what ever you do. It's only the manner that changes.

I disagree. I think good role playing games should have several ways to do something and not something that's the wrong or right way.

[9TailsFox]

I disagree with everything I think it's great idea. I relay like it in DA2. Merrill screwing you joke about fire, Sibling grey warden. You not the only one who have characters you don't like. Of course you don't understand and it would be just waste of time to try. You are not forced to take companions, just take the ones you like or don't like if this is what you want. You are not punished, its how story unfolds.

I think it's main reason why Game of Thrones is so great, people so used to happy, sunshine and rainbows story, we can't hand bad stuff, there was literary one episode there they just show how bad guys win and good become bad.

Don't think to hard what to take on mission, just if you go to templar vs mage mission and you support mages take mage supporters or opposite.

I think it's great think companions affect story, after all characters is most important part in Dragon age.

[bEVEsthda]

?????

 

I fail to see how this is in any way either new or undesirable.

My characters have always assumed that those companions she/he choses are going to impact the story in various ways.

Just such simple matters as the party's relations to the environment, and access to information/knowledge.

These things were all over both BG and DA:O.

 

Now I seem to have a notion of that I have basically rarely (if ever) agreed with Bob of accounting, so that might just be it. But couldn't it also be that too much are read into this? Too big consequences, etc?

 

There is no such thing as a 'perfect' playthrough through a wRPG. There shouldn't be. The choices shouldn't be 'perfectly informed'. And they don't need to be, to be meaningful or to tell a story. The character of course gets into situations where she/he needs to guess or take chances. The decisions taken reflect the character and forms the story, mistakes and successes.

 

It's a lot of the thrill in doing things like freeing Sten, for instance. My characters who make this decision, have reasons to do so, but they also fear the consequences.

It's just as it should be.

 

Those who desire 'perfect' playthroughs, shouldn't be allowed to have any kind of influence at all over game design. That's my opinion, and it comes from my position that the game is a tool/toy to do role-playing. And satisfying role-playing is the measure of success of a playthrough, not money earned, dungeons cleared or monsters slain. I have no problem with leaving things to other playthroughs.

[NRieh]

 

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?

Probably not, but Eamon could have mentioned something. He  could have discussed the evidence you gather, like 'that's a strong one, that's a decent one, this is something, but you'd rather find something more'... At least they could have added couple of  dialogues-banters at the tavern. There are many ways to add in-game content.

 

 Anyway, nothing prepares player to the fact, that discarded side quest (from assassins that were hired to kill him\her, by the way) and unexplored room in a dungeon penalizes one that greatly. Not to mention 100% uselessness of skills and stats. There are no sat- and skillchecks during the Landsmeet ( other than evading the fight with the Loghain's knight lady). Maxed persuade and 50 cunning? Sorry.  

[9TailsFox]

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?

People ask consequences.

Bioware give consequences.

No we don't like it.

 

[Nashimura]

I love the sound of this actually, i think it should make a difference and you should be weary who you are bringing with you in these tense highly political situations. 

[wolfhowwl]

?????

 

I fail to see how this is in any way either new or undesirable.

My characters have always assumed that those companions she/he choses are going to impact the story in various ways.

Just such simple matters as the party's relations to the environment, and access to information/knowledge.

These things were all over both BG and DA:O.

 

You'll have to forgive David-I mean Bob's ignorance. He hasn't actually played Dragon Age games or other BioWare games outside of Mass Effect.

 

It is rather odd that he is making such strident demands about a series he hasn't played (and a genre he doesn't even really understand going by some of his posts here).

[Mykel54]

The OP doesn´t know what DA is about, this "thing" has been over all previous games and it makes perfect sense. It allows replayability and deeper interactions between characters and the storyline. Each companion always have had their "niche", a subject they know a lot about and that can help you with (often it is the reason you recruit the companion).

 

Now if you choose to ignore all that and just have bland companions who know it all, so you can bring anyone you desire and yet get the exact same results, then i have to say the DA games aren´t for you.

[Wulfram]

 Anyway, nothing prepares player to the fact, that discarded side quest (from assassins that were hired to kill him\her, by the way) and unexplored room in a dungeon penalizes one that greatly. Not to mention 100% uselessness of skills and stats. There are no sat- and skillchecks during the Landsmeet ( other than evading the fight with the Loghain's knight lady). Maxed persuade and 50 cunning? Sorry.  

 

There's a persuade check to successfully accuse Loghain of betraying Ferelden.  And potentially some to persuade Alistair to marry the Warden/Anora

[AkiKishi]

That's entirely irrelevant and frankly ridiculous. The significance of a character's death is not dependant on how often they appear in the future. By that stupid logic, it's okay to kill off everyone at the conclusion of every story because the story is over and we won't see them again anyway.

 

I means exactly that. Those are the only real consequences of the characters removal. Anything else is down to the individual and their attachment to the character. 

 

You can do just that. The players input ends with the end of the game. That's why we have this ongoing thing with the PCs from DA:O and DA2. I prefer to kill the character off so that can't happen. Nice neat contained story. 

[NRieh]

 

In DA2, there was no prior information given that Anders would be needed to save Bethany in the deep roads.

Hell yeah... A Grey Warden,  a skilled combat mage and a healer. There's not a single evidence he might be useful in Deep Roads, none at all... 

[Samahl]

Hell yeah... A Grey Warden,  a skilled combat mage and a healer. There's not a single evidence he might be useful in Deep Roads, none at all... 

The first time I played, I didn't bring Anders because I didn't need him - Bethany was my healer. Of course, I didn't take into account his Grey Warden status, which was my fault, but his being a healer doesn't necessarily mean anything.

[Gnoster]

Now I seem to have a notion of that I have basically rarely agreed with Bob of accounting, so that might just be it. But couldn't it also be that too much are read into this? Too big consequences, etc?

 

You are right, that potentially we're all reading too much into the mechanic. Problem is in the E3 video Mike mentioned that it affects dialogue and story, and then he immediately started talking about something unrelated. From what I am reading in this discussion (I wouldn't call it panic spreading as some did earlier), everyone is cool with different companions having an effect on dialogue, however a lot are cautious when it comes to it impacting the story if it does so without any warning whatsoever because normally stuff like that are scripted and not based on luck of the dice of the PC bringing along a certain companion.

 

Personally I think this whole discussion is interesting as it speaks to RPG mechanics and how they should be implemented. Unfortunately Bioware has now hinted at a mechanic and not explained it at all.

[Bob from Accounting]

Maybe you should try arguing against what I said and not delusional hallucinations? I never imposed any preference on anyone. If someone wants to kill a character at a certain point and the story allows it, that's their business. But the idea that a character is automatically worthless because they aren't going to appear in the future and it thus makes no difference to anyone whether they live or not is incredibly foolish.