I'll imprison them and make their eyes blue. It worked well in Cerberus...
Or maybe I'll skin them when they won't listen.
.
.
Or maybe I'll just nod when speaking with them, even when they're really annoying. It worked in Origins, it works in real life, it should work in Inquisition as well.
Although it might be harder to keep up positive relations with all companions at the same time, I imagine it will be like past DA games in that it's very hard to unintentionally make a companion hate you so bad that they leave.
Why is having maxed approval on all characters that important exactly?
One of my favorite aspect of DAO and DA2 was when Zevran and Isabela betrayed me and that happened because I didn't bother maxing them.
I plan to play the politician in my first play-through. I will say what I believe my followers want to hear in order to gain their support. This way allows me to try to please everyone without breaking immersion. Privately, I will be a mage twice scorned who wishes to see the Chantry fall; whilst using it to further my own ambitions. Further play-throughs will be more "hardliner" and less sucking up.
Why is having maxed approval on all characters that important exactly?
One of my favorite aspect of DAO and DA2 was when Zevran and Isabela betrayed me and that happened because I didn't bother maxing them.
Nothing was said about max approval (at least in the OP), though it had its benefits in Origins and the game was playable without some of the characters. This is a different and bigger game with more objectives. The implication I get from the videos I've seen is that you want as many companions as possible and will use different ones in different quests because of their unique abilities and/or background. I don't know how gimped you are with 4-5 as opposed to 9. The mage/templar war will probably be a bigger deal too but I don't know if it's a dealbreaker for all the mages.
I want to try and play the Game if we can. That means sucking up to everyone to their face so I can get what I want out of them. The object of the game is to see how my actions impact certain people at the beginning of the game so I can calculate how to act around them in the future.
I suppose that is debatable (or at least subjective) but then there is the possibility of alienating others to please the one who may be nearly as important.
Let's say that possibility happens; it's conceivable that it might. So what? That just means you have to deal with it. Being unable to handle not keeping all of the companions happy doesn't indicate a problem with the game. It might be a problem with your playstyle, but that's it.
It's not like such a conflict could possibly make the game too hard -- the game's being balanced around the approval system it has, not some other system.
It is unnecessary to cut people down. This is conversation both intended to educate and entertain by the different approaches people will use. Maybe try being more constructive and not assume that because a game is created a certain way that a player who prefers a certain style is wrong. I've been playing RPGs since the late 80s, none are perfect.
I don't know too many people who think the prior approval systems were any good --(google for the best gift, profit) this one remains to be seen. But otherwise it is not a pre-game criticism. Given the length of the game (much to my delight) I may choose a different character or path on my first play though, even if it is not the one I prefer.
Nothing was said about max approval (at least in the OP), though it had its benefits in Origins and the game was playable without some of the characters. This is a different and bigger game with more objectives. The implication I get from the videos I've seen is that you want as many companions as possible and will use different ones in different quests because of their unique abilities and/or background. I don't know how gimped you are with 4-5 as opposed to 9. The mage/templar war will probably be a bigger deal too but I don't know if it's a dealbreaker for all the mages.
How is that different in bigger games exactly?
All the companions except one can leave you in DAI, the game is clearly not designed so you have a specific companion around for a specific quest (except maybe the one that can't leave you). And going by the two previous games, everyone but the first three are going to be optional to recruits too.
youll want to try to keep at least 1 of each class.. cus there are certain places only certain classes can reach (mages levitating bridges, rogues lockicking doors, warriors charging thru weak walls"
How is that different in bigger games exactly?
All the companions except one can leave you in DAI, the game is clearly not designed so you have a specific companion around for a specific quest (except maybe the one that can't leave you). And going by the two previous games, everyone but the first three are going to be optional to recruits too.
Aside from the grander scope and strategy of taking over various places, I think this video explains some of the reasoning.
http://www.dragonage...ideos/youtube80
"Who is present in your party affects the story as much as combat." -- Bioware Creative Director
This should offer much replay value and excitement but also the potential for fail or complications.
I'll imprison them and make their eyes blue. It worked well in Cerberus...
Or maybe I'll skin them when they won't listen.
.
.
Or maybe I'll just nod when speaking with them, even when they're really annoying. It worked in Origins, it works in real life, it should work in Inquisition as well.
Nods appreciatively.
Aside from the grander scope and strategy of taking over various places, I think this video explains some of the reasoning.
http://www.dragonage...ideos/youtube80
"Who is present in your party affects the story as much as combat." -- Bioware Creative Director
This should offer much replay value and excitement but also the potential for fail or complications.
That's no more different than in the previous games. It's a reason to replay the game with a different party composition.
I'll play the first game the way I always do, making choices I would like to think I'd make if it were real, if I were super brave, smart and kind which I'm not. I don't think I'll have a problem if someone leaves, in another game I'll be a character that may get along with them.
DAO I had no problems with Alistair, I adored the character because there were little traces of my husbands humor and kindness in him. Leliana was also pretty easy because I do like shoes and she made me laugh. Zev however, I had one game where I thought we were friends and he betrayed me. I killed him, but it did make the game interesting.
DA2 I had a super hard time with the rival options. They just did not work for me, made me feel manipulative and someone I would not like to know.
I'm looking forward to seeing what they have done in this game.
Glad to read the various feedback and after consideration...
I think I've decided to be a diplomat my first playthrough whether or not a mage. It worked before and it would be a good way to get a feel for the story and companions -- and extract revenge on them on a next game if need-be. 
That's no more different than in the previous games. It's a reason to replay the game with a different party composition.
You know this before playing the game? I think Bioware would be disappointed to hear this given the apparent expense and time to create these 2000-line dialog companions with stories. You had a companion quest in the other games that had no impact on the story. It didn't matter if half your party left either.
And comat-wise you could kill the archdemon with 3 characters and probably Meredith too-- but that's combat. Neither game, as much as i love them, had different endings or story consequences that made any difference. Bioware says this is the game they've been wanting to make and I believe them. I think it will outshine its predecessors and probably will pose more challenge and diversity than(some) people expect.
For what it's worth, I could have SWORN I saw David Gaider say somewhere on this very forum (re: characters now gaining/losing approval even when they're not with you) that it doesn't necessarily mean everyone's approval will be affected all the time. I may be misreading his comment, but he seemed to imply that it would be mainly for story-related/major decisions/those regarding the inquisition... Basically everything that you would reasonably expect people to be aware of that working in the same organization as you, live with you, etc. So not necessarily every single minor interaction, but I could be wrong. That would be the best approach imo -- I don't think everyone who works for the Inquisition should be immediately aware that I was kinda rude to that elven serving girl (even if it would rub someone the wrong way at the camp), but at the same time it's a bit grating and immersion breaking when, say, a mage companion is all "you slaughtered an entire tower full of mages? oh idk idc I was at camp, lol we're good"
Not sure where you heard that there were a 100 companions, but that is definitely not the case. There are 9. 100, all fully voiced and with individual stories, and in a game where you can bring 4 at a time is kinda... silly.
To answer the question: I'll go *some* way to appease followers, but there will be issues I absolutely won't budge on and if they don't like that, they're welcome to pursue other employment opportunities.
Same. If anything, that's the most realistic way to play, rather than doubling down on every particular issue and/or becoming a two-dimensional embodiment of a certain world view or ideology. In real life we often have to make certain compromises to appease friends, family, bosses/coworkers, lovers, etc, while obviously not COMPLETELY going against everything we stand for.
He said that it wouldn't be for every decision you make, just ones that are publicly known.
So we can probably assume from that that if you're off with your buddies and you stab some random nerd mages instead of getting their knowledge, nobody's gonna tell Solas about it if he's not there. But if you align with some rebel mages and agree to fight for them, Viv's gonna find out no matter what. All decisions in Skyhold will probably be public, which is why in the C&C video we were seeing so much approval/disapproval.
There were already some instances of this in DA:O, but I think it will be more consistently applied and to more characters besides just a few.
I'm just going to play normally and see what happens. Worrying about approval meters usually drives me insane (cough Kotor 2).
I'm out of likes, but I've taken that approach to all of the gameplay changes in general. It looks odd and awkward in some places, but it'll probably play more smoothly out in the game. 
You know this before playing the game? I think Bioware would be disappointed to hear this given the apparent expense and time to create these 2000-line dialog companions with stories. You had a companion quest in the other games that had no impact on the story. It didn't matter if half your party left either.
Saying that it's a reason to replay the game would disappoint BioWare? I really doubt it, they made the game so it had replay-value and being able to get different NPC reactions or quests results because of your party composition is part of that replay-ability.
Also, I don't need to have played the game, what they explained is exactly how the previous game worked in regard to companions. Bringing Fenris along to talk to the Arishok is not required, just like you don't need Shale in the party when you find the Anvil of Carradin. Yet doing both will give you a bunch of special dialog and reactions. There is plenty of example of this in both DAO and DA2.
The same I deal with it in every game, I act as the person I desire my character to be, in most cases calm, logical, and seasoned with a sense of justice and retribution. I do not care if it is right, but only that it is fair. I never trust demons, period. The templars are not wrong, but are built wrong. Mages should not be treated like livestock, they should be tested and trained to ensure the likelihood of possession is slimmer, they should have phylacteries maintained in case they go rogue, and there should be a policing faction capable of enforcing laws upon them just as there are for the mundanes, but they should not be Hitler'd.
Frankly I like it when others disagree with me because conflict is what drives good stories. I expect them to disagree, yet perhaps respect my choices, or try to convince me I am wrong, accept I proved them wrong, or agree to disagree. Sometimes things don't work out, but that's life too, and I respect those with enough balls to stand by their ideals and move on to meet them. I end up wishing them the best even if it means we will, eventually, become enemies.
So I'm not going to care too much, but I'm also not worried. Most likely you will have to be extreme in either direction to lose someone (CRAY CRAY) over an issue, which is unfortunate (and boring). I ended up keeping everyone happy in ME and the other DA games without much difficulty, as far as I recall.
The same I deal with it in every game, I act as I desire my character should, in most cases calm, logical, and seasoned with a sense of justice and retribution. I do not care if it is right, but only that it is fair. I never trust demons, period. The templars are not wrong, but are built wrong. Mages should not be treated like livestock, they should be tested and trained to ensure the likelihood of possession is slimmer, they should have phylacteries maintained in case they go rogue, and there should be a policing faction capable of enforcing laws upon them just as there are for the mundanes, but they should not be Hitler'd.
Frankly I like it when others disagree with me, because conflict is why drives good stories. I expect them to disagree, yet perhaps respect my choices, or try to convince me I am wrong, accept I proved them wrong, or agree to disagree. Sometimes things don't work out, but that's life too, and I respect those with enough balls to stand by their ideals and move on to meet them. I end up wishing them the best even if it means we will, eventually, become enemies.
I'm not going to care too much, but I'm also not worried. Most likely you will have to be extreme in either direction to lose someone (CRAY CRAY) over an issue, which is unfortunate (and boring). I ended up keeping everyone happy in ME and the other DA games without much difficulty, as far as I recall.
Retour en haut
