126 réponses à ce sujet

[Hanako Ikezawa]

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.

No, I don't since it is something they have already achieved such a practice years ago. If you want something to blame for the characters seeming detached from the plot to you, it is the open world they built for this game since that is what's new and thus the prime suspect for things not being like they were before. And this is coming from someone who likes the big maps. 

[Addai]

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?

No, because their plot-central roles are natural and not forced. Requiring that all the characters are would do that.

[WildSky214]

I'm on board with making characters mandatory. Even characters I hate I always recruit for tiny, insignificant role they might play. Also, war table missions suck. I wish half the war table missions were actual missions you could do over 90% of the actual content.

And they did sacrifice plot/characterization for open world/boring quests. They even admitted it. It was an over-correction from DA2.

[esh1996]

"Would having all followers essential/mandatory result in a better story? (RP vs Story)"
 

Any reasons behind your one word answer? I've made so many points illustrating how it could have been better. Simply saying "no" isn't going to help you win this debate.

Debating on fan forums sometimes can feel like arguing with 4 year olds.
Me: [listing half a dozen points to support my argument]
Roly Voly: No

Seriously...?

[BabyPuncher]

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.

 

You kind of shoot yourself in the foot by saying all this.

 

I certainly wouldn't call any of Inquisiton's writing 'brilliant' or anything remotely close to it. 'Mediocre' is more along the lines of what I would be thinking, if that. That includes the companions, which I found to be generally dull and shallow compared to Mass Effect's.

 

Which is the whole reason why more mandatory companions is a good idea.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Any reasons behind your one word answer? I've made so many points illustrating how it could have been better. Simply saying "no" isn't going to help you win this debate.

Debating on fan forums sometimes can feel like arguing with 4 year olds.
Me: [listing half a dozen points to support my argument]
Roly Voly: No

Seriously...?

Insulting people who disagree with you by comparing them to toddlers is also not going to help win a debate. 

[esh1996]

I'm on board with making characters mandatory. Even characters I hate I always recruit for tiny, insignificant role they might play. Also, war table missions suck. I wish half the war table missions were actual missions you could do over 90% of the actual content.And they did sacrifice plot/characterization for open world/boring quests. They even admitted it. It was an over-correction from DA2.

War Table missions would have been fine, if once you completed the final mission in each War Table quest line you then had the opportunity to finish it with a quick in game quest. Like the Varric 'Hard in Hightown 2' quest line, if it finished with you and Varric confronting the fraud it would have been worth it. Not just an amulet of power and a bianca part.

[WildSky214]

Quite frankly, I felt a one word response was sufficient.  Why waste words in a debate that are not necessary?  That wastes your time as well as mine.

Any reasons behind your one word answer? I've made so many points illustrating how it could have been better. Simply saying "no" isn't going to help you win this debate.

Debating on fan forums sometimes can feel like arguing with 4 year olds.
Me: [listing half a dozen points to support my argument]
Roly Voly: No

Seriously...?

Seeing as how its an opinion, it should suffice.

[esh1996]

You kind of shoot yourself in the foot by saying all this.
 
I certainly wouldn't call any of Inquisiton's writing 'brilliant' or anything remotely close to it. 'Mediocre' is more along the lines of what I would be thinking, if that. That includes the companions, which I found to be generally dull and shallow compared to Mass Effect's.
 
Which is the whole reason why more mandatory companions is a good idea.

Thank you? I think...

[BabyPuncher]

Thank you? I think...

 

It wasn't a compliment. The whole point of doing this, the whole point of sacrificing the role playing aspect, is that the companions need work. If they're already brilliant, there's not much point.

 

But they're not brilliant. Not at all. Even Cassandra, who I liked the most, never had any brilliant moments. They're quirky. They have some sweet scenes. But not brilliant. I wouldn't even call several of them good.

 

That's what this has the potential of fixing. With stronger involvement in the story, the writers can give them struggles. That's what matters. Not quirks, or viewpoints.

[TevinterSupremacist]

The answer is simple. Have a group of characters that are all influential and important to the story and depending on who ends up staying as a follower and who gets ditched -some companions might even be mutually exclusive- have the story take different paths. Honestly, branching stories with noticeably distinct endings and progress in general ought to be mandatory in choice-focused rpgs.

 

But apparently that's evil. I mean come on, if we can't even progress a game series without retconning dead characters back to life for the story to develop, then...branching stories seems like such a far, far away dream for dragon age.

[BabyPuncher]

The answer is simple. Have a group of characters that are all influential and important to the story and depending on who ends up staying as a follower and who gets ditched -some companions might even be mutually exclusive- have the story take different paths. Honestly, branching stories with noticeably distinct endings and progress in general ought to be mandatory in choice-focused rpgs.

 

But apparently that's evil. I mean come on, if we can't even progress a game series without retconning dead characters back to life for the story to develop, then...branching stories seems like such a far, far away dream for dragon age.

 

Fantastic. We'll just take out our magic wands and create the immense resources necessary for branching stories from thin air. No time or money required. Because that's clearly your understanding of how video games are made, yes?
 

[TevinterSupremacist]

Fantastic. We'll just take out our magic wands and create the immense resources necessary for branching stories from thin air. No time or money required. Because that's clearly your understanding of how video games are made, yes?
 

What exactly is your point? That there are no possible resource allocations and changes in budget focus that would allow any degree of branching in stories? That sounds like a pretty big claim, care to back it up somehow?

This is the DA forums. People tend to ask for things and suggest improvements , based on their tastes. That's what this place is for, among other things. Obviously, not everything can be achieved and every change requires resource sacrifices. This doesn't mean that suggestions shouldn't be made.

[WildSky214]

The answer is simple. Have a group of characters that are all influential and important to the story and depending on who ends up staying as a follower and who gets ditched -some companions might even be mutually exclusive- have the story take different paths. Honestly, branching stories with noticeably distinct endings and progress in general ought to be mandatory in choice-focused rpgs.
 
But apparently that's evil. I mean come on, if we can't even progress a game series without retconning dead characters back to life for the story to develop, then...branching stories seems like such a far, far away dream for dragon age.

I agree. Is Leliana really necessary? I mean, Leliana in Origins and Leliana in Inquisition are almost completely different people. Couldn't they have made a new character?

Its not evil to want branching stories, its just really expensive to make one video game, but practically having to make two or three different video games in one...

[BabyPuncher]

What exactly is your point? That there are no possible resource allocations and changes in budget focus that would allow any degree of branching in stories? That sounds like a pretty big claim, care to back it up somehow?

This is the DA forums. People tend to ask for things and suggest improvements , based on their tastes. That's what this place is for, among other things. Obviously, not everything can be achieved and every change requires resource sacrifices. This doesn't mean that suggestions shouldn't be made.

 

It's rather obvious.

 

There has not been a single AAA RPG game that has offered a real branching storyline. Plenty of them have promised it, a few have toed across the line here and there, but none have delivered.

 

It's clear players want such a thing. If it could be done just by shifting resources around, it would have been done by this point. It's too hard. Not only because developers have to build very expensive assets that many or even most players will never see, but because writers have a tremendously more difficult time writing a satisfying branching story. Particularly one where those branches need to be taken into account in future content.
 

[Sui Causa]

It's too much to ask to have invested characters that are optional to the plot as well, Bioware doesn't have that kind of money to develop that kind of game. Yes, it would be amazing, but realistically we will never get that.

 

What is feasible to ask is that all characters get a bigger piece of the pie in exchange for them being optional. The suggestion that some of the character-specific war table missions being made into actual game content, that would have made a huge difference. Having them appear in cut scenes and be able to react to events would be another huge one. That is not too much to ask, if the character's aren't optional.

[TevinterSupremacist]

Depends on the degree of "branchiness", if we examine of story, you can have the same amount of events, laid more "horizontally" instead of "vertically" along the story-progress timeline and cover the same overall space. This obviously takes a comparable, if not the same amount of resources.

I seriously doubt players would never see it. This makes no sense, rpgs have replayability -or at least ought to-, having the story take you elsewhere gives you motive to play again. And again, branching stories doesn't mean two/three/four times the game content in one game, there are degrees. DA has tiny degree of branching, I can't be convinced that it can't do any better at all.

And I mentioned the Leliana hilarity, of course I no longer expect the writers to not want the easy way out.

[Digger1967]

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?

 

Ok, well after having met Cole.. let me just say thank the Maker I don't have to enlist every character.  If I did I'd most likely be returning the game tot he store and demanding a full refund.. ick.

 

On the flipside, I can say that some of these characters are outstanding.  Iron Bull, for example - I've just recently started doing a "serious" playthrough, my first initial forays were done on super easy difficulty setting and was designed more so I could figure out how to play the game than anything else.  One of my two "serious" characters is a mage.  I really wanted to check out that Masterwork Archon Staff you can get by having Bull sacrifice the chargers and making an alliance with the Qun.

 

Played through that for the first time, and it actually had such an impact on me seeing Bull after the fact - I reloaded from a previous save point, went back and changed my decision.  It just wasn't worth it.  Now that's a well written character.

 

Hopefully though whoever wrote Cole is now unemployed.  Or dead.  Or both.  Lol

[Ryzaki]

God no.

 

Not until BW can get rid of it's thirst for having certain companions always one up the PC by having the PC be a tongue tied idiot no matter how little sense it makes or how much they hijack the PC to get it done.

 

Not until BW can finally write my PC as actually despising another character and them only working together because the plot with as much attention as the friendship version too come to think of it.

 

Until then I rather be able to tell them to GTFO. Better story means nothing to me if it's a story I have even less control over than we already have.  If I wanted a good railroaded story I could watch a movie or read a book. I already skip pages when I have to read about characters that don't interest me. I already have to escape/spacebar during some of BW characters dialogues.

 

And knowing BW it'll be another BS Skadge and Xalek situation where even though it makes completely no damn sense for my pc to recruit them I do because they're mandatory and it almost always BREAKS RP AND THE STORY.

 

You tell me the logic in a LS SI recruiting Xalek.

 

Or a DS SI recruiting Ashara without breaking her.

 

Or a DS SW sparing Quinn.

 

Or a DS SI keeping Vette alive after her "I'm immune to your little shock collar." spiel.

 

Or LS agent keeping Kaliyo around. (or hell most agents keeping Kaliyo around tbh).

 

Mandatory companions do not equal a better story. Not sure where people got that terrible impression from because it's not true. You only have to look at previous BW games to see that. 

[TevinterSupremacist]

<snip>

I agree. With one difference, my pc really liked Xalek. Such a cute murderous zealot, that guy, Xalek.

[Ryzaki]

I agree. With one difference, my pc really liked Xalek. Such a cute murderous zealot, that guy, Xalek.

 

I was just confused I couldn't kill him. SWTOR had some REALLY obvious "this companion is optional" points that go ignored.

 

Forever mad that I have a blatant [Let ghost kill Ashara] option that is completely ignored after picking it. SCREW YOU GAME!

 

And don't get me started on Skadge. Oh god.

 

And then with Gault my BH is forced to be someone who doesn't finish the job (despite me to that point playing him as someone who did the job he was paid for no matter how dirty it was. But screw that apparently >_< )

[TevinterSupremacist]

I was just confused I couldn't kill him. SWTOR had some REALLY obvious "this companion is optional" points that go ignored.

I recall watching an interview (or was it reading a dev comment in swtor forums? It's been so long since I unsubbed from that fiasco anyway...) that they used to have "kill companion options" , during the testing period, then the player would accidentally -or for teh lulz- kill companion, then cry and ask for companion to be rezzed, since swtor was an mmo and there wasn't a reload-previous-save option. Plus, companions played a huge role in pve and each had specific combat roles that balanced out your class so killing companions had a huge impact on gameplay too.

[Ryzaki]

I recall watching an interview (or was it reading a dev comment in swtor forums? It's been so long since I unsubbed from that fiasco anyway...) that they used to have "kill companion options" , during the testing period, then the player would accidentally -or for teh lulz- kill companion, then cry and ask for companion to be rezzed, since swtor was an mmo and there wasn't a reload-previous-save option. Plus, companions played a huge role in pve and each had specific combat roles that balanced out your class so killing companions had a huge impact on gameplay too.

 

Oh yeah I remember that now. >_< those idiots ruined it for everyone.

 

But killing a companion should be a consequence. (Still was stupid we didn't have a backup healer though. I mean every other class had a second option (I.E. you usually had 2 tanks, 2 dps but you had one healer choice to drag around. So lame).