126 réponses à ce sujet

[Precursor Meta]

I like the way they have things now. And I don't think having mandatory characters would make the story better. I like the way they have companions sectioned off and you can recruit, speak to, and quest with them at your leisure.

[Sui Causa]

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

The same person who wrote Iron Bull wrote Cole, actually. Also Solas.

[Caja]

 

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

sarcasm

Real nice.

/sarcasm

 

 

Btw, Iron Bull and Cole were both written by the same person.

Source

 

Edit to respond to Sui Causa:

The same person who wrote Iron Bull wrote Cole, actually. Also Sera.

 

Solas, not Sera .

Modifié par Caja, 26 février 2015 - 12:00 .

[leadintea]

I'd rather have mandatory companions since it makes them seem more like a team and actually have meaningful interactions with each other instead of random individuals that really only get any meaningful interactions with the main character. Cole's quest is a great example of what I mean about the entire team interacting with each other and affecting each other instead of the main character being the only person that'd affect the character. Likewise, we'd get much more dramatic scenes and story quests with characters we're intimate with instead of getting a bunch of NPCs that take over the companions' roles like Barris in Champions of the Just, Justinia's spirit, Hawke, and the Warden in Here Lies the Abyss and the 3 Orlesian rulers in Wicked Eyes and Wicked Hearts. You'd also get less instances where a character voices their opinion only to get it ignored, like the cringeworthy Wicked Grace scene which really shows the flaw of having optional characters. It might as well have been only Varric, Cullen, and Josephine in that scene because every other character's input was ignored and added nothing to the scene. So yes, I'd vastly prefer mandatory characters that have more intimate scenes than optional characters that don't matter much in the long run of things.

[Sui Causa]

Edit to respond to Sui Causa:

 

Solas, not Sera .

Right! The other elf that starts with an S!

[Tarlonniel]

It could, if done well. Or it could blow roleplaying all to smithereens (I see I'm not the only one who hates that about SWTOR...). Basically you can't put the PC in a position where they should be able to dictate who does or doesn't join up with their particular cause and then turn around and take that ability away from them.

[MattH]

10/10 agree with the OP

There were many situations in DAI where companions should have had key roles in the story. Vivienne at the ball for example; major player of The Game, Offical Mage to the Imperial Court, she has way more knowledge of the situation than Cullen yet he gets a featured role?

Having companions be tied to the central plot would vastly improve their worth and importance, and would probably cause you to care for them more. I know I didn't expect to like Solas as much as I do now, and that is defiantly down to his role in the plot. I'm not expecting that level of importance for every companion, but more integration would most definitely be appreciated.

[Krypplingz]

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? 

 

Having the companions optional benefited me greatly in regards to Sera. After her companion mission I felt immense hatred towards her, after having felt rather negative about her before that quest. So I kicked her out of the party and finished the game without her. By doing so, I got those negative feelings out of my system and for the next playthrough I was able to face her with recharged batteries and was thus able to appreciate her as a character. Now I actually quite like her.

Same with Isabela, hated her on my first playthrough and couldn't stomach her company, so she never came back with the book. Next playthrough I simply ignored her, played an Isabela free game and got it out of my system. Now she's one of my favorite characters of the Dragon age 2 cast. 

On the other side, there is Merrill. Merrill can not be kicked out, she can be ignored but she'll always appear in the final confrontation and act like you felt something positive about her. Sure you can tear her down in her rivalry path, but I feel I could have learned to appreciate her character better if she was optional.

Isabela and Sera are a poison I choose to swallow while Merrill is the one forced down my throat. 

 

But I'm all for having companions play bigger roles in the story and simply getting less content if I don't have them.

Have Vivienne be pivotial in getting high court approval by having her open locked doors for you or introducing you to big players of the game. Have Blackwall be the only one who can talk down the non wardens, so if you don't have him on your team you don't get any extra allies. Have Varric be the one who finds the Lyrium stash you can use to cripple one of Corpypants generals or have Dorian be the only way to contact the Tevinter who brings you closer to the other general. 

Heck, have a mandatory companion which you can demote to an advisers role if you dislike them. Vivienne would be prime meat for that. She could open up extra war-table missions or be a trainer for the Winter Palace Ball. (Dance lessons with Vivienne? Yes please). Varric could have his own branch of spies, which he could coddle to his hearts content. 

Or heck, the final confrontations success could hinge on the followers you have. Don't have Sera? The kitchen staff gets roasted by a Dragon. Don't have Bull? Spies infiltrate your ranks, adding a rogue fight at the start of the mission. Don't have Solas? You'll need to track down Corpyfish, loosing soldiers instead of being instantly teleported to him and saving aforementioned soldiers. 

 

TL:DR I want companions to be optional, but I'm fine with loosing content/ getting worse results by not having them. 

[Heimdall]

Certain characters are always mandatory for the sake of the story.  They don't all have to be mandatory, just the right ones.  In Inquisition's case, I think Viviene would have made the most sense.  She could have had a greater role in both the mage/templar and Orlesian ball storylines.

[Aimi]

Add me to the camp of "forced companions were one of the most execrable things about SWTOR and screw that nonsense".

[Digger1967]

I guess it depends on what makes a "better" story. Take Solas - frankly as a character I don't like him much. I find him arrogant for the most part, and frankly his constantly vague speech and moral equivocations get old and wear on my nerves. As a companion his banter is usually pretty awful, about the only time it gets interesting is when someone else is pointing out what a stick in the mud he happens to be.

 

But he does play a useful part in the story and I don't mind that, I mean I don't really want all of my companions to be wonderful people that I adore. A little conflict keeps things interesting,  Makes for a better story.

 

Cole? Plays no useful part here at all. He's just a cheap rip off of the superpowerful but overly angsty teen character ala Anakin Skywaker.  He adds nothing to the story, in fact he destroys it as far as I'm concerned.  The obvious favor shown to him by the game designers is deplorable IMHO.

 

So no, I see no value in having him as a companion and the fact that if I refuse him the game NAGS me to death with load screen after load screen about how I gave poor pitiful angsty worthless Cole the boot to be reprehensible.  I found a solution, I just avoid Cole at skyhold all together and never trigger that scene.

 

So no, I really don't want companions I'm forced to take, after all - this is supposed to be my story. Just my two cents worth, YMMV

[Aimi]

Cole? Plays no useful part here at all. He's just a cheap rip off of the superpowerful but overly angsty teen character ala Anakin Skywaker.

what

[(Disgusted noise.)]

I would definitely prefer companions to be more involved with the story. If people want RP options, they should give you more opportunities to express how much you dislike them. 

[Digger1967]

sarcasm

Real nice.

/sarcasm

 

 

Btw, Iron Bull and Cole were both written by the same person.

Source

 

Edit to respond to Sui Causa:

 

Solas, not Sera .

 

That surprises me a lot actually.  Iron bull was such a well written character.  Frankly somebody phoned Cole in at best.  I just really hope they get rid of Cole in any future expansions.

[(Disgusted noise.)]

That surprises me a lot actually.  Iron bull was such a well written character.  Frankly somebody phoned Cole in at best.  I just really hope they get rid of Cole in any future expansions.

Lol.

[Xilizhra]

But all the characters in DA:I are far better than those in DA:2

Speak for yourself.

 

I've considered this idea before, and I have no real objection to it, but I don't see an urgent need to change things. As long as optional characters don't have a disproportionately small role in the plot, I think we're doing all right.

[BabyPuncher]

Add me to the camp of "forced companions were one of the most execrable things about SWTOR and screw that nonsense".

 

Every book, television show, film and play in existence has gotten by while giving the audience no choice over which characters are present. And >95% of video games.

 

Haven't played SWTOR, but maybe they just weren't good characters. That is back before BioWare and other developers learned that filling a team with a balance of good and evil characters isn't as smart of an idea as it might appear.

 

Wait...I'm thinking of KOTOR. SWTOR has mandatory companions?

[BabyPuncher]

I've considered this idea before, and I have no real objection to it, but I don't see an urgent need to change things. As long as optional characters don't have a disproportionately small role in the plot, I think we're doing all right.

 

Uhh...that's exactly what's happening. Sera and Vivianne are completely useless and come off to me as nothing more than narrative dead weight. Bull, Blackwall, and Verrac have personal quests, but none of them had the depth I would have liked to have seen.

[esh1996]

After reading through most of the arguements made against my post, I find them to be incredibly superficial. You'd all happily sacrifice a far more invested story involving all the characters (those you like and don't like) just because you think 'Cole is an angsty teenager' or 'Vivienne is an elitist b***h'... And you value kicking them out over everything else? Seriously some of you would return the game if a character you don't like is mandatory? Seriously? Do you return a book/movie because of 1 character. Does an 8/10 game drop to a 2/10 because of one character? Really....? I'm dumbfounded...

[Hanako Ikezawa]

After reading through most of the arguements made against my post, I find them to be incredibly superficial. You'd all happily sacrifice a far more invested story involving all the characters (those you like and don't like) just because you think 'Cole is an angsty teenager' or 'Vivienne is an elitist b***h'... And you value kicking them out over everything else? Seriously some of you would return the game if a character you don't like is mandatory? Seriously? Do you return a book/movie because of 1 character. Does an 8/10 game drop to a 2/10 because of one character? Really....? I'm dumbfounded...

Well this isn't condescending at all, is it? 

[Aimi]

Every book, television show, film and play in existence has gotten by while giving the audience no choice over which characters are present. And >95% of video games.
 
Haven't played SWTOR, but maybe they just weren't good characters. That is back before BioWare and other developers learned that filling a team with a balance of good and evil characters isn't as smart of an idea as it might appear.
 
Wait...I'm thinking of KOTOR. SWTOR has mandatory companions?

Yes, SWTOR has forced companions.

I suppose I should clarify. I'm not intrinsically opposed to the way forced companions are implemented in BioWare games generally. People with good reasons to be on the team should, y'know, be on the team. What I was objecting more to was the way they were sometimes implemented in SWTOR: divisive characters were forced into the party and roleplaying suffered for it.

Sometimes, this was indeed down to poor writing, for a variety of reasons. But sometimes it wasn't; beta testers, for example, memorably agitated for the removal of the option to kick certain characters out of the party (or avoid recruiting entirely) because of complaints about the way the gameplay would've allegedly worked without those characters. The option originally existed, but it was removed before launch. I can't really blame the writing for that.

[esh1996]

Well this isn't condescending at all, is it?

How? I'm proposing a potential way in which Bioware could (and probably should) have improved their game to a 9/10! What the game missed was a truly awesome and investing story, something that MIGHT have been achieved if they had done what I sujested. The characters were the greatest asset DA:I had and it is painful that Bioware didn't use them all to their full potential.

[Icy Magebane]

I don't like the idea of mandatory party members.  Using DA:I as an example, if you are playing as the Inquisitor, you should be able to have a say in who is allowed on the premises of Skyhold and who isn't.  I don't oppose better integration of party members into the plots, but IMO that wouldn't be a huge problem if the devs just put in the effort to make unique content that took into account characters who were never involved in the organization or who left for one reason or another during the course of the story... it seemed to work just fine in DA:O.  None of those characters were mandatory other than Alistair (and Dog if you were the Human Noble), but at the same time, everyone was well integrated into the plot and almost always had something to say during quests...  I don't really see how making all of the party members mandatory would improve the story at all.

[esh1996]

I don't like the idea of mandatory party members.  Using DA:I as an example, if you are playing as the Inquisitor, you should be able to have a say in who is allowed on the premises of Skyhold and who isn't.  I don't oppose better integration of party members into the plots, but IMO that wouldn't be a huge problem if the devs just put in the effort to make unique content that took into account characters who were never involved in the organization or who left for one reason or another during the course of the story... it seemed to work just fine in DA:O.  None of those characters were mandatory other than Alistair (and Dog if you were the Human Noble), but at the same time, everyone was well integrated into the plot and almost always had something to say during quests...  I don't really see how making all of the party members mandatory would improve the story at all.

Although as the all powerful inquisitor it does make sense that you should have the power to pick and choose whomever you please. But really within the context of the story it doesn't make any sense. At the begining of the game the inquisition has no influence and little to no army, were desperate enough to potentially recruit an army of rebellious mages or aggressive Templars, so it makes no sense to refuse the help of any of the followers who approach you. When you fundamentally think about it you're refusing a skilled soldier or Mage who is willing to help and you want to refuse them out of spite? And once Corypheus is revealed and will likely destroy the world if he succeeds then you NEED all the help you can get and kicking them out is ridiculously stupid within the context of the story. And them leaving is even more so because they know that Corypheus is going to destroy the world but they'd happily leave you and accept the doomed fate of the world just because you offended them...

And if the developers from the start made the game with all followers essential then it's likely that the story would have been slightly different (maybe better or worse) and more elements of the story revolved around the character's personalities, skills and their relationship with the inquisitor.

[Sui Causa]

I like the idea of maybe not being able to kick people out, but being able to be jerks to them because you don't like them instead. Rivalry points in DA:2 was great and they should have kept that in place. Then you could yell at the companions you didn't like for whatever reason and feel satisfied about that, but the storyline wouldn't suffer because they ceased to exist in it entirely.