126 réponses à ce sujet

[Icy Magebane]

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.

My main issue with this idea is that they already managed to come up with a great story that successfully integrated optional party members into the quests back when they made DA:O, and even DA:A to an extent (I recall almost everyone in that game being optional as well, and though the quality was a bit lower than DA:O overall, it was not a full game, merely an expansion).  Mandatory characters wouldn't make much of a difference if the devs aren't also going to force you to take specific people along on certain quests so that you can witness the brilliant ways in which they are integrated into the plot.  I mean, just how far are you trying to take this?  I don't play Dragon Age to deal with a set cast and fairly rigid storyline... there are countless other titles where I can find that.

[esh1996]

My main issue with this idea is that they already managed to come up with a great story that successfully integrated optional party members into the quests back when they made DA:O, and even DA:A to an extent (I recall almost everyone in that game being optional as well, and though the quality was a bit lower than DA:O overall, it was not a full game, merely an expansion).  Mandatory characters wouldn't make much of a difference if the devs aren't also going to force you to take specific people along on certain quests so that you can witness the brilliant ways in which they are integrated into the plot.  I mean, just how far are you trying to take this?  I don't play Dragon Age to deal with a set cast and fairly rigid storyline... there are countless other titles where I can find that.

You chose the 3 characters you take with you in missions, you can choose the three characters which you do the majority of the exploring with, you can choose who to speak to in Skyhold and who to ignore. Just that all the followers join the inquisition and are present at Skyhold so that they can contribute to the plot whenever necessary. And maybe even if you don't choose them to accompany you in missions they might still appear in SOME of the cut scenes during the mission. Like Vivienne in the Winter Palace should always be present wining the inquisition court approval but doesn't accompany you when you have the fighting bits if you don't select her. It makes sense.

[Icy Magebane]

You chose the 3 characters you take with you in missions, you can choose the three characters which you do the majority of the exploring with, you can choose who to speak to in Skyhold and who to ignore. Just that all the followers join the inquisition and are present at Skyhold so that they can contribute to the plot whenever necessary. And maybe even if you don't choose them to accompany you in missions they might still appear in SOME of the cut scenes during the mission. Like Vivienne in the Winter Palace should always be present wining the inquisition court approval but doesn't accompany you when you have the fighting bits if you don't select her. It makes sense.

Eh... I guess.  Maybe if the main character was a uniquely capable Inquisition soldier rather than the leader of the group I wouldn't mind this... that way, the party members would be chosen for you and your character would simply be field commander.  You'd have the authority to choose teams as you see fit, but you'd have no legitimate say in who is allowed to join the group.  That I wouldn't mind, really.  However, that would require the entire game to be rewritten... the way it's set up now, mandatory party members don't make sense.  People should be allowed to make "bad" decisions and refuse help from whoever they want if they are in a position to do so ("Inquisitor" or even "Inquisitor Trainee" being one such position).  This is a roleplaying game after all, and it adds replay value to be able to make such choices.  Both credibility and replay value would be significantly diminished if Bioware decided to arbitrarily limit the Inquisitor's authority.  I mean, tbh, any group of mercs could have replaced Bull and the Chargers, whatever Sera contributed happened offscreen, Dorian was mainly just sex appeal (if this is unclear, I'm j/k... I know he's more than just a pretty face... lol) and a bit of an info dump on Tevinter culture, etc... very few of the companions are really that important.

 

I keep adding to this, but I just thought of one other thing: Cole.  There is no reason at all for him to be mandatory, and a long list of reasons why the Inquisitor should be able to say no to a Fade entity who wants to hang around with the group... so basically, this reinforces my overall point that DA:I's story and characters are not designed to be mandatory.  Cassandra, sure.  The three Advisors? Fine.  Cole, Dorian, Sera, Varric, Iron Bull, or Vivienne?  Not so much.  It just doesn't make any sense in most cases.

[esh1996]

I don't play Dragon Age to deal with a set cast and fairly rigid storyline... there are countless other titles where I can find that.

The DA:I story was incredibly rigid. Other than the Mage/Templar decision none of the choices impact the game outside the context of the immediate mission. Actually having more mandatory followers MIGHT ultimately allow for a more customisable and unique game. Maybe before main missions followers would approach you with their ideas on how you should tackle a mission. Maybe before the wicked hearts mission you could be faced with two options, one brought forward by Vivienne where you visit the palace as a guest and the quest might play out the way it did in the game. Or another option sujested by Sera where she proposes sneaking into the palace disguised as a servant and you're able to complete the missions in a completely different way. That is a lot less rigid and ultimately would make second playthroughs a lot more interesting, with you tackling missions in completely different ways.

[Sui Causa]

The fact is that as it is now six of your nine companions don't show up in any cut scenes. They don't exist when you are walking from haven's wreckage to Skyhold. They aren't in the crowd when you are made Inquisitor. They don't show up in the cut scene when you enter into the fade at adamant, even though they are right there with you.

 

Only the mandatory characters show up, everyone else doesn't exist in major plot points. That part really, really sucks. If a companion must be mandatory in order to earn a right in cut scenes, then make all of them mandatory, period. Not being able to see them is a pretty serious blow to immersion. :|

[Icy Magebane]

The DA:I story was incredibly rigid. Other than the Mage/Templar decision none of the choices impact the game outside the context of the immediate mission. Actually having more mandatory followers MIGHT ultimately allow for a more customisable and unique game. Maybe before main missions followers would approach you with their ideas on how you should tackle a mission. Maybe before the wicked hearts mission you could be faced with two options, one brought forward by Vivienne where you visit the palace as a guest and the quest might play out the way it did in the game. Or another option sujested by Sera where she proposes sneaking into the palace disguised as a servant and you're able to complete the missions in a completely different way. That is a lot less rigid and ultimately would make second playthroughs a lot more interesting, with you tackling missions in completely different ways.

So including something that's mandatory creates a less rigid game?  I'm not so sure about that... like I said, I think the game would require a severe overhaul for this idea to be utilized.  I think we agree on that point, if nothing else.

 

Also, this idea you just posted... that could have been done regardless of which specific party members were available at the time.  I don't need Sera to be on the team for this path in the quest to exist... it would still be there in games where she was recruited, so the idea that she needs to be mandatory for this type of option to have been included in the game simply doesn't add up.

[esh1996]

I don't play Dragon Age to deal with a set cast.

The fact hat there are only 9 potential followers, the game might as well have a set cast. If you had the option of choosing your 9 out of a potential 30+ followers, then refusing the ones you don't want and choosing those you do makes sense. But the fact that refusing a character only leaves an empty hole in the game then the inclusion of the decision only takes away from the experience and doesn't improve anything.

[Icy Magebane]

The fact hat there are only 9 potential followers, the game might as well have a set cast. If you had the option of choosing your 9 out of a potential 30+ followers, then refusing the ones you don't want and choosing those you do makes sense. But the fact that refusing a character only leaves an empty hole in the game then the inclusion of the decision only takes away from the experience and doesn't improve anything.

I meant a set cast in the sense that a series like Final Fantasy has a set cast every time.  No variation in who you can recruit, and no variation in the story of those characters (for most of the games this is true, but always).  The Dragon Age series has never been designed with that in mind, although DA2 came uncomfortably close...

 

Anyway, I flat out disagree that being able to decide on who comes on the adventure harms the plot.  You keep stating this opinion as though it was a fact, but I promise you I did not feel like anything was missing when some of my Wardens refused to work with Zevran, Sten, Morrigan, Velanna, etc, or when Hawke turned right around and walked back out the door after seeing Isabela fighting a group of men in the Hanged Man... to me, that possibility added a great deal to each game.

[esh1996]

So including something that's mandatory creates a less rigid game?  I'm not so sure about that... like I said, I think the game would require a severe overhaul for this idea to be utilized.  I think we agree on that point, if nothing else.
 
Also, this idea you just posted... that could have been done regardless of which specific party members were available at the time.  I don't need Sera to be on the team for this path in the quest to exist... it would still be there in games where she was recruited, so the idea that she needs to be mandatory for this type of option to have been included in the game simply doesn't add up.

I was just writing down the first idea which came to my head where the characters could have been more involved in the story. Maybe opening several potential paths to take in missions. Removing the unnecessary early decision of whether or not to recruit the followers would have opened up more meaningful decisions later on in the game like what I just mentioned. In that senario if Vivienne and Sera both weren't recruited then there wouldn't of been a plan for the Wicked Hearts mission, having them both mandatory means that they can both approach you, showcase their skills and expertise and devise a perfect plan which you can then choose whether or not to use. The same could be done in almost every mission with the appropriate followers. These decisions would have made the events much more enjoyable then simply having the early decision of whether or not to to recruit the follower which ultimately meant for the rest of the the game they were reduced to the role of observer, when they all could have played vital roles in the plot.

[Icy Magebane]

I was just writing down the first idea which came to my head where the characters could have been more involved in the story. Maybe opening several potential paths to take in missions. Removing the unnecessary early decision of whether or not to recruit the followers would have opened up more meaningful decisions later on in the game like what I just mentioned. In that senario if Vivienne and Sera both weren't recruited then there wouldn't of been a plan for the Wicked Hearts mission, having them both mandatory means that they can both approach you, showcase their skills and expertise and devise a perfect plan which you can then choose whether or not to use. The same could be done in almost every mission with the appropriate followers. These decisions would have made the events much more enjoyable then simply having the early decision of whether or not to to recruit the follower which ultimately meant for the rest of the the game they were reduced to the role of observer, when they all could have played vital roles in the plot.

Again, more enjoyable to you.  You can't keep stating something this subjective as though it's a fact... more importantly, you keep ignoring the fact that if Bioware actually wanted to include such options, they had every opportunity to do so.  We aren't just talking about a dialogue choice here... these extra paths in Wicked Hearts would all have required coding, additional studio time for the voice actors, cutscenes, etc... that's time and money they clearly didn't want to spend, so a ton of variations on the quest don't exist.  As I said before, DA:O already proved that Bioware was capable of making quests in which optional companions played important roles in the plot, gave feedback during conversations with plot providers, and gave access to additional paths in the story based on their presence in the party.  None of this required mandatory party members in the past, but all of this was removed for DA:I nonetheless.  The inclusion of optional party members isn't the reason that this content is missing from DA:I.

[esh1996]

I meant a set cast in the sense that a series like Final Fantasy has a set cast every time.  No variation in who you can recruit, and no variation in the story of those characters (for most of the games this is true, but always).  The Dragon Age series has never been designed with that in mind, although DA2 came uncomfortably close...
 
Anyway, I flat out disagree that being able to decide on who comes on the adventure harms the plot.  You keep stating this opinion as though it was a fact, but I promise you I did not feel like anything was missing when some of my Wardens refused to work with Zevran, Sten, Morrigan, Velanna, etc, or when Hawke turned right around and walked back out the door after seeing Isabela fighting a group of men in the Hanged Man... to me, that possibility added a great deal to each game.

I kind of understand what you're saying, but the reason why you felt as though you didn't miss much without them is because (with the exception of Morrigan in DA:O) none of the optional followers in any of the DA games contribute to the main plot sufficiently to warrant their inclusion. If the DA games were made with the intention for the characters to all interact with and impact the story then it's likely that the games (and their stories) would have been greatly improved. Most of the followers in all of the DA games are incredibly interesting and I've always found that it is a wasted opportunity by Bioware that they limit themselves by the inclusion of this feature.

[esh1996]

Again, more enjoyable to you.  You can't keep stating something this subjective as though it's a fact... more importantly, you keep ignoring the fact that if Bioware actually wanted to include such options, they had every opportunity to do so.  We aren't just talking about a dialogue choice here... these extra paths in Wicked Hearts would all have required coding, additional studio time for the voice actors, cutscenes, etc... that's time and money they clearly didn't want to spend, so a ton of variations on the quest don't exist.  As I said before, DA:O already proved that Bioware was capable of making quests in which optional companions played important roles in the plot, gave feedback during conversations with plot providers, and gave access to additional paths in the story based on their presence in the party.  None of this required mandatory party members in the past, but all of this was removed for DA:I nonetheless.  The inclusion of optional party members isn't the reason that this content is missing from DA:I.

Maybe if they hadn't wasted all that time and resources on multiplayer we could have had a longer and more customisable single player campaign

[Icy Magebane]

I kind of understand what you're saying, but the reason why you felt as though you didn't miss much without them is because (with the exception of Morrigan in DA:O) none of the optional followers in any of the DA games contribute to the main plot sufficiently to warrant their inclusion. If the DA games were made with the intention for the characters to all interact with and impact the story then it's likely that the games (and their stories) would have been greatly improved. Most of the followers in all of the DA games are incredibly interesting and I've always found that it is a wasted opportunity by Bioware that they limit themselves by the inclusion of this feature.

I'm not willing to say that it's a straight up guarantee that we'd see an improvement in the quality of the stories... for the most part, I had no problem with the DA:O story.  What you may find odd is that I found DA2's story to be heavily flawed at times, and that game is the closest this series has come to having mandatory companions who routinely involved themselves in quests and acted as plot providers (such as Aveline and Isabela at the end of Act 2, or Anders during Justice).  I don't mind playing heavily scripted games, mind you... it's just that Dragon Age really isn't the series I come to for that experience.  If I want a scripted DA experience, I can read the novels or comics.

 

Maybe if they hadn't wasted all that time and resources on multiplayer we could have had a longer and more customisable single player campaign

lol... now that I can agree with wholeheartedly.

[esh1996]

Again, more enjoyable to you.  You can't keep stating something this subjective as though it's a fact...

I understand that and i know that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

But I can't get my head around the idea that you'd happily sacrifice so much potential content, more meaningful and interesting choices later in the game, an opportunity for the characters you really love to get more screen time (even if that means suffering through moments where characters you don't like get a little bit more) just so that you can get the option to kick out some characters simply because you don't like them?

[Icy Magebane]

I understand that and i know that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

But I can't get my head around the idea that you'd happily sacrifice so much potential content, more meaningful and interesting choices later in the game, an opportunity for the characters you really love to get more screen time (even if that means suffering through moments where characters you don't like get a little bit more) just so that you can get the option to kick out some characters simply because you don't like them?

The content provided to us doesn't have value simply by virtue of its existence... IMO, the ability to pick and choose which content we want to consume is a large part of what creates value.  Have you ever gone to a buffet?  There's a lot of food there, but you don't take a bit of everything just because it was placed before you.  You take what you like, sometimes you try something new and like or dislike it, you refuse to eat what you know you'll hate.  Each of those options has value which would be severely diminished if everything on the buffet table was a mandatory part of your meal.

 

Have you ever played Fallout: New Vegas?  In that game, you have a lot of options for how you want to go about things... a lot of potential party members, several factions to work for or against... There are followers in that game, but they are all optional and nothing is lost from refusing to let one or more of them tag along.  In fact, the followers are designed so that if you are working for a faction they don't support, they will leave of their own will and you can't stop them.  This only adds to the believability of the world and makes each playthrough as unique as I want it to be.  I cannot imagine enjoying that game as much if there was only one mandatory path provided to me because that was what the writer thought was the "best" experience for all games, myself included.  But I enjoy it both ways... a very focused, linear narrative is good at times, but other times I want to explore the desert and sabotage the food rations of an NCR camp without them realizing I'm not really on their side (eh... that's from Fallout: New Vegas btw... it just means that I like freedom and options).

 

Oh yeah, and if you are unfamiliar with that game, I mentioned it because it's often praised for its story while still having a staggering amount of flexibility.

[Aimi]

I kind of understand what you're saying, but the reason why you felt as though you didn't miss much without them is because (with the exception of Morrigan in DA:O) none of the optional followers in any of the DA games contribute to the main plot sufficiently to warrant their inclusion. If the DA games were made with the intention for the characters to all interact with and impact the story then it's likely that the games (and their stories) would have been greatly improved. Most of the followers in all of the DA games are incredibly interesting and I've always found that it is a wasted opportunity by Bioware that they limit themselves by the inclusion of this feature.

It's fairly presumptuous to contradict somebody and say "well the real reason you feel that way is because [list of assumptions that bolster my personal point]".

Perhaps Icy Magebane, like myself, simply thought that it was a good roleplay to not recruit, kill off, or kick out those companions. I know that I often play Wardens that kill Zevran and Velanna without recruiting them, despite the fact that I know that they both have content and that it is interesting, because it's easier for me to roleplay characters that kill them than it is for me to roleplay characters that don't.

But whatever.

On a different note, I think that the premise of the thread is shaky. You seem to think that there's a much clearer relationship between zots, status of forced/unforced companions, and #content than there actually is. The game was delayed, had numerous cuts (most of which we know nothing about), and only incorporated some content because BioWare employees did immense amounts of extra work in addition to crunch. It seems a little silly to me to suggest that the game would've had more content than it did, purely if some companions were forced instead of being unforced.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Nope i prefer them being optional i don't feel that companions need necessarily have impact on main story as long they participate in story ,baldur's gate 2 , dao and planescape torment had great companions and were great games while having all companions optional (save for alistair).

 

When da 2 had forced companions where it worked terribly for example pro-templar hawke instead killing anders ot turning him to templars was hanging around with an abomination for 7 years what make hawke look even more like complete idiot and rp options even more horrible.

[esh1996]

Have you ever played Fallout: New Vegas?  In that game, you have a lot of options for how you want to go about things... a lot of potential party members, several factions to work for or against... There are followers in that game, but they are all optional and nothing is lost from refusing to let one or more of them tag along.  In fact, the followers are designed so that if you are working for a faction they don't support, they will leave of their own will and you can't stop them.  This only adds to the believability of the world and makes each playthrough as unique as I want it to be.  I cannot imagine enjoying that game as much if there was only one mandatory path provided to me because that was what the writer thought was the "best" experience for all games, myself included.  But I enjoy it both ways... a very focused, linear narrative is good at times, but other times I want to explore the desert and sabotage the food rations of an NCR camp without them realizing I'm not really on their side (eh... that's from Fallout: New Vegas btw... it just means that I like freedom and options).
 
Oh yeah, and if you are unfamiliar with that game, I mentioned it because it's often praised for its story while still having a staggering amount of flexibility.

No matter how different you try to tackle DA:I the exact same events will always happen, the exact same outcome (defeat Corypheus) will always happen. When compared to Fallout:NV where there are so many ways to play the game these features make sense. But in DA:I the only way to make your play through more unique is to actively remove potential content through your decisions. Instead of your choices activity effecting the events of the game, allowing you to access more content (like in Fallout) and making each playthroughs feel distinctly different.

[esh1996]

The content provided to us doesn't have value simply by virtue of its existence... IMO, the ability to pick and choose which content we want to consume is a large part of what creates value.  Have you ever gone to a buffet?  There's a lot of food there, but you don't take a bit of everything just because it was placed before you.  You take what you like, sometimes you try something new and like or dislike it, you refuse to eat what you know you'll hate.  Each of those options has value which would be severely diminished if everything on the buffet table was a mandatory part of your meal.

At a buffet you get to choose between a selection of over cooked, cold and ultimately unsatisfying food. I'd rather have a multiple course meal where I can choose my starter, then choose my main then choose my desert. I will get a freshly cooked meal this way and I still had the option to choose what I wanted to eat. In my arguement the followers aren't potential meals in the buffet but instead they're the menu, the existence of the menu allows me to make choices which ultimately deliver a personal and satisfying experience.

[Icy Magebane]

No matter how different you try to tackle DA:I the exact same events will always happen, the exact same outcome (defeat Corypheus) will always happen. When compared to Fallout:NV where there are so many ways to play the game these features make sense. But in DA:I the only way to make your play through more unique is to actively remove potential content through your decisions. Instead of your choices activity effecting the events of the game, allowing you to access more content (like in Fallout) and making each playthroughs feel distinctly different.

I don't mean to imply that DA:I has anywhere near the flexibility in storytelling provided by FO:NV, I merely meant to use that game as an example of how content has value based on what the consumer does with it.  Using or ignoring content in a game serves a purpose, whereas the content has little value in and of itself until the gamer decides what they want to do with it.  That is what separates games from non-interactive media such as books or movies, and what separates linear from non-linear games.  If DA was a series that began as a mainly linear experience with a fixed party setup, then I'd have nothing to object to.  However, since it didn't start that way, and since the first game in the series to attempt this (DA2) was flawed at best, I don't think it's necessarily the best direction for the franchise to go in.  Of course, had they gone in such a direction, DA:I would be a totally different game with a totally different plot.  Whether that would have been a good thing or a bad thing, we'll never know.

[Korva]

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.

 

What Ryzaki said, especially the bits about reading a book instead if I had even less input than we already do, and about the sheer annoyance of having certain NPCs glorified to the detriment of both my own character and other NPCs. It definitely does not help my immersion if the oh-so-glorious leaders that we supposedly play don't even have enough actual authority to decide whose company they keep. This is especially true if a character has "shady" or "selfish" or "traitor" written all over them and you're STILL forced to meekly traipse after them like they ran the show and then be all pretend-shocked when, surprise surprise, they do turn out to be shady, selfish or traitorous.

 

Characters drive a story, but in an interactive medium, so does the player. If we shell out 60+ Euros/Dollars/whatever, the least we can expect is to have at least the flimsy illusion that we actually have a choice in what's going on instead of being forced to play clueless, spineless wimps just so the NPCs can shine no matter how little sense their presence makes and how intolerable it is. Writers can't force or even expect the audience to like their characters, that feeling has to be earned ... and force is the single most counterproductive course of action towards that goal.

 

(And that's without considering the RPG angle, where we can choose to play a character who does not get along with characters we adore, just for variety's sake.)

 

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.

 

I honestly don't understand how that is supposed to help. A protagonist and companion doing nothing but p*ss, crap and vomit contempt and abuse all over each other for an entire game, without one side or the other deciding that enough is enough and ridding themselves of the problem in one way or another, makes no sense at all and is immensely irritating to suffer through. It also does both characters a disservice by making them look like they're all big-mouthed blather but no spine to actually stand up for themselves and their beliefs and do anything about the source of their hostility.

[javeart]

(...)

 

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.

 

(...)

 

That is the only objection to mandatory companions that I agree with. If you're stuck with someone, it'd be nice to have alternatives to friendship. But I'd rather sacrifice having more companions, so the ones we got could get some more content, and that, ideally, would mean not only having more dialogues, but also having more choices in dialogues, so that you could have different kinds of relationships with any of them. Well, ideally for me, of course 

 

It's true though, that in some cases it woul be hard to justify (reasonably) why X should work with you no matter what. But if they can come up with a reason why, I'm fine with it. For me it's far more important for RP having the option to have different relationships with each compannion than just having the option to not recuit them.

[KaiserShep]

I'd prefer the writers not give us a barrage of terrible contrivances to make every single companion super relevant to the plot, which I'm very certain would happen if everyone was written to have some key role throughout the story.

[esh1996]

I'd prefer the writers not give us a barrage of terrible contrivances to make every single companion super relevant to the plot, which I'm very certain would happen if everyone was written to have some key role throughout the story.

The reason why these characters have joined the inquisition is because the inquisition is a cause which they believe in, whether they want to help save the world or they've secretly joined for their own personal gain (*cough* Vivienne *cough*). The reason behind their involvement with the inquisition could easily be translated into an appropriate role in the story which they could fill.

[esper]

No I don't think so.

 

Personally I think that having one or two mandatory companions is fine, but no more. Cassandra helped found the Inqusition, Solas is the Fade expert who joined before you, Varric was taken prisoner and cannot walk away in good conscience? All right I can buy that, but more than that and we a pushing it.

 

Sometimes it just doesn't make sense for a character to keep helping you out and they can be important to the plot without being forced on you:

 

Take Isabella in da2. Not just can you not recruit her, you can never meet her despite her being very important to the plot so there is no need to force companions on the PC. 

 

I keep seeing Vivienne should have been a better part of Wicked Eyes, but that has nothing to do with her being mandatory.

 

The sad fact of Vivienne is that she is just not so relevant as she would have us believe. Wherever that is a failing in the writing or a point of the character, I don't know.(I think her greatest fear is being irrellevant so perhaps it is a point).

 

Blackwall has a fine amount of dialog if he is brought along for the "Abyss" - chain. He comments on the wardens in Crestwood, I cannot remember if he has anything to say on the first venture into the approach, but he definitly has thing to do in Adamant. He has a "persuade" option and he can be exiled along with the other wardens. 

 

Having a character be mandatory is not the same as them being written good into the plot.