70 réponses à ce sujet

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I remember everyone dumping their problems on Shepard, especially in ME3. Shepard had no one to talk to. Shepard couldn't get a drink or god forbid have a smoke. I know they're discouraging this in games, TV shows, and stuff, but it was commonplace when I was growing up. The ship should at least have someone for the protagonist to confide in.

[Vazgen]

I remember everyone dumping their problems on Shepard, especially in ME3. Shepard had no one to talk to. Shepard couldn't get a drink or god forbid have a smoke. I know they're discouraging this in games, TV shows, and stuff, but it was commonplace when I was growing up. The ship should at least have someone for the protagonist to confide in.

Shepard can take a drink with Dr. Chakwas, Tali and Kaidan (if romanced). That's on the ship. On the Citadel Shepard can drink with Kaidan, James, Cortez and Ashley (Citadel DLC). Or just get wasted alone

[Winterking]

 Or just get wasted alone

And waking up next to Aria.

[Vazgen]

And waking up next to Aria.

Or in an elevator

[ZipZap2000]

Or in an elevator

With a Salarian.. 

[RanetheViking]

With a Salarian.. 

It could be worse than that. Say with  .. a dancing Vorcha.

[ZipZap2000]

It could be worse than that. Say with  .. a dancing Vorcha.

If i woke up with a dancing Vorcha I'd want to hear about how this all happened from an Elcor. 

[RanetheViking]

If i woke up with a dancing Vorcha I'd want to hear about how this all happened from an Elcor. 

Badassfully: 'What happens on Omega,stays on Omega."

Badassfully, but with humour and envy: "Damn dawg!! You the man!"

[CrutchCricket]

BioWare's reworked the approval system since Origins, and they got rid of being able to spam bribes to companions in DA2 and Inquisition.

 

Never played Dragon Age but spamming gifts, lame and repetitive as it was, had its uses in TOR.

 

I'm pretty iffy about this approval concept in general. On the one hand squadmates acting more realistically is a fine thing. But if you tie this into story decisions I'm worried it may actually hamper RP and players' choices being intrinsic to themselves. In the aforementioned TOR more often than not I found myself only picking the convo options that gave me affection with my companion and I'd often redo a convo if an option I picked had a huge negative affection gain. Now granted, that system was fairly weak as affection could only really go up and all companion content was gated to different thresholds but even in the context of Mass Effect, locking out certain squad content based on story might hamper the story experience more it would enhance the squad experience.

 

Actually a concrete example is the Miranda-Jack fight in ME2. Putting aside the dumb paragon/renegade mechanics that locked out "making peace", I would really have liked to be able to tell Miranda to be the bigger woman. But oh wait a minute, if I do that, the romance is off the table. The loyalty can be regained, but not the romance. Which ultimately reflects bad on the character, really. Because she is supposed to be the more rational and collected woman, and oh also I just saved her sister from what she considers a fate worse than death. But now that apparently matters less than some petty argument that shouldn't even have gotten that far. My RP is hampered (I can't make the choice I think my character would make) and in this case even the characters in question are negatively impacted.

 

Sure maybe the scenario could be tweaked to be better but I think my point is to stay away from the extremes, especially if you're taking it out of the direct interactions between the squadmate and you and avoid lockouts as much as possible or provide multiple paths around them. Obviously if you want to tell a squadmate to ****** off, the cause, effect and intent is all there. I have no problems with that. And even the squadmate wanting to tell you to ****** off is ok as long as there are ways to curb or diffuse it.

 

Otherwise I never thought the size of the squad was an issue. The problem with 12 squadmates wasn't the content. It was their expendability in the second installment that brought the whole thing down. But if you must narrow it down, I'd prefer a swap system where even if you only have 6-8 active slots, you still have a larger cast to fill them with. Which may also help with this approval business. If you want to go all psycho, pick a squad that'll support that. Despite everything that's happened, Bioware's strength is still characters. This shouldn't be a problem for them. In fact I'd go so far as to say it'd be the solution.

[Pasquale1234]

Never played Dragon Age but spamming gifts, lame and repetitive as it was, had its uses in TOR.

I'm pretty iffy about this approval concept in general. On the one hand squadmates acting more realistically is a fine thing. But if you tie this into story decisions I'm worried it may actually hamper RP and players' choices being intrinsic to themselves. In the aforementioned TOR more often than not I found myself only picking the convo options that gave me affection with my companion and I'd often redo a convo if an option I picked had a huge negative affection gain. Now granted, that system was fairly weak as affection could only really go up and all companion content was gated to different thresholds but even in the context of Mass Effect, locking out certain squad content based on story might hamper the story experience more it would enhance the squad experience.

I never quite understood the aversion to gift mechanics a lot of people expressed. It's simple, quick, easy, cheap, entirely avoidable, and allows players to make major plot point decisions without needing to worry about companion's reactions. I've yet to see an alterative that didn't come with another set of drawbacks.
 

Actually a concrete example is the Miranda-Jack fight in ME2. Putting aside the dumb paragon/renegade mechanics that locked out "making peace", I would really have liked to be able to tell Miranda to be the bigger woman. But oh wait a minute, if I do that, the romance is off the table. The loyalty can be regained, but not the romance. Which ultimately reflects bad on the character, really. Because she is supposed to be the more rational and collected woman, and oh also I just saved her sister from what she considers a fate worse than death. But now that apparently matters less than some petty argument that shouldn't even have gotten that far. My RP is hampered (I can't make the choice I think my character would make) and in this case even the characters in question are negatively impacted.

A better solution would be much more expensive to implement. I found myself playing ME2 for P/R points - instead of playing what my character would choose - so I could navigate those moments and get the desired outcome.
 

Otherwise I never thought the size of the squad was an issue. The problem with 12 squadmates wasn't the content. It was their expendability in the second installment that brought the whole thing down. But if you must narrow it down, I'd prefer a swap system where even if you only have 6-8 active slots, you still have a larger cast to fill them with. Which may also help with this approval business. If you want to go all psycho, pick a squad that'll support that. Despite everything that's happened, Bioware's strength is still characters. This shouldn't be a problem for them. In fact I'd go so far as to say it'd be the solution.

It could be - but let's not forget that ~ 80% of the content of ME2 was all about squadmate recruiting and loyalty missions. Building the squad was the focus of most of the game, and where they invested most of the resources in its development. That isn't always going to be the case - and the more squaddies available, the less content each of them will receive.

The other thing developers need to consider with any sort of branching content is that most players will never see a lot of it. It stands to reason that they would prefer to invest more resources in the main paths that every player will experience than in creating lots of other alternatives.

So - although I like the idea of having more potential squadmates than active slots, I'm afraid the net result would be squadmate breadth instead of the depth we've come to expect from Bioware characters.

[Vazgen]

I never quite understood the aversion to gift mechanics a lot of people expressed. It's simple, quick, easy, cheap, entirely avoidable, and allows players to make major plot point decisions without needing to worry about companion's reactions. I've yet to see an alterative that didn't come with another set of drawbacks.
 

The bolded part is the negative about the gift system. Companion approval/disapproval no longer matters since you can always give them something and make them adore you. I think player needs to live with the consequences for his choices, including companion opinions on his character. Being able to influence them with gifts removes the impact of those approval/disapproval points, at least for me.

[Pasquale1234]

The bolded part is the negative about the gift system. Companion approval/disapproval no longer matters since you can always give them something and make them adore you. I think player needs to live with the consequences for his choices, including companion opinions on his character. Being able to influence them with gifts removes the impact of those approval/disapproval points, at least for me.

One of the features of the gifting systems I've seen is that they are entirely optional.

It would be great if there were other ways to patch up relationships and/or establish ideologies, but the systems we've seen in games thus far tend to be a pretty simplistic duality. For a PC to have an in-depth conversation with followers wrt ideology and/or the motives behind a choice is something I don't really expect in a game.

Writers tend to assume motives behind any action a PC might take, and assign P/R or follower approval accordingly. The options you're given are also very limited by necessity; they can't possibly implement everything a character might do in any given situation. Yet there are enough gray areas in these games where the motives behind an action aren't so clear-cut.

DA2 tried to ameliorate some problems by using a friendship/rivalry system wrt followers. It was still 2 opposite ends of the same scale, and the measure of 'loyalty' depended upon how close to either end of the scale you were.

I've seen suggestions of a twin meter system, where one scale would measure follower agreement with PC ideology and the other would measure how the PC treated them personally. That can also be very limiting, and requires the writers to make a lot more complex decisions about point assignment.

The ups and downs of personal relationships are pretty darned hard to model in a game.

[Vazgen]

One of the features of the gifting systems I've seen is that they are entirely optional.

It would be great if there were other ways to patch up relationships and/or establish ideologies, but the systems we've seen in games thus far tend to be a pretty simplistic duality. For a PC to have an in-depth conversation with followers wrt ideology and/or the motives behind a choice is something I don't really expect in a game.

Writers tend to assume motives behind any action a PC might take, and assign P/R or follower approval accordingly. The options you're given are also very limited by necessity; they can't possibly implement everything a character might do in any given situation. Yet there are enough gray areas in these games where the motives behind an action aren't so clear-cut.

DA2 tried to ameliorate some problems by using a friendship/rivalry system wrt followers. It was still 2 opposite ends of the same scale, and the measure of 'loyalty' depended upon how close to either end of the scale you were.

I've seen suggestions of a twin meter system, where one scale would measure follower agreement with PC ideology and the other would measure how the PC treated them personally. That can also be very limiting, and requires the writers to make a lot more complex decisions about point assignment.

The ups and downs of personal relationships are pretty darned hard to model in a game.

Personally I would prefer having no way to patch relationships than to have "give an item, become adored" system, even if completely optional. I now don't use gifts in DA: Origins but it takes away from the impact of choices, just as an option to save everyone in the Suicide Mission takes away from the impact of a squadmate death during that mission. 

Personally I would instead use a stage system when each squadmate has certain stages of relationship with the player and they switch stages up/down depending on your choices at certain major events in the storyline. Some events should have larger impact on certain characters, like, for example, Tali and quarian/geth choice. 

[Pasquale1234]

Personally I would instead use a stage system when each squadmate has certain stages of relationship with the player and they switch stages up/down depending on your choices at certain major events in the storyline. Some events should have larger impact on certain characters, like, for example, Tali and quarian/geth choice.

In order for that to work, squadmates would need to have vested interests in decisions the PC makes. That can put a whole 'nother set of requirements and limitations on characterizations and story events.

They do something similar in DA, where followers give approval / disapproval on PC choices - though it's usually just a few points at a time, rather than entire stages.

[Vazgen]

In order for that to work, squadmates would need to have vested interests in decisions the PC makes. That can put a whole 'nother set of requirements and limitations on characterizations and story events.

They do something similar in DA, where followers give approval / disapproval on PC choices - though it's usually just a few points at a time, rather than entire stages.

Yes, so the companions you acquire have some interest in the quest. It makes sense, doesn't it? Unless you recruit a mercenary who's only in it for gold and doesn't care about what you do, so long as he's paid. In that case, the relationship can develop in regular ME way - be nice and he likes you, be mean and he's strictly professional.

It all depends on a story and companions, of course. However, I do believe that it will lead to more interesting characters and larger roleplaying potential.

[CrutchCricket]

It could be - but let's not forget that ~ 80% of the content of ME2 was all about squadmate recruiting and loyalty missions. Building the squad was the focus of most of the game, and where they invested most of the resources in its development. That isn't always going to be the case - and the more squaddies available, the less content each of them will receive.

The other thing developers need to consider with any sort of branching content is that most players will never see a lot of it. It stands to reason that they would prefer to invest more resources in the main paths that every player will experience than in creating lots of other alternatives.

So - although I like the idea of having more potential squadmates than active slots, I'm afraid the net result would be squadmate breadth instead of the depth we've come to expect from Bioware characters.

Yeah, and ME2 gets most if not all of its cred from the very same team building. Maybe not the recruitment-loyalty mechanics specifically but it's actually the exact type of story Bioware's good at: very character focused, as opposed to plot focused. Less content per squad member doesn't matter if that content is used effectively. Case in point: Miranda in ME3 has more screen time than any other ME2 squadmate (except possibly Mordin and Legion) and yet most of it is empty and wasted.

 

The other measure of success I would argue is not even what's on screen but what could be on screen. The potential each character generates with every peek into their backstory or their perspective or the themes they evoke. ME2 again has this in spades. Kasumi is a click to talk DLC character but there's so much that could be done with her, with exploring her backstory as well as plugging her in various scenarios and figuring out how she'd react. This is all subjective of course, but I think you'll find that overall the ME2 crew is far superior in this respect to the ME1 crew. Thane introduces a whole new species with interesting predicaments. Samara is the only character that actually explores a facet of asari culture beyond their longevity. Grunt and Miranda bring up questions nature vs nurture, eugenics and what it means to be "created" (and it's a bloody crime the two never speak about it). What do the ME1 crew bring? Tali and Wrex are the only ones with comparable impact, once past the initial introduction to the world.

 

And if you're that idea starved, the combinations of squad mates alone should make for loads of exploration. Like I said before, what would Grunt and Miranda have to say to each other regarding their origins? What would the assassin say to the thief and vice versa? What does the justicar, order personified say to Subject Zero, chaos in the flesh?

 

Depth was certainly not sacrificed in ME2. It did it far better than ME1 or 3 (with some exceptions).

[Pasquale1234]

Yes, so the companions you acquire have some interest in the quest. It makes sense, doesn't it? Unless you recruit a mercenary who's only in it for gold and doesn't care about what you do, so long as he's paid. In that case, the relationship can develop in regular ME way - be nice and he likes you, be mean and he's strictly professional.

The storylines we've seen thus far have to do with saving the galaxy from Saren/Sovereign, Collectors, Cerberus/Reapers, so pretty much everyone would have a vested interest in it.

Individual quests are a different deal.
 

It all depends on a story and companions, of course. However, I do believe that it will lead to more interesting characters and larger roleplaying potential.

It depends to some degree on how you roleplay. The more defined NPCs become, the fewer roleplay options I have.

I think the Quarian/Geth decision is a great example wrt how the various companions might react. If both are considered to be sentient species equally deserving of ongoing existence, then how would the writers define follower's reactions?

- Could be purely pragmatic if you believe one side would provide stronger support in the reaper war.
- Could be friendship based, for those characters who have developed some affection with Tali (or Legion) in the course of the trilogy.
- Could be based on choosing organics or synthetics
- Could be based on specific actions taken by Quarians or Geth

In a decision like this, I think the game would need to provide notification of not only approval/disapproval changes, but also the reasons for the follower's reactions to the PC's decision.

Where the game needs to provide x opportunities to gain or lose approval, the writers would need to assign a reaction to every follower, which tends to make them much more black/white, less flexible, less nuanced. In such cases, characters can become more like archetypes than actual people - because actual people are nuanced and don't always have strong opinions about everything.

Different strokes, I suppose.

[CrutchCricket]

Personally I would prefer having no way to patch relationships than to have "give an item, become adored" system, even if completely optional. I now don't use gifts in DA: Origins but it takes away from the impact of choices, just as an option to save everyone in the Suicide Mission takes away from the impact of a squadmate death during that mission. 

Personally I would instead use a stage system when each squadmate has certain stages of relationship with the player and they switch stages up/down depending on your choices at certain major events in the storyline. Some events should have larger impact on certain characters, like, for example, Tali and quarian/geth choice. 

I disagree. Again, I feel that rather than enhancing both sides, you just tip it too far in favor of companions/squad/whatever. It doesn't make choices more meaningful, it railroads them. What was the most asked for thing for ending DLC? Squadmate reunions, epilogue slides, closure. What was the Citadel DLC if not Dick Around with Squadmates: The Game?

 

Not many people will admit it but squad mates (at least the Bioware variety) become far more important to players on an emotional level than whatever plot they happen to be in. So if you make plot decisions influence them, to the point that their relationships irrevocably rise and fall with them, then squadmate approval is what will dictate how the story unfolds, not RP or player choice. For corroboration, look no further than everybody who said "Screw the geth and EDI I pick destroy so I can reunite with [insert LI here]".

 

And I can personally confirm that zero impact was lost the first time I played the SM and lost Legion and Zaeed, at four in the morning on a Sunday, having to go to work the next day, which I did, on two hours of sleep and I felt fine. And for no reason in particular compare the Virmire decision which was super easy for me since I never cared about Kaidan. Forced death or similar events don't automatically add anything. They can piss you off or breeze by you unnoticed. Characterization is king.

[Vazgen]

 

The storylines we've seen thus far have to do with saving the galaxy from Saren/Sovereign, Collectors, Cerberus/Reapers, so pretty much everyone would have a vested interest in it.

Individual quests are a different deal.
 

It depends to some degree on how you roleplay. The more defined NPCs become, the fewer roleplay options I have.

I think the Quarian/Geth decision is a great example wrt how the various companions might react. If both are considered to be sentient species equally deserving of ongoing existence, then how would the writers define follower's reactions?

- Could be purely pragmatic if you believe one side would provide stronger support in the reaper war.
- Could be friendship based, for those characters who have developed some affection with Tali (or Legion) in the course of the trilogy.
- Could be based on choosing organics or synthetics
- Could be based on specific actions taken by Quarians or Geth

In a decision like this, I think the game would need to provide notification of not only approval/disapproval changes, but also the reasons for the follower's reactions to the PC's decision.

Where the game needs to provide x opportunities to gain or lose approval, the writers would need to assign a reaction to every follower, which tends to make them much more black/white, less flexible, less nuanced. In such cases, characters can become more like archetypes than actual people - because actual people are nuanced and don't always have strong opinions about everything.

Different strokes, I suppose.

I guess so. Take the same quarian/geth example. If your decision results in Tali's death, members of the crew who knew her react accordingly, but they never change their opinion of Shepard. If, say, Garrus thought less of Shepard for that decision, it would've been better, no? 

The way companions react comes from their backstories and personalities that are established by the writers. For example, Javik would never mourn the geth and approves of their destruction. EDI, on the other hand does not. It does not really make them less flexible, no? There is still a lot of room for character development between the stages. 

 

I disagree. Again, I feel that rather than enhancing both sides, you just tip it too far in favor of companions/squad/whatever. It doesn't make choices more meaningful, it railroads them. What was the most asked for thing for ending DLC? Squadmate reunions, epilogue slides, closure. What was the Citadel DLC if not Dick Around with Squadmates: The Game?

 

Not many people will admit it but squad mates (at least the Bioware variety) become far more important to players on an emotional level than whatever plot they happen to be in. So if you make plot decisions influence them, to the point that their relationships irrevocably rise and fall with them, then squadmate approval is what will dictate how the story unfolds, not RP or player choice. For corroboration, look no further than everybody who said "Screw the geth and EDI I pick destroy so I can reunite with [insert LI here]".

You have a point, but don't you at least agree that the quest should influence the squadmate opinions of the player character? Major decisions are going to affect them as well, at least if they are at the same scope as in the trilogy (genophage, quarian/geth conflict). 

When you say that squadmate approval will dictate how the story unfolds, is it really that bad? Think of it, when a player roleplays a certain character, that character has a certain personality and values. Naturally, if those personality and values coincide with those of a squadmate, they should grow closer to each other, no? As an example, take a synthetic-hater roleplay. Will such a character be closer to Javik or EDI? And will the player care about EDI's or Javik's approval when picking a side at quarian/geth conflict? 

[Pasquale1234]

<snip>

I don't disagree with the points you've raised. They can certainly continue to have huge squads if that's where they want to spend the word budget.

But if the budget for followers is smaller because they're planning a story that requires a lot of development outside of interaction with squadmates, I'd prefer fewer characters with more content each over lots of characters with minimal content each.

[themikefest]

As I posted on the first page, I like to see a disapproval/approval system applied to both the main character and the crew/squadmates not just in dialogue, but action as well.

 

Like when facing Ashley/Kaidan. Why didn't the squadmates spaek up when Udina showed evidence of him/her shooting the councilor? I would award those squadmates -100 points and most likely have them removed from my ship. They don't care and can't be trusted. 

 

The same can be said when rescuing the ex-cerberus scientists. Interesting that it ends up being Dr.Cole that helps Shepard to the shuttle and Jacob/replacement guy providing cover fire. What happened to the ME3 squad? Again I would give them -100 disapproval points and possibly having them taken off my squad and removed from my ship. Too bad they Dr.Cole and Jacob/replacement guy can't be on the squad. Wait a minute. Jacob was a squadmate, but because he could be dead in ME2, he didn't qualify to be on the ME3 squad.

[CrutchCricket]

You have a point, but don't you at least agree that the quest should influence the squadmate opinions of the player character? Major decisions are going to affect them as well, at least if they are at the same scope as in the trilogy (genophage, quarian/geth conflict). 

When you say that squadmate approval will dictate how the story unfolds, is it really that bad? Think of it, when a player roleplays a certain character, that character has a certain personality and values. Naturally, if those personality and values coincide with those of a squadmate, they should grow closer to each other, no? As an example, take a synthetic-hater roleplay. Will such a character be closer to Javik or EDI? And will the player care about EDI's or Javik's approval when picking a side at quarian/geth conflict? 

I can agree there should be an impact and I would love to see conversations reflect this. I simply disagree with irreversible lockouts. Whether through a purely mechanical non-lore gift type system or, preferably through a more subtle conversational path the player should be able to make up lost ground if they so choose. In some cases a Virmire-level event might be needed in which case squadmates dying or leaving is appropriate. But that should be an exception, not a rule. Incidentally Wrex provides a good example for how to handle that. You take an action he's clearly against. But you can sway him back into the fold.

 

It need not only be through conversations either. Not every PC needs to be godly persuasive with everyone about everything. Actions can speak louder than words. If you have actions that condemn you in the eyes of a squadmate, why not the opposite as well? Why can't something you do later redeem you? Whatever the system, there needs to be multiple ways around each roadblock and multiple paths to victory. That actually provides more RP potential than a lockout. I've lost count of how many times people have listed specific conversation orders/squadmate combinations in order to avoid/ensure a particular line is said or avoided because of character reasoning. The overall result is the same, but there's different ways of getting there.

 

As for your example, opposites can also attract. What if I want to play a synthetic supporter who wants to convince Javik of the error of his ways? Or less ostentatiously, what if I really want to hear Javik's thoughts on the genophage but that conversation is gated to companion tier 3 affection and I'm screwed out of that because I agreed with EDI too many times?