69 réponses à ce sujet

[Sarielle]

I guess I don't get what your actual complaint is? You wanted a group of robots instead?



The personalities all feel believable to me. They're also varied enough that you, the PC, should get along with at least enough of them to fill a group no matter what personality you picked for your character.



If they all got along and all had some....I don't know what sort of personality you'd consider acceptable, actually, since you pretty much slammed every one of the companions'...the game would be infinitely less entertaining.

[Viktor McCury]

CptPatch wrote...

Alistair -_ whiny, pathetic, whiny, moronic, whiny
Morrigan -- arrogant, demeaning, arrogant, snide, arrogant, self-obsessed, arrogant
Leliana -- illusions of touched by the Maker, near-fanatic religious freak
Sten -- Overbearing authoritarian with a disdain for any culture not his own
Dog -- yappy and mindlessly dedicated  (If it wasn't for the fact he's so good at Fetch....)
Wynne -- demeaning know-it-all that insists that she is the only one that knows the Right Way to do things
Oghren -- drunkard, obscene, drunkard, gross, drunkard, brain the size of a peanut
Zevran -- amoral sociopath willing to kill anybody as qualm-free as killing bugs
Shale -- sarcastic, snide, sarcastic, overbearing Golem Supremecist
SPOILER -- _Any_ means justifies the ends; if anyone gets in your way, SOP is to kill them; "Only _I_ know what's best."

With assistants like these, the player has a strong motivation towards, "If you want something done right, do it yourself."

I have some different opinions about companions.

Alistair: trully whiny
Morrigan: arrogant...and sexy and powerfull
Leliana: Trauma girl, as a matter of fact I pity her specially after I discovered she was tortured.
Sten: A true warrior. He is confident and doesn't fear death.
Dog: Mindless dedicated as a dog should be.
Wynne: Dedicated to her cause and way of life.
Oghren: a vicious warrior.
Zevran: Being an amoral sociopath is a must for an assassin
Shale: Sarcarstic and really funny.

[Bratinov]

jsachun wrote...

Wyne is the only one who does not say anything annoying, besides Dog.

O rly?
Her constant responsibility speeches are the most annoying thing in the game. She expect you to be Jesus, if not ->disapproval. She has some nerve...<_<

I like Oghren. If you take him to the Guardian you learn hes a very sad little guy

Modifié par Bratinov, 27 janvier 2010 - 07:05 .

[AnniLau]

The only one I find especially irritating is Morrigan, and that's only when I have her in my party and she starts getting all disapproval-y over perfectly logical decisions.

"I shall save Redcliffe!" *Morrigan disapproves -10*  "And find the Urn of Sacred Ashes to save the Arl!" *Morrigan disapproves -10*  "Dude, they're not going to be very effective allies if they're all dead! *Morrigan disapproves -11,000*

If I leave her in camp and just rely on gifts and chit-chat, it's fine.

Modifié par AnniLau, 27 janvier 2010 - 07:08 .

[CptPatch]

Sarielle wrote...
If they all got along and all had some....I don't know what sort of personality you'd consider acceptable, actually, since you pretty much slammed every one of the companions'...the game would be infinitely less entertaining.

What I would expect from a group, in particular a militarily-oriented group are some realistic Group Dynamics.

What we are looking at throughout DA:O is a group model that looks like a spoked wagon wheel.  EVERYBODY bonds with the Hero to some degree, but there's next to nothing in the way of bonding between the companions.  If anything, _nearly_ all of their interactions between each other -- though funny as hell sometimes, actually would prompt them to keep their distance from one another.

Consider Zevran for instance.  He has the libido of a rabbit and his theme music should be "Double your pleasure, double your fun".  Given how charming and ingratiating he can be, he should be trying to get into the bedrolls of Leliana, Morrigan, and Alistair.  Instead, he only has eyes for the Hero.

Then there's Leliana and her bard/minstrel background.  She should be like the group's private USO show.  Instead, she just saves it all for the Hero.

And, and, and....

Usually, people thrown together in life-or-death situations usually form friendships that highlight their similarities instead of focusing on their differences which make them more standoffish from one another.  The closest thing that you have to friendship between companions is Wynne expressing her maternal instinct -- which is NOT so much creating friendships but rather positioning her in the role of Knower of What is The Right Thing to do in All Situations.  She's more of a chaperone than a friend to anyone.

Out of the entire group, the ONLY thing akin to friendship between companions that I've seen in 5 playthroughs is the relationship between Sten and Dog.  And that isn't so much friendship as it is just mutual respect.

[Sarielle]

CptPatch wrote...

Sarielle wrote...
If they all got along and all had some....I don't know what sort of personality you'd consider acceptable, actually, since you pretty much slammed every one of the companions'...the game would be infinitely less entertaining.

What I would expect from a group, in particular a militarily-oriented group are some realistic Group Dynamics.

Yeah except...minus maybe Alistair and Sten, none of them are really militarily trained. Oghren is a fighter, but doesn't seem like there's much of a military mind there; more like the raging barbarian horde type thing, which is big on individual prowess and not so much following orders.

We also have no idea what Sten's training was like, either. It could have been just as individualistic.

Alistair does follow you more or less; you can't blame someone for having a conscience. Most of his protests are along the lines of "hey, don't kill the nice lady protecting the kids!" after all. Dog is a dog, and of course he thinks whatever you do is awesome.

I'm not sure why you insist on thinking of them as a "military unit" when clearly, most of them lived highly individualistic lives beforehand.

This seems like trolling, honestly. You can't be expected to like -all- the characters, but when you're crapping on the dog's personality for pete's sake, something's amiss, lol.

EDIT: Did you edit, or can I just not read??

As for making friends...it CAN do that. Conflict and life or death can also bring out the worst in people. There are always those people who quarrel and squabble when things go south and yeah, you want to slap them both probably. 

EDIT EDIT: Apparently I also like the word "individualistic" today. Too lazy to edit it out

Modifié par Sarielle, 27 janvier 2010 - 09:19 .

[CptPatch]

Sarielle wrote...
Yeah except...minus maybe Alistair and Sten, none of them are really militarily trained. Oghren is a fighter, but doesn't seem like there's much of a military mind there; more like the raging barbarian horde type thing, which is big on individual prowess and not so much following orders.

We also have no idea what Sten's training was like, either. It could have been just as individualistic.
........
I'm not sure why you insist on thinking of them as a "military unit" when clearly, most of them lived highly individualistic lives beforehand.

Generally speaking, a group is "military" in its bearing if it is formed for the purpose of engaging in combat.  As this group and all its members KNOW that their purpose is to wade through a horde of darkspawn with objective of engaging the Blight's leader, the archdemon.  That _will_ entail a LOT of fighting and dying, with the distinct possibility that any of them may die at any time, AND that any of their lives may hinge on the performance of a companion that may be the only party member in a position to come to their aid at a given moment.  The bonding between members of such a group will have an element of "When I'm surrounded on all sides I do NOT want my companion thinking 'That's the jerk that's been making my life miserable!  Why should I save his bacon when I've already got enough here to keep me busy?"

You do NOT go out of your way to alienate your comrades-in-arms.

Ohgren may be a berserker, but he _has_ served with many Deep Roads expeditions and is renowned for having been THE outstanding performer in the Dwarven Warrior caste.

Sten has served in the Vanguard of the Qun (the Beresard) all of his adult life.  Once you get his Approval above 50 and explore all of the dialogue branches, that fact becomes abundantly clear.

Zevran has been trained as an Assassin since the age of seven.  Though the usual method involves an individual striking from Stealth, as Crows they were also trained to fight as units.  (As demonstrated in the introductory ambush.  Had the target not been so formidable, that ambush would have most likely been successful.)  You can eventually chat Zevran up and learn of some of the large-scale battles he has been in.

Alistair has been trained as a Templar since the age of ten.  In our world, they would most likely be equivalent to the Swiss Guards -- back during the era when the Popes actually went out on the battlefield to wage war.  Once, Vatican City was the capital of the Papal _States_.  The Templars are obviously modeled after those Church soldiers.  Then, for the last year, Alistair trained with the Grey Wardens.  That's like serving with the US Army Rangers, British SAS, US Navy SEALS, etc.

Dog was a wardog, bred to fight on the front lines of a military unit.  (Watch the combat videos to see how they perform.)  Though impressed on just one handler, such training would undoubtedly involve, "If you see one of our guys in trouble, help him out."  At a minimum, "Do NOT attack our soldiers."

Shale, as a golem, had been distinctly a member of the golem units the Dwarves once fielded, and prior to that as a member of the Warrior Caste.  She may have amnesia, but that is of her identity and personal history.  The ingrained habits and reflexes are those of a warrior.  For instance, it would not at all be surprising for an amnesiac soldier to not know his name, but still be able to field strip and reassemble a rifle while blindfolded.

All of these characters would be familiar with the concept that "You do NOT go out of your way to ****** off your buddies."  In fact, just the opposite.  You would try to make friends with them -- because some day your life _will_ be in their hands, and you want to be sure that they believe that your life is worth saving.

[knownastherat]

The devs wanted them to have "personalities" probably because it is the way consumers of their products want it. I believe they have done a decent job in this area, though I do not necessarily like the "personalities" which is irrelevant. Two different issues to me: Do I like them? Do they have, believable or interesting, personality?

[dkjestrup]

Shale and Sten get along well. Shale want's to join the Qun!

[Treason1]

The biggest thing I got out of reading this thread was that no one here really has much actual military training or experience at all, do they?

[Sarielle]

CptPatch wrote...

Sarielle wrote...
Yeah except...minus maybe Alistair and Sten, none of them are really militarily trained. Oghren is a fighter, but doesn't seem like there's much of a military mind there; more like the raging barbarian horde type thing, which is big on individual prowess and not so much following orders.

We also have no idea what Sten's training was like, either. It could have been just as individualistic.
........
I'm not sure why you insist on thinking of them as a "military unit" when clearly, most of them lived highly individualistic lives beforehand.

-stuff-

So...the gist of this is that you want them to get along? Why title your thread "Why are all the companions annoying?" then?

Seems like you started out on one thought and suddenly began arguing something totally different.

You still didn't really answer my question; what would you have preferred/done differently with their personalities then?


EDIT: Again, your points about Dog are what really make me scratch my head. You want him to not attack party members, and help them -- okay, he does that, he does precisely what his leader says (you), backs you in whatever you choose with no loss in approval regardless. In your first post, however, you complain that he's "mindlessly devoted." Uh...

Modifié par Sarielle, 28 janvier 2010 - 01:03 .

[CptPatch]

Treason1 wrote...

The biggest thing I got out of reading this thread was that no one here really has much actual military training or experience at all, do they?

[raises hand]  (Which probably accounts for why I think the Group Dynamics are waaayyyy off.)

[Sarielle]

CptPatch wrote...

Treason1 wrote...

The biggest thing I got out of reading this thread was that no one here really has much actual military training or experience at all, do they?

[raises hand]  (Which probably accounts for why I think the Group Dynamics are waaayyyy off.)

Is that also why you contradict yourself? 

[CptPatch]

Sarielle wrote...
So...the gist of this is that you want them to get along? Why title your thread "Why are all the companions annoying?" then?

Seems like you started out on one thought and suddenly began arguing something totally different.

You still didn't really answer my question; what would you have preferred/done differently with their personalities then?


EDIT: Again, your points about Dog are what really make me scratch my head. You want him to not attack party members, and help them -- okay, he does that, he does precisely what his leader says (you), backs you in whatever you choose with no loss in approval regardless. In your first post, however, you complain that he's "mindlessly devoted."

The word I used was "irritating", which is a tad beyond "annoying".  What I had in mind was the LARGE number of interactions where companions are obvious and deliberate about insulting each other.  Really, the way these people go at it, the length of the game should have been liberally littered with fistfights (or worse).

You can have a military unit, comprised of a mix of soldiers, each with his own unique personality.  AND their interactions would often be quite entertaining.  But here.... This seems more like an outing by a group of standup attack comedians (e.g. Don Rickles in his heyday).

What I would want is to see ....

Would be that after Morrigan tosses one too many barbs, somebody tosses some itching powder into her bedroll.
And after a few more cause-and-effect instances, she learns to curb her tongue.

Would be for Sten or Oghren to take Alistair aside and tell him to be a mensch.  And every time he starts whining again, somebody "accidently" spills a bucket of water on his head.

Would be for somebody to take Wynne aside and point out that by continually giving the Hero "advice", she's actually undermining his command authority in the eyes of everyone else in the group.  ("Does he let _everyone_ tell him what to do?  Maybe Wynne should be in command of this expedition?")

Would be for someone to remind Sten to "Deal with it.  You're not in Kansas (Par Vallon) anymore.  Things are NOT going to be like they were back home."

Would be to lay down the law and make a few examples of companions that clearly demonstrate that they do NOT work and play well with others.  (This is why in the regular military there are KP details.)

EDIT about Dog.  The thing that irks me about Dog, a wardog, is that it's impossible to abuse him to the point where his Approval drops below 100.  And this an "intelligent" dog?  At least as smart as your average tax collector?  All things considered, practically everyone in that Camp should be demanding that the Hero "shut that mutt up!"  But in regards to Dog's behavior, I'll readily agree that he is the one companion that the Hero can actually _always_ count on.  If Dog goes missing, the first thought would be, "Something must have happened to him!"  Any other companion goes missing and the first thought would most likely be, "I wonder if they've run off?"

[Sarielle]

I think the easiest answer to all that is it's for entertainment value, not to be terribly realistic. You're also looking at it from a military perspective...even "You" (the PC) presumably has not had any military experience, but you've got the lead anyhow.



...you might also be interested in the slap Morrigan mod for those times you think she needs to be put in her place. :B

[CptPatch]

Sarielle wrote...
Is that also why you contradict yourself? 

Still a lass will see what she wants to see and disregard the rest.....

I have _not_ contradicted myself.  As Walt Whitman said, "I contain multitudes".  It _is_ possible to be conflicted about someone or something, or to have more than one opinion about them.

Anyway, more than likely, any perceived contradictions may stem from a difference of definitions between you and I.  (And it doesn't help the discourse when you misquote me and then object to the misquote.)

Perhaps I should stress before we go further that I fully expect that opinion is more than likely to be an extreme minority opinion.  The interactions and conversations between companions ARE seriously entertaining.  It's just that in the scheme of things, I believe that despite being entertaining, they are VERY unrealistic.  Realism is important in a RPG to _me_ (and possibly a few others, maybe, perhaps, potentially).  To the vast majority of gamers, if entertainment is accomplished, mission accomplished, we need look no further.  So that's where the designers stop in the character development.  It would have been a LOT more work to make companions entertaining _and_ realistic.  If the large majority are satisfied, then our work here is done.

So don't feel obligated to prove me "wrong".  Settle for "Different strokes for different folks."  It's what I do, pretty much every....damn...day.

[CptPatch]

Sarielle wrote...

I think the easiest answer to all that is it's for entertainment value, not to be terribly realistic. You're also looking at it from a military perspective...even "You" (the PC) presumably has not had any military experience, but you've got the lead anyhow.

...you might also be interested in the slap Morrigan mod for those times you think she needs to be put in her place. :B

NOT a correction; just a reminder: Noble Human Warrior.  Undoubtedly has had martial training since an early age.

Seen some of those video clips.  Loved 'em!

[Sarielle]

CptPatch wrote...

Sarielle wrote...
Is that also why you contradict yourself? {smilie}

Still a lass will see what she wants to see and disregard the rest.....

I have _not_ contradicted myself. As Walt Whitman said, "I contain multitudes". It _is_ possible to be conflicted about someone or something, or to have more than one opinion about them.

Anyway, more than likely, any perceived contradictions may stem from a difference of definitions between you and I. (And it doesn't help the discourse when you misquote me and then object to the misquote.)

That was posted before you clarified about Dog. Not sure what the misquote is all about.

Has nothing to do witih proving wrong or agreeing to disagree...you think their interactions are unrealistic, so be it. I just like a little consistency.

EDIT EDIT: My job requires me to pick up on (and pursue) aforementioned inconsistencies. I can't really turn that off very well.

EDIT: You're correct, it would be more likely to have military experience for some origins than others.

Modifié par Sarielle, 28 janvier 2010 - 02:32 .

[CptPatch]

Sarielle wrote...

Check your PMs.

[MOTpoetryION]

because they are just like humans

edit great decriptions CptPatch to the tee, but like i said^^

Modifié par MOTpoetryION, 28 janvier 2010 - 03:48 .

[zykinwulf]

hope the companions in awakening are less annoying.

[ArathWoeeye]

Alistair -_ whiny, pathetic, whiny, moronic, whiny 

"moronic" is just irrelevant. He's not a stupid person, nor he is that childish. "Whiny" is just a very rude term. Losing the only person who he actually cared for, he tries to overcome his loneliness by sharing his feelings and thoughts. It's called a deep friendship. He may overdo it, but he is far from being pathetic.

Morrigan -- arrogant, demeaning, arrogant, snide, arrogant, self-obsessed, arrogant

By calling all companions irritating and having all negative judgements on them, I wonder who's more demeaning?

Leliana -- illusions of touched by the Maker, near-fanatic religious freak

Actually, she's much deeper than that. She's also aware of most of her so-called illusions. She just needs to believe in something, she's not a fanatic freak. 

Sten -- Overbearing authoritarian with a disdain for any culture not his own

With good reason too. Most of the time, if you actually see what he means, he makes a lot of sense. Not all of the time, but most of the time.

Dog -- yappy and mindlessly dedicated  (If it wasn't for the fact he's so good at Fetch....)

If he wasn't dedicated, you'd call him sinister and find him irrating anyway. But honestly, I think he should've started with a lower relation unless main character isn't a human noble.

Wynne -- demeaning know-it-all that insists that she is the only one that knows the Right Way to do things

She's not demeaning at all. She just shares her ideas. There are several occasions where she'll admit her mistakes. Not to mention she's following your orders, kinda falls in contrast with the "only-her-ideas-are-good" behaviour.

Oghren -- drunkard, obscene, drunkard, gross, drunkard, brain the size of a peanut

Well.. not much to say. But I don't think he's stupid, more of a simple-minded person.

Zevran -- amoral sociopath willing to kill anybody as qualm-free as killing bugs

So, your characters killings are justified?

Shale -- sarcastic, snide, sarcastic, overbearing Golem Supremecist

I'll stick with what Guardian says.


I've mentioned it once, but they just share their ideas with them. At the end of the day, they follow you. So Sten is aware it's not like his own country and despite how arrogant Morrigan is, she follows your lead. Alistair maybe "whiny", but he gives his best to aid you etc.

Modifié par ArathWoeeye, 28 janvier 2010 - 11:40 .

[MisterBellyButtonMan]

Well to look at it one way, these people decided to come along and help you. They are not obligated in any way to do anything for you. So other than a combat, these people will most likely tell you to take a flying leap if you ask them to do anything else, unless they like the idea themselves of course. You can ask anyone to leave too although I have not tried this.



If these characters were all somehow forced by some divine power to serve you perhaps it would be different. They act as a group of different people with different goals would act IMO. I suppose some of the background events that occur to get them into the group, like Zevran, is a bit unbelievable. Still, you do have the option to kill him and he will betray you if he doesn't like you enough.



Besides, if everything were "ultra-realistic" I wouldn't need to play the game since I can have "ultra-realistic" interactions with people much easier without playing the game and, you know, actually hanging out with people.

[ArathWoeeye]

I find them realistic enough for a game, no more, no less.

OP is RPing a sociopath I guess, looking at the characters from such a single-dimension.

[jylilaht]

I don't think companions were irritating but there was just too few options for picking. For example:

damage dealer mage = morrigan
healer = wynne

Where's my options to pick someone else if my character won't like either? Going through the campaign is very difficult without mage's AoE spells etc.

Then there's 2 rogue options:

the bard and assassin... -> My character was pretty much disgusted by both, except wanted to "jump" the bard.

Selection of warriors was nice, I just wish other base classes would've had as many options.