27 réponses à ce sujet

[Kensafreak]

Hello all.  First want to say I loved Dragon Age Origins, one of the best games I ever played.  But for all the great things about DA 1, there was something that I really did not enjoy, and that was the overly large stable of duplicate class characters.  I am worried that in  DAI we are going to have the same issue of having too many characters that never get used except for maybe some silly old acheivement quest.  With DA Origins,  did I really need 2 extra tanks, extra mages, extra everything, when the storylines of those characters did nothing to add to completing the main quest line?  With the party sizes in Bioware's rpg games like DA and Mass Effect,  the party sizes are typically 8 or more characters, but half of them are either the same class, or have the same basic skills as the other half.  Since you can usually only play with a party of 4 characters (sometimes less), you wind up concentrating your time and effort into leveling one group while the other characters never gets used,  My question is why can't we instead have a smaller stable of playable characters, ideally 5  that can and need to be played through the whole game, with each character having distinct skills, storylines, ambitions, love interests, etc.  This way, we become attached to those characters throughout the entire game, and you don't have to worry about what to do with your "B" team sitting around collecting dust until the end of the game when you have to interact with one of them, or send the one you care about least off to die. 

 

    

[The_Other_M]

Too many characters?

Apparently you've never played the Suikoden series, each game you gather 108 party members.

 

[Samahl]

I disagree. You aren't always going to want to keep certain characters around, either because you personally don't like them, or because they'll disapprove of your actions all the time. The only way I got Sten and Morrigan's approval bars up all the way was by not traveling with them. I didn't take Alistair, Oghren. or Leliana with me anywhere either, because I didn't care about any of them. I'm glad I was able to use Shale instead of the other warriors for that reason.

 

Variety is generally good, imo.

[Icy Magebane]

The Hinterlands is 5x the playspace of DA:O, and that's just one area.  I'm sure you'll get around to using everyone eventually.

[AlanC9]

Since you can usually only play with a party of 4 characters (sometimes less), you wind up concentrating your time and effort into leveling one group while the other characters never gets used,

We do? Funny, I remember using all of them a lot in DAO. I found it convenient to stick to a core party in DA2 because of CCC, though.

[Realmzmaster]

I used all the characters in both DAO and DA3. I found them all useful in my various playthroughs. I found them all to be interesting characters.

[AshenEndymion]

Since you can usually only play with a party of 4 characters (sometimes less), you wind up concentrating your time and effort into leveling one group while the other characters never gets used,  My question is why can't we instead have a smaller stable of playable characters, ideally 5  that can and need to be played through the whole game, with each character having distinct skills, storylines, ambitions, love interests, etc.  This way, we become attached to those characters throughout the entire game, and you don't have to worry about what to do with your "B" team sitting around collecting dust until the end of the game when you have to interact with one of them, or send the one you care about least off to die. 

 

There were times, in various playthroughs of Origins and 2, that I didn't like the B team either.  What I did was get just rid of them.  Excise them from the group via the murderknife or kindly telling them to pack up and never come back(and sometimes never picking them up to begin with).  It was rather easy, in both games, to do this for all but two characters(Alistair and Varric).

 

I suppose Bioware could do the alternative, and force the player to use a character that they can't stand.  But I don't think that's the way to go... Giving people options and possibly having a B(and sometimes C) team is probably for the best.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Hello all.  First want to say I loved Dragon Age Origins, one of the best games I ever played.  But for all the great things about DA 1, there was something that I really did not enjoy, and that was the overly large stable of duplicate class characters.  I am worried that in  DAI we are going to have the same issue of having too many characters that never get used except for maybe some silly old acheivement quest.  With DA Origins,  did I really need 2 extra tanks, extra mages, extra everything, when the storylines of those characters did nothing to add to completing the main quest line?  With the party sizes in Bioware's rpg games like DA and Mass Effect,  the party sizes are typically 8 or more characters, but half of them are either the same class, or have the same basic skills as the other half.  Since you can usually only play with a party of 4 characters (sometimes less), you wind up concentrating your time and effort into leveling one group while the other characters never gets used,  My question is why can't we instead have a smaller stable of playable characters, ideally 5  that can and need to be played through the whole game, with each character having distinct skills, storylines, ambitions, love interests, etc.  This way, we become attached to those characters throughout the entire game, and you don't have to worry about what to do with your "B" team sitting around collecting dust until the end of the game when you have to interact with one of them, or send the one you care about least off to die. 

Some of us play the game more than once.  Some of us enjoy being able to choose the companions we prefer, rather than getting saddled with the companions the writers chose for us.

 

That's why some games offer features like Project Eternity's Adventurer's Hall, where the player can actually create extra party members without limit.

 

If you're only playing the game once, and you only want to pay attention to the "main story" (whatever that means), then I can see why you wouldn't need 9 companions.

 

But that is not a playstyle I enjoy, nor one I particularly understand.

[9TailsFox]

Is there really people think we can have to much companions. Come back then DA have min 30 then you can consider if number slightly to big. 108 companions what would be nice. but only characters are deep as DA.

[Vindicare175]

Short answer : No. DA:O and DA2 both did not have too many characters , I easily was able to enjoy swapping out companions for different team-loadouts and enjoying there story-content as well.

[TurretSyndrome]

Look at it this way; you get to play the game at least thrice, each playthrough with its own unique party members.

[yullyuk]

To sum up my thoughts, NO

[daveliam]

I don't ever have "a group" that I take with me.  I tend to mix it up regularly and bring the people who I think would make the most sense for that situation.  For example, in DA 2, I wouldn't bring Aveline if I was going to meet some back alley thugs in Darktown at night.  It doesn't make sense to me for the Captain of the Guard to do that.  If I was going to the Dalish, I would bring Merrill, even if it were a side quest (like Zevran's) because I imagine Merrill would want to go.  So I suspect that I'm going to do the same thing in DA: I.  If I'm dealing with shady underworld people, I'll probably bring Sera, Varric, and Iron Bull.  If I'm dealing with aristocracy, I'll probably bring Cassandra and Vivienne.  Every one of the players will have their "niche" so that I can use them all.

 

That being said, I do kind of support the idea that there are a lot of characters this time around.  One of the things that I really disliked about ME 2 was the inflated cast size.  It's not that it meant that I wasn't able to find space for everyone, because I could.  But it did mean that I might go a few hours between missions that I felt were the "right fit" for a particular character.  It was harder to work everyone into the rotation with so many characters.  I'm a little concerned about that in DA: I, but I'm sure it will be okay.  Once we hit 10 companions, then I'll start being really concerned.

[Nukekitten]

There are trade offs. If there were a smaller team such that characters were consistently mission or role critical then you could easily get stuck with one or more characters that you don't like having to come along frequently. I remember not being able to stand Carver's bitterness in DA2 - fortunately there were other warriors available, so I didn't have to.

[NextArishok]

no.

[Feybrad]

no.

 

Let me teach you:

""

 

There. Use this from now on.

[DarthLaxian]

Hello all.  First want to say I loved Dragon Age Origins, one of the best games I ever played.  But for all the great things about DA 1, there was something that I really did not enjoy, and that was the overly large stable of duplicate class characters.  I am worried that in  DAI we are going to have the same issue of having too many characters that never get used except for maybe some silly old acheivement quest.  With DA Origins,  did I really need 2 extra tanks, extra mages, extra everything, when the storylines of those characters did nothing to add to completing the main quest line?  With the party sizes in Bioware's rpg games like DA and Mass Effect,  the party sizes are typically 8 or more characters, but half of them are either the same class, or have the same basic skills as the other half.  Since you can usually only play with a party of 4 characters (sometimes less), you wind up concentrating your time and effort into leveling one group while the other characters never gets used,  My question is why can't we instead have a smaller stable of playable characters, ideally 5  that can and need to be played through the whole game, with each character having distinct skills, storylines, ambitions, love interests, etc.  This way, we become attached to those characters throughout the entire game, and you don't have to worry about what to do with your "B" team sitting around collecting dust until the end of the game when you have to interact with one of them, or send the one you care about least off to die. 

 

Hey,

 

Sorry but:

 

Are you out of your mind? (sorry, but that was my first reaction to your opening post)

 

I don't see it that way, because I surely will like certain characters less than others (I already do - I don't really care for Cole (murdering spirit...I need to have an excorcism performed ^^...but I wont deprive myself off a party member...at least he might be usefull), Vivienne (chantry apologist...crawl back up the divines behind...oh, she is dead...seems you are stuck with me Vivi ) and I have my doubts about some others, because of their zealot past: Cassy and Iron Bull (he is/was a follower of the Qun!) etc.) and thus a smaller party would force me to use characters I don't like, which would make me enjoy the game less than I would normally (!)

 

So there you have it, please don't suggest that again

 

greetings LAX

[uzivatel]

More = better ... just ask anyone on the internet. Also, bigger = better.

[PsychoBlonde]

Hello all.  First want to say I loved Dragon Age Origins, one of the best games I ever played.  But for all the great things about DA 1, there was something that I really did not enjoy, and that was the overly large stable of duplicate class characters.  I am worried that in  DAI we are going to have the same issue of having too many characters that never get used except for maybe some silly old acheivement quest. 

 

What you do is, you kill off all the ones that don't interest you much.  Boom.  And those of us who like having lots and lots of characters around are also happy.

THE POWER WAS IN YOU ALL ALONG.

[frylock23]

To me it would depend on how the game is structured. In ME2 I felt that there were too many characters because their issues kept getting in the way of advancing the story, and there were so many characters that I felt it overwhelmed the actual story of ME2 to the point that they might as well not have bothered putting any story into the game. To me, ME2 has forever become "that game where I babysit people," and I have less desire to replay it than I do DA:O, DA2, ME1, and ME3.

 

So, yes, a game can have too many characters.

 

That being said, if the focus of DA:I is on the story at least as much as the characters, I'll be happy. This really seems like quite a large game, so it should be able to accommodate a large cast quite easily.

[Metalnun1]

I played DAO 3 times, everytime with a different class, different companions and different choices.

If you go for a single playthrough, you can choose the ones you like most and stick to that party 'til the end of the story. Better to have too many options than none at all.

[Rowe]

Personally I loved switching up my party so I could hear the different reactions and interactions of my party members, it added a really human, personal level to the game; especially DAO, considering you were a silent protagonist. I also enjoyed the challenge of trying to win certain fights with different party make-ups. If you don't enjoy the large choice of companions then you can just stick with a core group of party members unless you're doing a companion quest. 

 

The only time I thought there were too many party members was ME2, where two of the characters weren't even full fledged party members. That seemed a bit too excessive.

 

I'm looking forward to getting to know all my party members! 

[Dubya75]

The variety of characters in Origins was a STRONG point. I don't know when the element of choice in RPGs became a bad thing. I think someone (cough - OP - cough) has lost the plot on the whole "Role playing" element of the game.

The more characters, the better. More replay value. Variety is GOOD!

[Wulfram]

I do worry that the content might be too thinly spread over the characters

[Kensafreak]

Thank you for all the replies to this question.  I can understand many of your points, that more equals better, it is good to be able to leave behind a character you don't like to bring along another you do, and that you can always kill off/dismiss extra players.  But that wasn't really my point, and I apoligize for not making it more clear.  My point had more to do with having the characters have a strong purpose (ie reason) to being part of the story, and also being a necessary to the plot of the story.  With any group of individuals trying to accomplish a goal, there are certain requirements that each person in that group must satisfy.  Each has to bring something necessary to accomplishing the goal to the group, if not they are just a waste of time and resources.  And the leader of that group cannot always pick and choose who he/she personally likes to get things done.  If you are working for me, it doesn't really matter how much I like or dislike you, it matters if you have the skills and abilities to contribute to getting things accomplished.  If you don't bring what I need to the table, then no matter how much I like you you are hindering the goal.  And I might personally not be able to stand you, but if you have a vital skill or asset I need, then I am the one who has to get past my personal disagreement with you so that the task can be completed.  This is true in the real world all the time.  And that is what I really want from the characters in DAI.  I want each of them to be needed for some part or all of the story, no matter how many there are.  Say for example you have one group out in a different area, but several of the other characters are at the keep.  The keep then falls under attack, and you have to use whatever characters you have on hand to defend the keep.  If you didn't spend some time leveling these characters, you are almost sure to lose the keep and your addl characters.  Or, lets say you have to send out two groups to different areas, but they both must reach their destinations within a certain amount of time.  This would require you to utilize all of your characters, and thus would make them a necessary part of the game, rather then just extra's.