26 réponses à ce sujet

[ZipZap2000]

Inquisition is really proving you can have quantity and quality with team mates. The individual personalities, the humour even the emotional moments and controversial decisions that alter your gaming experience and perception of the world around your character are all there. Thoroughly enjoy almost all of aspects of the game but the most satisfying so far is gaining my teams loyalty and unlocking dialogue options afterwards and of course after completing certain objectives, such as the conversation with Bull if you kill a high dragon. We can clearly have the best of both worlds and I would love a larger crew again. So please Bioware, make it happen!

[MEuniverse]

10 likes

[Revan Reborn]

It should be noted that Dragon Age uses a four-party system while Mass Effect uses a three-party system. I prefer a smaller party personally.

 

Secondly, I prefer the Mass Effect 3 approach, which is having a handful of companions and then other members of the crew to have dialogues with. Traynor, Joker, Cortez, Alers, etc. I also liked that in ME you could even have romance arcs with more minor characters (Chambers, Alers, Traynor) without needing to focus on the main companions who are always there. BioWare even brought every previous companion from prior games to really flesh out the cast. I have full faith in BioWare's ability to create lots of interesting characters at the same high level of quality. I would just rather they dedicate those resources and time to other features of the game.

 

The Witcher 2 really convinced me that quality is really better than quantity anyways, as I personally felt the relationship building with Triss and Ves was much more organic and compelling than most of the relationships in BioWare games. I think the writing team might benefit from making a few really good characters rather than making a lot of decent characters.

[ZipZap2000]

Not talking about party's I think the difference between 3 and 4 is obvious. I'd hardly call traynor joker cortez and allers dialogue anything close to what you get with Inquisition. It's not even close to what you get with your advisers.

 

And obviously with them having everything you've just said was positive about ME3 in Inquisition and then some on top of that, this idea that focusing on characters takes away from the rest of the game is nonsense.  We can have both quality and quantity.

[Mister J]

Upvote for you ZipZap2000. I never understood the complaint that the quantity of squadmates in ME2 came at the cost of their quality compared to ME1. Some may have had slightly less dialogue than the ones in 1, but what about the loyalty missions? For me that did a whole lot more to create a bond with this or that character than just a little more blabbering in a musty ship...

[Vazgen]

+

From what I've spoiled for myself, DA:I does a much better job with characters (One of Iron bull romance scenes )

[StarcloudSWG]

I'd rather have fewer squadmates than a ton of people I never take along on missions. 

 

Seriously, that's the problem with a large group of combat-party members. Many of them never get used. Even in ME 3 where you end up with six, it's still "nope, can't use, nope, don't need, nope, redundant..." and you end up with the same two on half the missions.

 

Except where someone gets forced on you for minimally rellevant story reasons.

[Hair Serious Business]

And please no more "troll-mances" and by that I mean no more hooking up most wanted LI's with robots and no more guys that were your LI who are getting children with another woman because they couldn't wait for God damn 6 months and mostly...no more kids in game please.They are bad for protagonist's health.

[Undead Han]

I think 7 to 9 is probably the sweet spot. Less than that and it would feel like too few companions. More than that and you start to have too many companions to account for, particularly when you factor in romance/non-romance paths for some of them.

[Mixon]

I just hoping to see some of squade mates from ME3... yeah I know they could die in ME2, that's makes me really sad...

[themikefest]

DAI had more development time whereas ME3 didn't. If ME3 have the same amount of time, who knows.

 

Since only 2 were needed to complete the game, I will choose only 2 squadmates. There can be others, but only used part-time for specific missions and once that mission is completed, that part-time squadmate leaves.

[We'll bang okay]

I'd rather have fewer squadmates than a ton of people I never take along on missions. 

 

Seriously, that's the problem with a large group of combat-party members. Many of them never get used. Even in ME 3 where you end up with six, it's still "nope, can't use, nope, don't need, nope, redundant..." and you end up with the same two on half the missions.

 

Except where someone gets forced on you for minimally rellevant story reasons.

then stop using the same two squad mates 

[Calders]

Have to disagree with the OP... I think less is more when it comes to squad mates and you end up forming a closer bond with them.  6 is probably my ideal number.

[Probe Away]

Up vote for you OP.

Variety in squadmates increases replayability. For instance, I never used Thane in my first ME2 playthrough, but discovered how awesome he was in my second. And of course, in my third playthrough I discovered Mordin's cryo blast...

People who say 'but I only ever used 3 squadmates' need to understand that other people might not like the same characters as they do. More squadmates means something for everyone.

[Calders]

Up vote for you OP.

Variety in squadmates increases replayability. For instance, I never used Thane in my first ME2 playthrough, but discovered how awesome he was in my second. And of course, in my third playthrough I discovered Mordin's cryo blast...

People who say 'but I only ever used 3 squadmates' need to understand that other people might not like the same characters as they do. More squadmates means something for everyone.

 

From a combat perspective I agree that more is better.  However, from a character development perspective, and from the perspective of making the squad mate important to you I think less is better.  In ME2 you can basically just ignore a character or 3, in ME1 they are all important.  At least that was my impression.

[Undead Han]

From a combat perspective I agree that more is better.  However, from a character development perspective, and from the perspective of making the squad mate important to you I think less is better.  In ME2 you can basically just ignore a character or 3, in ME1 they are all important.  At least that was my impression.

 

This.

 

Mass Effect 2 had too many companions and suffered for it. Including the DLC companions, you had 12 squadmates. And some of those squadmates actually had very little to to say, including Garrus who was one of the series' fan favorites. That was a result of having too many companion characters to account for, the developers having a limit on how much dialogue they can cram into the game, and needing to spread that out through so many companion characters.

 

I'd rather have a smaller squad of well developed companion characters who have a lot to say both during missions and on the ship, than a large cast who says very little and spends most of the game calibrating. Sometimes less is more.

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

Yeah i agee whith more also make a 5 man squad in mission.

[dreamgazer]

I think 7 to 9 is probably the sweet spot.

This.

[themikefest]

If insanity mode is as easy as it was in ME3, then no squadmates are neeeded. Look at that. I just saved Bioware a lot of money. Hahaha

[Nitrocuban]

We should be allowed to take 0 to [what ever the engine can handle] with us on a mission and some missions where all are involved like in Citadel DLC's archive mission.

[Probe Away]

This.

Mass Effect 2 had too many companions and suffered for it. Including the DLC companions, you had 12 squadmates. And some of those squadmates actually had very little to to say, including Garrus who was one of the series' fan favorites. That was a result of having too many companion characters to account for, the developers having a limit on how much dialogue they can cram into the game, and needing to spread that out through so many companion characters.

I'd rather have a smaller squad of well developed companion characters who have a lot to say both during missions and on the ship, than a large cast who says very little and spends most of the game calibrating. Sometimes less is more.

Couldn't disagree with you more. The extra characters added more colour and variety from a game universe perspective too. Legion, Thane, Samara, Mordin... they all expanded on the MEU lore. And each character had a loyalty mission that revealed more about their nature and background while also being linked to your main objective. (Whether you liked that objective or not is another issue altogether.)

And Garrus got way more screen time in 2 than 1. Not quite sure how you can complain about the characters in 2 having very little to say compared to the first game, where the conversations with squadmates barely ever changed.

[Calders]

Couldn't disagree with you more. The extra characters added more colour and variety from a game universe perspective too. Legion, Thane, Samara, Mordin... they all expanded on the MEU lore. And each character had a loyalty mission that revealed more about their nature and background while also being linked to your main objective. (Whether you liked that objective or not is another issue altogether.)

And Garrus got way more screen time in 2 than 1. Not quite sure how you can complain about the characters in 2 having very little to say compared to the first game, where the conversations with squadmates barely ever changed.

 

But the only way they could make that work in ME2 was to have 70% of the game being about companions, from acquisition quests to loyalty quests... I'd prefer a little less of this and a little more central plot.

[RIPRemusTheTurian]

I think that the apparent character dilution from 'lots of squademates' comes from the unimportance of the squademates you don't bring on missions.

 

I think that DAI did well in this, with each companion being a leader of something in the background, and sometimes involving the PC with their organization's plans. If Bioware gave your squadmates something to do in the meantime or somehow allowed your squadmates to be involved in some other way during missions, I don't think anybody would feel like there are too many companions.

 

Take Mordin for example.

 

I didn't take him as a squaddie in ME2, but he still felt like a vital member of the team because of all his tinkering in the lab.

When not on missions in ME3, Liara could've done SB stuff, VS could've sent ops strikes, Tali could've managed the fleet.

Heck, with our futuristic radios, every companion could offer a line or two during missions.

[Gambit458]

It should be noted that Dragon Age uses a four-party system while Mass Effect uses a three-party system. I prefer a smaller party personally.

 

Secondly, I prefer the Mass Effect 3 approach, which is having a handful of companions and then other members of the crew to have dialogues with. Traynor, Joker, Cortez, Alers, etc. I also liked that in ME you could even have romance arcs with more minor characters (Chambers, Alers, Traynor) without needing to focus on the main companions who are always there. BioWare even brought every previous companion from prior games to really flesh out the cast. I have full faith in BioWare's ability to create lots of interesting characters at the same high level of quality. I would just rather they dedicate those resources and time to other features of the game.

 

The Witcher 2 really convinced me that quality is really better than quantity anyways, as I personally felt the relationship building with Triss and Ves was much more organic and compelling than most of the relationships in BioWare games. I think the writing team might benefit from making a few really good characters rather than making a lot of decent characters.

Except for the fact that ME 3 didn't have much variety in your choices for companions. For ex, there was no Krogan member. Instead you had James, another human. Not saying James was bad, but it didn't add much to the diversity that you had in ME 2. 

[q5tyhj]

I agree. I didn't like how many fewer squadmates you had on ME3 as opposed to 2. And no Krogan teammate (Wrex's short run during Citadel DLC doesn't really count, although its still awesome) was an abomination. That must be fixed- we need Krogan, this is Mass Effect ferfuksake.