231 réponses à ce sujet

[MrMrPendragon]

I would prefer if there's at least enough info to guide you into making the "right" decision, or at least the "best bad decision".

However, that would be very hard to pull off in a video game because we all interpret info differently. We might interpret the hint in a different angle, thus making a terrible mistake, instead of actually helping the player. Which will then have the fans complain to Bioware for misleading them.

Also, I don't think you can actually "fail" a main quest. Main quests move the story forward, so there is always an outcome no matter what you do. It's just a matter of what kind of outcome you'll get.

Tbh, I don't think the different outcomes will be drastically different from each other. It's more of "If you don't bring Anders with you to the Deep Roads, but bring your sibling, then the sibling dies" or something like that.

Yes you won't see your sibling again, and your mother may be furious at you, but the story moves forward. Hawke still does his thing.

[tmp7704]

It's an issue of whether foreshadowing is present or not. And I made sure to clarify as much at the end of the OP.

Maybe such clarifications shouldn't be saved until the end, odds are few people are going to listen to your entire argument that starts with premise "THE SKY IS FALLING" from the very topic line.

Further to the point, if you acknowledge that it is possible to make the idea work provided some conditions are met, then maybe announcing how the idea is a "terrible mistake" from the get-go is, you know, a terrible mistake.

[Chrom72]

As long as they don't go too overboard it should be fine. Every possible deviation should be logical and make sense for each companion. Bringing your only Grey Warden companion to the Deep Roads to fight Darkspawn with you made logical sense. Receiving a warning from your mother not to bring your sibling with you should have set off alarm bells, as they never usually do that before choosing characters to bring with you. The Suicide Mission was a little over the top in telling you what the "best" options were, but that's preferable to something like some of the Origins Landsmeet checks. When character death is involved always give a warning. For everything else you can usually just rely on logic. 

 

Like others have said, if you're going to meet with a bunch of Qunari, obviously it may be a good idea to bring your own. If you know that a character is on bad terms with them though, then obviously you should know that it may not be a good idea to bring them to the meeting. Don't bring apostate mages to meet with Templars (or vice-versa), a racist to meet with Dalish (or Dwarves, Qunari, etc..),or a Mabari to a crazy cat lady's house. You wouldn't think bringing Fenris to save a bunch of apostates would be a good idea, or bringing Anders to help out Templars. 

[Ymladdych]

It's an issue of whether foreshadowing is present or not. And I made sure to clarify as much at the end of the OP.
 

 

Based on the DAI companion profiles they've released so far, I don't think foreshadowing will be a problem. Something tells me, if things go south in a big way, it'll be because the player tuned out some vital information, or carelessly antagonized the wrong person.

 

Personally, I love the concept of complex companion dynamics, and I'm excited to see where the DA team goes with it. Could this dynamic bite me in the butt? Sure. In fact, it probably will. (I don't think Morrigan will be in the most magnanimous state after the events of my DAO playthrough.) But that's interesting (and fun!) for me.

[Lebanese Dude]

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?

The fact that Anders was a recruitable Grey Warden essentially telegraphed to the player that you should bring him along.

This is no different than avoiding putting Zaeed in charge of a team cause you should deduce that he would get others killed since he only cares about número uno.

[O_OotherSide]

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'?

Uh, first you say thats not "realism" Now you are saying it shouldn't be realistic because then you would go to jail. Whatever dude, it makes sense for the group of highly skilled people that are with you to have imput into whats happening.

[9TailsFox]

The fact that Anders was a recruitable Grey Warden essentially telegraphed to the player that you should bring him along.

This is no different than avoiding putting Zaeed in charge of a team cause you should deduce that he would get others killed since he only cares about número uno.

I going into deep roads filed with monster, and I have someone who can sense them, nah I don't need him, I will be fine.

If you lead Inqusition like this demons deserve to win. Tali is like, Shepard really.

[zambingo]

You're looking at stories backwards.

Well then. I kneel before your greater knowledge of literature.

[Bob from Accounting]

Why should intentions and expectations be catered to, again? There's an implicit assumption here that I'm not really following.

 

Because they're justified. Because that's what's been promised, both implicitly and explicitly. That the player will have a very significant measure of control over these things. That goes entirely down the drain if the issues the player may well care the most important (such as the survival of a character they like) is entirely outside the player's ability - if the outcome is completely the opposite of what the player wants and there's nothing meaningful the player can do about it.

 

You might well be thinking "Does this mean ANY mandatory death is bad?" It does not. Mandatory deaths can be very powerful moments, and I have no problems with them being implemented for the right reasons. I must bring to your attention another implicit promise. A promise that the story is not pointless. The characters are not pointless.

 

Therein lies the problem. Not that a character dies and the player can't do anything about it. The problem is a character dies and the player can't do anything about it for a thematically bankrupt reason. That's the problem. The character dies, not because of sacrifice, or courage, or betrayal, or love, or karma, or a thousand other interesting, meaningful, powerful reasons. But for a stupid, pointless, bankrupt reason. Because the dice came up wrong. And that's it.

 

That is repulsive. The theme there is that everything a story should be, everything a story could be, bows and submits to one thing: the dice. The dice are God. No matter how powerful, meaningful, beautiful a character is, they live and die by the dice. It's an affront to what a story is. Not only a ridiculous lie, but a disgusting squander.

 

Do you understand?

[zambingo]

This is most likely not at all your intention... However it seems like the more you explain your point the more it sounds like, "It's cool if stuff I don't care about is screwed, but Developers should read my mind about what situations and characters I care about so what I love doesn't get fubared."

Life is full of "dice rolls". Get used to it. And of course the funny thing is you're enjoying a franchise born from dice roll gameplay.

[DumSheeps]

This is one of best features i can think of right now ( from the ones announced at least). It is not terrible mistake, it is genius and very rare, because there are almost no party based RPG's nowadays, why not exploit this opportunity of unique storytelling. 

Bioware do not listen to this nonsense and stupidity of the OP.

[azarhal]

People ask consequences.

Bioware give consequences.

No we don't like it.

There is many person that when they ask for consequences in a game what they really mean is "let me choose the consequences for my actions so I can still get the goody-two-shoes ending despite being a super evil bad guy".

[BubbleDncr]

I don't mind this much, I think. The companions I want to see the most content with are usually the ones I bring with me on mains tory quests - I vary up my companions in the side quests.

 

And then on other playthroughs, I'll have a different set of companions I want to see everything with.

[Maraas]

The problem is a character dies and the player can't do anything about it for a thematically bankrupt reason. That's the problem. The character dies, not because of sacrifice, or courage, or betrayal, or love, or karma, or a thousand other interesting, meaningful, powerful reasons. 

Wait a bit. Where did that come from? Why exactly a death you could've avoided by leaving certain follower back at the base of operations absolutely must be "thematically bankrupt"? What do you even mean by that? Are you implying that if a character dies only under certain conditions it could never ever be sacrifice, karma or what have you?

 

Oh, and "dice roll" has absolutely nothing to do with this. Dice roll is random: one time you bring them along and they're fine, the other time with all things being equal they die. Which is not the point in question.

[Bob from Accounting]

Life is full of "dice rolls". Get used to it. And of course the funny thing is you're enjoying a franchise born from dice roll gameplay.

 

Of course. Life is full of sitting in traffic, too. And going to the bathroom. And sitting at a desk for hours on end.

 

That doesn't mean those things are powerful or worth telling stories about.
 

[Bob from Accounting]

Wait a bit. Where did that come from? Why exactly a death you could've avoided by leaving certain follower back at the base of operations absolutely must be "thematically bankrupt"? What do you even mean by that? Are you implying that if a character dies only under certain conditions it could never ever be sacrifice, karma or what have you?

 

Of course not. Only if the character dies under 'conditions' of the player being given a 'choice' with no information or meaning behind it besides luck. Such as a companion being present dying automatically, and the player having no idea they could have prevented it.

 

Then, yes. It's death by a coin toss.

[bEVEsthda]

I 100% disagree with the OP.

 

I'm very happy to see that he seems so alone in his position.

[Bob from Accounting]

Oh, and "dice roll" has absolutely nothing to do with this. Dice roll is random: one time you bring them along and they're fine, the other time with all things being equal they die. Which is not the point in question.

 

It has absolutely everything to do with this. I get the feeling you don't understand randomness very well.

 

Suppose you went to your local gas station and purchased a lottery ticket. Suppose the winning numbers have already been decided. If you knew and picked those winning numbers, there is a 100% chance you will win. It's an absolute certainty. Like companions, if you choose one set of numbers you have a 100% chance of succeeding, you choose another you have a 100% chance of failing.

 

Does that mean the lottery is no longer luck? Does that mean you can go and become a millionaire, because there's no luck involved? All you have to do is pick those numbers. No. It does not. Because you have no meaningful control. As far as you're concerned, you have the same one in ten million chance as always. Your success depends on the numbers you pick, but the outcome does not 'depend on you' in any meaningful sense.

[robertthebard]

If you're making ridiculous arguments that it doesn't matter to players if a character lives or dies because he's not appearing in the future, that's clearly exactly what you're doing. Denoting the character as 'worthless.'

How? My canon Warden is dead, I killed her myself by slaying the archdemon w/out the DR. So, by your logic, she didn't end the Fifth Blight because she died? How exactly am I denoting that she's worthless since she did indeed end the blight, and did indeed die?

[embraceternity]

I can see both sides of this argument, here. While I personally enjoy this feature in Dragon Age games (I remember events like this happened in DA:O, as well. Like when you bring Morrigan along with you during the Redcliffe castle mission, you can use her to enter into the fade instead of needing to find someone from the Circle to do so), I respect and can empathize how annoying it can be to have an outcome that you were trying to avoid have happen, all due to companion choice. Having events go differently than you planned due to making a mistake you weren't aware you were making is the consequence to having...consequences.

 

But it is hard to make every player happy when creating a video game, as much as you try to do so as a game developer. Since it's too late for them to change the feature in the game -- if they would even want to (like I said, every player's opinion is different) – there are ways to be able to ensure that you bring the right companions on the right missions. Eventually, there will be plenty of posts online about players experiences on certain missions, and people will be able to recommend to bring certain companions for missions and why they recommend it. But even before that happens, we have the Prima Guide that's already available for preorder. Since the purpose of the guide is to ensure the best play through for players, I'm sure it will recommend to bring a certain companion on a mission, if it prevents a negative outcome from happening. Even if you didn't want to follow the guide 100% of the way, it might be useful to have for situations like what you're talking about.

 

Like the suicide mission in Mass Effect 2, I'm sure you'll be able to have positive outcomes occur if you follow your gut based off of what you know about the game's universe. Like the demo shown at E3; they specifically said that they added Dorian to the party since his mission involved his old master, Alexius. Since he's personally invested in one of the prime characters inside of the mission, it's safe to assume that unique conversations or scenarios might happen if you have him in your current party. If you're not entirely sure about a mission, you can try looking it up online just in case! I know this isn't what you want to read (I'm sure it's not what a lot of players want to read), but it's up to BioWare about what features they have in their games, and the designer's decision about whether they ultimately think it benefits their games or not. But, for them to make those decisions, it's always good to hear every person's side! Like I said, I personally like this feature in the game. I love the concept of seeing the consequences of my choices, even the negative ones. Sometimes, you make a choice without even realizing you've made it. These type of small factors fascinate me, and makes replaying these types of games so much fun to me. But like I also said, I still see where your feeling on the feature are coming from.

[Bob from Accounting]

How? My canon Warden is dead, I killed her myself by slaying the archdemon w/out the DR. So, by your logic, she didn't end the Fifth Blight because she died? How exactly am I denoting that she's worthless since she did indeed end the blight, and did indeed die?

 

Err...I don't think I was responding to you with this. I was responding to someone who said that it makes no difference if a character is killed if they aren't going to appear in the story again. And it turned out to be more or less of a misunderstanding based off a poor word choice.

[Maraas]

Then, yes. It's death by a coin toss.

Even then it's not. Outside the game? Maybe, but that's metagaming, no? Inside the game it must be random to be "a death by a coin toss". It's not random when a companion dies every time you bring them along.

 

And it doesn't take a genius to figure out you could've prevented it when a follower dies who you were free not to take with you.

 

It has absolutely everything to do with this. I get the feeling you don't understand randomness very well.

Funny. I'm getting the same feeling about you. Suppose there are two vending machines in that gas station of yours. Every—every!—time you buy a ticket in one, you lose. Every time you buy a ticket in another, you win, 100%. The fact that you don't know which is which the first time around has nothing to do with random, my friend.

[Bob from Accounting]

Suppose there are two vending machines in that gas station of yours. Every—every!—time you buy a ticket in one, you lose. Every time you buy a ticket in another, you win, 100%. The fact that you don't know which is which the first time around has nothing to do with random, my friend.

 

Sure it does. What is the choice between two options with no meaningful information to differentiate them, if not random?
 

[deuce985]

I don't have a problem with this. Certain things the player should have control over and others, they should not. The one area a player should never have control over is a companion's personality with rare exceptions like Leliana being hardened in DAO. I've always found it extremely odd when I commit actions that my party rarely engages in them. They seem like lifeless robots as I just go around on murder sprees with the murder knife. How does that make any sense? These companions are people too and have their own personal belief, morals and codes they follow in their life. They should not be static personalities. Seeing as Bioware likes to define characterization and personalities as a big part of their games, I think this is a natural mechanic that makes sense to evolve. If this is the type of content they're talking about, I'd love this.

 

I want my companions to express opinions when I do something they don't agree with. I want them to intervene if it's so extreme they can't see my side of things. I want them to challenge my authority if they can't see eye to eye with me. I want unique encounters that only a Qunari could see like Iron Bull. Some things you should not be able to see coming. Can you see everything in your life happening based on every choice you make? Absolutely not. I really like this type of design decision because it makes consequence more meaningful to me and believable.

 

I just don't feel every little thing should be some notification for the player that he's going to miss this content or see this just because he brought this companion. Not everything in life you can see coming or have the answers to. That's how all our worlds work. Now, if Bioware doesn't offer various outcomes to this content or funnels you down a specific path that you can't control with this content, then I think it's a bad design decision based on the philosophy they're marketing to the player. You should never be forced into specific outcomes on content that can't be seen because I'm in the belief they always have another way...especially in a fantasy realm.