126 réponses à ce sujet

[esh1996]

In DA:I the characters were clearly something Bioware focused on; the brilliant writers, artists, animators and voice actors brought these fascinating characters to life. At times simply talking with them, learning their back stories and watching them develop was more interesting than actually saving the world. Each of them representing the different social groups of Thedas whilst each having there own way in which they stand out and makes them special. They became the strongest connection between the us, the players, and the game world. Even if you lost interest in the plot you'd still want to defeat Corypheus if it meant a brighter future for these characters, who became your friends.

But sadly a game feature meant that regardless of how interesting the characters are, they ultimately aren't important. The feature literally makes it impossible for them to actually have any impact on the main story. This feature is the possibility to either not recruit or exile 6 of the 9 followers.

Before you read any further I'd like you to think of a great book, movie or TV show. One with a diverse and interesting cast of characters. Could you imagine it without 1 or 2 of the main characters? Would it be the same? Would it still function as a story? I'd bet in 99% of the examples you can think of it wouldn't. That is because in most good stories the characters are more than just names and faces, they do things, things which significantly change and effect the story. All the characters and events fit together like clockwork to form the story, take one piece out and it wouldn't work.

In DA:I the fact that you can complete the game without 6 of the 9 followers, means that when you do enlist them they just sit around Skyhold and do next to nothing of any significance even in moments when it would make absolute perfect sense for them to be playing a major part in the story. This is because the game has to function whether you've enlisted the follower or not. Effectively the followers are demoted to the role of sidekicks whenever anything important is happening, instead of the heroes that they deserve to be.

I understand that this isn't a book or a movie, this is an RPG game. And a staple feature of most RPG games is the ability to recruit whoever you want and dismiss whoever you want. And this works when your game world is populated by countless boring mercenaries around every corner, so you know that if you don't recruit one follower you can find another in five minutes who can fill exact the same role. In DA:I there are only 9, not 99, meaning that your choices are limited to an extent that the only logical thing to do is recruit everyone. Making the inclusion of the recruitment decision completely void of any importance, all it does is stop the character from impacting the story in anyway because of the possibility they might not be recruited.

What I think the game should have done is made completing the recruitment quests vital for progression of the plot, made sure that through the dialogue options the followers are always recruited into the inquisition and also that no matter how pissed off they get they never leave the inquisition; like Cassandra, Solas and Varric they say something along the lines of: "Corypheus still lives, my work here isn't done" and they stay. It could be as simple as that, and the positives that would have had on the story and gameplay would have been immense.

Imagine if each of the characters had moments during the main story where their skills and expertise helped the plot advance. They all had their moments to shine and maybe win over some fans who might of disliked them. Maybe Blackwall could have been more involved in the 'Here Lies The Abyss' mission, or Vivienne in the 'Wicked Eyes and Wicked Hearts' mission? All points in the story where it would have made perfect sense for them to contribute something. Maybe having some more fleshed out Inner Circle quests, and the completion of which can open up options in the main story missions which wouldn't be available otherwise (like how the Calpernia/Samson mission could effect the 'What Pride Had Wrought' mission). And also more Inner Circle quests which featured multiple characters (like the Cole quest which featured Solas and Varric). With followers specialised in all three specialisations they could have replaced the trainer characters and maybe we could have had better objectives in the inquisitor specialisation quests.

Also with a total of 9 followers the final mission could have been awesome. With Corypheus attacking just outside Skyhold wouldn't it be awesome if the final mission had you and a party of all 9 followers fighting against a much tougher Corypheus and Lyrium Dragon? Where they actually test your skill and once you defeat them you know that they were tough because they took all 10 of you to defeat them. Personally I think that would have been an infinitely more awesome ending than the one we got.

What do you think? Would all followers being essential have improved the story and your overall experience, or do you think this feature benefitted the game despite the limitations I think it caused?

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I think it is better to have the companions be optional rather than mandatory. Having them be mandatory can be as detrimental to the story as them being optional does. For example, if there is a character somebody doesn't like they are stuck with that character no matter what they do, whereas if recruiting them is optional then they can avoid that character. 

 

That said, I do agree with the idea of companions doing things like opening up alternate paths in the main story if you have them. 

[Addai]

Optional is better. In DA2 they tried too hard to make them plot-central and the characters ended up feeling like props.

[esh1996]

I think it is better to have the companions be optional rather than mandatory. Having them be mandatory can be as detrimental to the story as them being optional does. For example, if there is a character somebody doesn't like they are stuck with that character no matter what they do, whereas if recruiting them is optional then they can avoid that character. 
 
That said, I do agree with the idea of companions doing things like opening up alternate paths in the main story if you have them.

You still choose your three favourites which you take on all the missions and do most of the exploring with, you aren't forced into using any of the characters you don't want to. You can choose to avoid them in Skyhold if you really despise them, but having them as part of the inquisition means that when the character could influence the plot in a way which would make sense and greatly benefit it they can.

Do you seriously believe that the selfish option of being able to kick out a character you don't like is better than all the potential benefits I mentioned above?

[javeart]

I'm in for all of them being mandatory if that makes them more relevant to the plot. After all you can always just ignore them, even if I tend to not recruit the ones I don't like just because it easier... Still would have liked a lower number of companions (assuming less companions, more content for each one)

[esh1996]

Optional is better. In DA2 they tried too hard to make them plot-central and the characters ended up feeling like props.

But all the characters in DA:I are far better than those in DA:2, and if given the right scenes and not over or under used then they would perfectly compliment the story when appropriate. Solas, Varric and Cassamdra have their moments (because they're essential) and do they come across as 'props' to you?

[esh1996]

I'm in for all of them being mandatory if that makes them more relevant to the plot. After all you can always just ignore them, even if I tend to not recruit the ones I don't like just because it easier... Still would have liked a lower number of companions (assuming less companions, more content for each one)

Finally someone agrees with me on this point. But I disagree on one thing. I thought that there was a perfect number of followers, any less and there wouldn't of been enough diversity and any more would have been overwealming.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

You still choose your three favourites which you take on all the missions and do most of the exploring with, you aren't forced into using any of the characters you don't want to. You can choose to avoid them in Skyhold if you really despise them, but having them as part of the inquisition means that when the character could influence the plot in a way which would make sense and greatly benefit it they can.

Do you seriously believe that the selfish option of being able to kick out a character you don't like is better than all the potential benefits I mentioned above?

Just because you don't have them in your party doesn't mean they won't show up. For example I'm not a fan of Varric. I leave him at the base but he still pops into main story stuff quite a few times. 

 

And yes, I do. The point of video games is to entertain the player. And just like some players aren't entertained by characters not being involved, there are other players who aren't entertained by characters being involved. 

[Wulfram]

I think the ideal solution is like Morrigan in DA:O - you can boot her out of your group, but this doesn't stop her showing up later.

Your character can generally choose who they associate with, but that doesn't erase these people from the world.

[Sui Causa]

Definitely would rather have them be mandatory so that the characters you do like get to have their roles. I wasn't fond of Isabela in DA:2, but her part in the story was important and if that part just hadn't existed the story would have really suffered for it.

 

It did suffer in Inquisition because there were places that your companions should have really had a chance to shine and they didn't get to. They get one or two banter lines maybe to comment on an area after the cut scenes are done, but thats it.

 

It sucks. All the cut scenes that are showing all of your followers end up being your advisors and a bunch of random faceless NPCs, instead of your actual companions. When everyone is fighting after you drag your dead frozen ass out of Haven, how much better would it have been if you had gotten to see more companions you cared about present in that scene? When they're all trudging through the snow to find Skyhold you don't get to see any of them. None of your companions bother to show up when you become Inquisitor?

 

It broke immersion for me a lot. I really, really wish that followers were mandatory, though even in Dragon Age Origins, when you had followers that could have been killed off you still got to see them in major plot points so It sucks that the same approach wasn't taken to DA:I.

 

To the people who say "I don't like this character so the only acceptable solution is I kill them or never ever have to see them once in my game", I just want to face palm so hard. When it means cheapening all characters impact on the story for everyone who plays it, that type of choice is unnecessary. There is no character that goes out of their way to be so offensive that you can't just recruit and ignore them. I dislike Vivienne and Sera both, but I have them both sitting happily in their corners of skyhold and never have had to interact with them more than that. Would I rage and throw a fit if they showed up in a cut scene if it meant I could see my favorite characters next to them? Hell no. I do not consider myself such a special snowflake that my opinions should affect other people's experiences in any way.

[CuriousArtemis]

I'm in for all of them being mandatory if that makes them more relevant to the plot. After all you can always just ignore them, even if I tend to not recruit the ones I don't like just because it easier... Still would have liked a lower number of companions (assuming less companions, more content for each one)

 

This is how I feel. Solas and Cassandra felt like the most plot important characters, very essential to enjoying and understanding the story. Add Cole, Varric, Vivienne, and perhaps Blackwall; by losing Sera, Dorian, and Iron Bull you can spend more time on the spirit, the Circle mage, and the Grey Warden, all of whom SHOULD have had a bigger influence on the story but didn't. (You could sub Vivienne for Dorian, I think, considering the Tevinter connection).

 

But really six would've been better than nine.

[esh1996]

This is how I feel. Solas and Cassandra felt like the most plot important characters, very essential to enjoying and understanding the story. Add Cole, Varric, Vivienne, and perhaps Blackwall; by losing Sera, Dorian, and Iron Bull you can spend more time on the spirit, the Circle mage, and the Grey Warden, all of whom SHOULD have had a bigger influence on the story but didn't. (You could sub Vivienne for Dorian, I think, considering the Tevinter connection).
 
But really six would've been better than nine.

The issue was balancing really. 3 Rogues, 3 Mages and 3 Warriors. 3 specialisations for each class. 9 is the perfect number.

[Korva]

I'm torn about this. It's definitely awesome when a character I enjoy gets spotlight time -- but it's incredibly annoying when a character I hate is forced on me, stealing lines and scenes and roles that could be filled by either my own character or someone I actually care about and choose to be there. Morrigan is the worst offender in Inquisition in my book. She's not a companion this time (thank goodness), but so much of the late game is basically all about her, and that already very weak part of the story suffered immensely for it in my book because I just want to gag every time she opens her mouth or some other NPC fawns over her. That sort of thing can really ruin a mission or an entire plot. It doesn't help at all if I can avoid a despised character otherwise, on the contrary, it makes having them suddenly rammed down my throat even worse.

 

I'm all for tying characters more into the plot, but keeping them optional -- they can make some parts easier, allow for more options or give more information, but making them mandatory is an extremely dicey business if they grate on the players' nerves. Allowing them to play a part in each others' personal missions is definitely a good idea, too. It's one of the reasons why I enjoy Cole's mission so much, while most of the others had the unsatisfying sensation of taking place in a vacuum.

 

In the end of the day, despite all the pomp and circumstance our characters are surrounded with, the players' impact is already so minimal that depriving us of even such a basic choice as which characters we truly can't stand to deal with just doesn't sit well with me. I've long been annoyed with the way most companions in post-BG2 Bioware games have been mandatory, so IMO moving away from that again at last is a good idea.

[esh1996]

Definitely would rather have them be mandatory so that the characters you do like get to have their roles. I wasn't fond of Isabela in DA:2, but her part in the story was important and if that part just hadn't existed the story would have really suffered for it.
 
It did suffer in Inquisition because there were places that your companions should have really had a chance to shine and they didn't get to. They get one or two banter lines maybe to comment on an area after the cut scenes are done, but thats it.
 
It sucks. All the cut scenes that are showing all of your followers end up being your advisors and a bunch of random faceless NPCs, instead of your actual companions. When everyone is fighting after you drag your dead frozen ass out of Haven, how much better would it have been if you had gotten to see more companions you cared about present in that scene? When they're all trudging through the snow to find Skyhold you don't get to see any of them. None of your companions bother to show up when you become Inquisitor?
 
It broke immersion for me a lot. I really, really wish that followers were mandatory, though even in Dragon Age Origins, when you had followers that could have been killed off you still got to see them in major plot points so It sucks that the same approach wasn't taken to DA:I.
 
To the people who say "I don't like this character so the only acceptable solution is I kill them or never ever have to see them once in my game", I just want to face palm so hard. When it means cheapening all characters impact on the story for everyone who plays it, that type of choice is unnecessary. There is no character that goes out of their way to be so offensive that you can't just recruit and ignore them. I dislike Vivienne and Sera both, but I have them both sitting happily in their corners of skyhold and never have had to interact with them more than that. Would I rage and throw a fit if they showed up in a cut scene if it meant I could see my favorite characters next to them? Hell no. I do not consider myself such a special snowflake that my opinions should affect other people's experiences in any way.

I 100% agree. The people who demand the option to kick out a character at the expense of so much potential content are kind of selfish. The game would have greatly benefitted if all the followers were mandatory.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I 100% agree. The people who demand the option to kick out a character at the expense of so much potential content are kind of selfish. The game would have greatly benefitted if all the followers were mandatory.

Likewise, the people who want everyone to have to have all the characters so they can get what they want are also being kind of selfish. 

[esh1996]

If we got DA:I and all the followers were mandatory, but they each played vital roles in the story and ultimately improved the overall experience. I doubt there would be threads with people demanding that they could have kicked members out. The fact that I'm proposing the removal of a feature which we're all familiar with is why so many of you seem against it. But if this was what we got I doubt any of you would be complaining with the game.

Characters should drive the story. When characters don't do anything important they feel like deadweight, when writing a book you should avoid any character being deadweight. Nethermind half of your principle cast!

[esh1996]

Likewise, the people who want everyone to have to have all the characters so they can get what they want are also being kind of selfish.

How is it selfish? Everyone could have benefitted from a game which would have ultimately been much better without this feature. It's selfish that you'd happily sacrifice that so that you can kick out Sera, Vivienne or whomever because you think they're annoying.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

How is it selfish? Everyone could have benefitted from a game which would have ultimately been much better without this feature. It's selfish that you'd happily sacrifice that so that you can kick out Sera, Vivienne or whomever because you think they're annoying.

Because it is forcing people to have characters they don't want so you can have what you want. That's being selfish. 

[CuriousArtemis]

The issue was balancing really. 3 Rogues, 3 Mages and 3 Warriors. 3 specialisations for each class. 9 is the perfect number.

 

Yeah, that's why I whittled it down to 2 rogues, 2 mages, and 2 warriors. (As opposed to 3 rogues, 1 mage, etc.)

[jlb524]

I agree with you, OP. The story might have been somewhat interesting if the characters had a bigger role. I never really gave 2 fracks about what was going on with the Inquisitor and the main story...this could have helped.

If I don't like a character, I just don't use them...don't care if I can boot them or not.

[esh1996]

Because it is forcing people to have characters they don't want so you can have what you want. That's being selfish.

Maybe calling each other 'selfish' was too harsh.

But seriously? You'd rather sacrifice the posibility of a far more invested story, with deeper interaction and involvement from all of the principle cast members. Just because of the trivial issue of wanting to kick out a character because you don't like them. The potential benefits of all followers being mandatory greatly out weight the immediate joy you have when you kick out a follower you don't like.

There are characters in Game of Thrones who I don't like very much, Sansa Stark for example, but I'm happy she is included because of the important role she plays in the story. The importance of her role in the story greatly outweighs the personal pleasure I might've had if she didn't exist.

[Sui Causa]

Because it is forcing people to have characters they don't want so you can have what you want. That's being selfish. 

Because forcing people to have a better story so that it is less shitty for everyone is selfish. Right.

 

Besides, a lot of people dislike certain characters not because they are morally against their existance but because they are boring and uninteresting to the plot. If they had more screentime then just their personal quest, had an actual impact on the story, got to actually react to the events of the game going on around them, then those uninteresting characters would get a lot more opportunity to win people over. Suddenly the cast is more relevant to a lot more players and everyone benefits.

 

Of course there's the people who hate Iron Bull because they are offended by his romance or his dialogue and want him to rot on the storm coast because how dare he. There are people who are offended by the fact that Dorian is gay and the fact that he is gay is actually addressed in the game. There are people who hate Sera for being a racist jerk to other elves, or Blackwall because he stole everyone else's beard the selfish jerk.

 

Yes, I'm sure those people will be sad they don't have the opportunity to vindictively slam their self-satisfied fingers across the XXX does not join the Inquisition button, but at that point their closeminded spitefulness does not deserve the opportunity to ruin content for other people.

 

In a perfect world, you would get to choose your characters and the characters you chose had proper impact on the plot, you actually got to see them in cut scenes and they all get proper time to develop. Unfortunately dragon age is not that perfect world, so if sacrifices have to be made one way or another, I'd rather give everyone an equal opportunity to be developed then cut 60% of the character's interaction with the plot out entirely.

[BabyPuncher]

Probably.

 

Although that raises some new problems of it's own.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Maybe calling each other 'selfish' was too harsh.

But seriously? You'd rather sacrifice the posibility of a far more invested story, with deeper interaction and involvement from all of the principle cast members. Just because of the trivial issue of wanting to kick out a character because you don't like them. The potential benefits of all followers being mandatory greatly out weight the immediate joy you have when you kick out a follower you don't like.

There are characters in Game of Thrones who I don't like very much, Sansa Stark for example, but I'm happy she is included because of the important role she plays in the story. The importance of her role in the story greatly outweighs the personal pleasure I might've had if she didn't exist.

No. As I said, I would like the option for the companions to be optional but for the ones you do have to be able to affect the story. This has happened in Bioware games before. For example whether you recruited Wrex or not in Mass Effect 1 impacted what you could do with the Krogan in later games. 

 

They kind of do this already with the War Table missions, but we don't get to take part. If the War Table operations were actual missions, people who want the companions to be more impactful would have gotten what they wanted. 

[esh1996]

No. As I said, I would like the option for the companions to be optional but for the ones you do have to be able to affect the story. This has happened in Bioware games before. For example whether you recruited Wrex or not in Mass Effect 1 impacted what you could do with the Krogan in later games. 
 
They kind of do this already with the War Table missions, but we don't get to take part. If the War Table operations were actual missions, people who want the companions to be more impactful would have gotten what they wanted.

Ultimately the war table missions were a horrible tease. So much great content was reduced to lines of text...

But seriously, don't you see how it would take soo much unnecessary effort to have both the option for characters to be kicked out and for those characters you chose to impact the story. There would have to be so many versions of the game to satisfy any and all combinations of followers you have chosen to include. Time and resources would have been wasted and we ultimately would have had a game even shorter and less satisfying than we already got. If all followers were mandatory then Bioware would only have to make one verion, one were every character is involved and ever character is there to do important things. The only way to achieve a version of the game where the characters actually have a chance to impact the plot is a game where all characters are mandatory.