43 réponses à ce sujet

[Valkyrja]

It would be interesting if your class or who was in your party affected how you completed quests.

 

Some examples could be if Shepard was an engineer or brought Tali they could hack security systems on a mission. Or bringing Garrus would let you bluff your way past guards using his C-SEC credentials. A soldier class could blast an alternate entrance into a building.

 

In Dragon Age II, BW had a quest where you could defer to a party member, Varric, and avoid a fight. In another case bringing Fenris to a confrontation could unlock the option to duel the enemy leader.

 

Post your thoughts and ideas!

[AlexiaRevan]

I rather have it like in Omega DLC , an engineer could do something during the quest . But no other class could wich for me was such a wasted potentiel . For exemple when you go to rescue Jack and her student...you start hitting a window or watever with your rifle . I always though if you played a Biotic or a Vanguard you could charge trough it or blow it instead of Jack . 

 

I hope they add something like this , would be nice . It make the class you choose more meangful then just shoot and spam powers . 

[Duelist]

It would be interesting if your class or who was in your party affected how you completed quests.

Some examples could be if Shepard was an engineer or brought Tali they could hack security systems on a mission. Or bringing Garrus would let you bluff your way past guards using his C-SEC credentials. A soldier class could blast an alternate entrance into a building.

In Dragon Age II, BW had a quest where you could defer to a party member, Varric, and avoid a fight. In another case bringing Fenris to a confrontation could unlock the option to duel the enemy leader.

Post your thoughts and ideas!

Agreed. Flawed as DA2 was, party members and class selection (Rogue Hawke knife throw FTW) opening up different ways to approach a situation was a neat touch.

[MattH]

I'd love for class specific interrupts, from party members or protags. It irritated the hell out of me in ME3 when Shepard would just shoot their pistol at stuff (vanguard shep could have kept up with the Cerberus bot easy).

[phantomrachie]

I'd really like this. I enjoyed the additional dialogue options that bringing different party members along in DA2 & DA:I. It makes me think more about which party members I should bring along. Not only am I considering who to bring from a tactical point of view but also from a story point of view; which party member might have something to contribute in this quest.

[Valkyrja]

Agreed. Flawed as DA2 was, party members and class selection (Rogue Hawke knife throw FTW) opening up different ways to approach a situation was a neat touch.

 

The game had some nice touches like that. I remember how having Angry Hawke as your personality unlocked a different path (siding with Petrice) on the Qunari questline.

 

The Arishok took it in stride.

 

[Eelectrica]

Ideally quests should have more than one way to be resolved, so yes this would be a very good addition.

[KaiserShep]

I'd love for class specific interrupts, from party members or protags. It irritated the hell out of me in ME3 when Shepard would just shoot their pistol at stuff (vanguard shep could have kept up with the Cerberus bot easy).

 

Adrenaline rush could get soldier Shep to not only keep up but totally outrun the mech, but that results in a very irritating game over screen. 

[BabyPuncher]

Unless the player has some reasonable way of knowing which squadmates he's supposed to bring beforehand, it's a really stupid idea.

 

Getting punished because you were not able to magically sense what squadmates you were 'supposed' to bring is not good game design and even worse writing.

 

Minor effects might be acceptable, like maybe a character trusting you automatically because you have a certain character and saving you from having to run a short errand. But it should never be "You were supposed to bring this character and you didn't so this guy dies."

[KaiserShep]

I'm sort of conflicted. On the one hand, I like when companions contribute to quests in more than just passing commentary, but at the same time, it can sometimes be kind of irritating. In ME1, it was annoying when I went to get Wrex's family armor, but it was inaccessible because I required a more tech-y team, so I had to trek all the way back to get into the Mako to go back to the Normandy, and return with a team that would allow me to get it, meaning I had to drive all the way back for this crap. Wrex had some nerve pointing a gun at Shepard after running that kind of errand XD

 

The rest of the time, it was just crappy encrypted loot and terminals, many of which were missions I could just acquire some other way. 

 

But as far as dialogue goes, I can't say that I'm the biggest fan. Like, with Varric and the slaver that has Feynriel, that would've been a good case for a stat that allows us to unlock special dialogue to be more persuasive, rather than relying on a surprise addition that includes an optional companion, because in that case, it's just to showcase Varric being a good liar, but there's no reason why we couldn't build our PC to be a better liar too. Though I do adore the class-specific response to dealing with the slaver. Knife to the throat. Friggin' sweet, that is. 

[Valkyrja]

Unless the player has some reasonable way of knowing which squadmates he's supposed to bring beforehand, it's a really stupid idea.

 

Getting punished because you were not able to magically sense what squadmates you were 'supposed' to bring is not good game design and even worse writing.

 

Minor effects might be acceptable, like maybe a character trusting you automatically because you have a certain character and saving you from having to run a short errand. But it should never be "You were supposed to bring this character and you didn't so this guy dies."

 

When I made this topic I knew it would flush David's latest alt out in to open ground.

[Lady Artifice]

Unless the player has some reasonable way of knowing which squadmates he's supposed to bring beforehand, it's a really stupid idea.

 

Getting punished because you were not able to magically sense what squadmates you were 'supposed' to bring is not good game design and even worse writing.

 

From a less cynical perspective, it's not a matter of being punished for not magically knowing who is the best to bring, but a matter of using the context clues to potentially get an alternate, addition way through a situation. 

 

There are early hints in DA2 that Fenris has insight on Qunari, so it makes sense that he comes a bit in handy when dealing with them. There are surplus hints that, in the context of the universe, Varric is good at lying and gabbing his way through situations, so having him around might give you that option, but you might also be able to do so yourself. Bringing a mage (or a templar) to deal with magical phenomenon in Enemies Amongst Us, logically provides additional options. 

 

In the ME universe, if you're going in to deal with an AI situation, it would make complete sense that an AI expert would be a wise choice to take with. But that doesn't mean that you would be punished for not doing so, because you would still resolve the conflict and the quest. 

[BabyPuncher]

Inquisition is a good example of why this is a poorly thought out mechanic, and it didn't even go that far with it.

 

I always took a rogue with me because I didn't want to run into a stupid lock and have to go back. I couldn't stand Sera, so that meant Varric or Cole. I stuck with Varric, pretty much for the entire game, and all he ever seemed to say at important moments was a variation of "Gosh, this is so above my head. I have no idea what's going on."

 

Maybe if I had felt comfortable bringing Blackwall or Dorian along instead, I would have heard some better dialogue and I wouldn't think the writing was quite as unimpressive as I did.

[dreamgazer]

Unless the player has some reasonable way of knowing which squadmates he's supposed to bring beforehand, it's a really stupid idea.

Getting punished because you were not able to magically sense what squadmates you were 'supposed' to bring is not good game design and even worse writing.

Minor effects might be acceptable, like maybe a character trusting you automatically because you have a certain character and saving you from having to run a short errand. But it should never be "You were supposed to bring this character and you didn't so this guy dies."

How do you feel about situations where bringing a certain squad member leads to negative repercussions, such as Wrex and Fist in ME1?

[dreamgazer]

When I made this topic I knew it would flush David's latest alt out in to open ground.

Hell, I thought you did it specifically with that purpose in mind.

[SojournerN7]

Unless the player has some reasonable way of knowing which squadmates he's supposed to bring beforehand, it's a really stupid idea.

 

I think the suicide mission handled this well. For it to work in ME:A, there would have to be some kind of mission brief to give the player enough information to assign squad members best suited for the mission. 

 

I don't think it's a great idea to have missions where you can't take squad mate X ever since the repercussions are too negative, but I do like the idea of some level of consequence(s) that may accumulate for making poor decisions.

[KaiserShep]

Inquisition is a good example of why this is a poorly thought out mechanic, and it didn't even go that far with it.

 

I always took a rogue with me because I didn't want to run into a stupid lock and have to go back. I couldn't stand Sera, so that meant Varric or Cole. I stuck with Varric, pretty much for the entire game, and all he ever seemed to say at important moments was a variation of "Gosh, this is so above my head. I have no idea what's going on."

 

Maybe if I had felt comfortable bringing Blackwall or Dorian along instead, I would have heard some better dialogue and I wouldn't think the writing was quite as unimpressive as I did.

 

Origins and DA2 must've been quite irritating for you then, because without a rogue there, you're gonna get yourself snagged or set aflame by traps everywhere. Not to mention the plethora of locked doors and chests. In Inquisition, it was pretty much the mages that became vital to completing quests.

 

You did play DA:O and 2, right?

 

How do you feel about situations where bringing a certain squad member leads to negative repercussions, such as Wrex and Fist in ME1?

 

Hah, "negative"

[AresKeith]

Origins and DA2 must've been quite irritating for you then, because without a rogue there, you're gonna get your snagged or set aflame by traps everywhere. Not to mention the plethora of locked doors and chests. In Inquisition, it was pretty much the mages that became vital to completing quests.

 

You did play DA:O and 2, right?

 

He never really said if he did lol

[dreamgazer]

Hah, "negative"

Negative-ish. And I enjoy giving him grief on Omega, so yeah, negative. Ish.

[BabyPuncher]

From a less cynical perspective, it's not a matter of being punished for not magically knowing who is the best to bring, but a matter of using the context clues to potentially get an alternate, addition way through a situation.

 

In the ME universe, if you're going in to deal with an AI situation, it would make complete sense that an AI expert would be a wise choice to take with. But that doesn't mean that you would be punished for not doing so, because you would still resolve the conflict and the quest. 

 

In theory, that might work, but in practice, as people posting on the BioWare forum, we're probably paying more attention to the 'context clues' than 95% of the playerbase. These 'clues' would have to be clear enough that a player of mediocre and even outright low intelligence who is unfamiliar with the universe and video games in general has a reasonably good chance of solving them.

 

Let's take a look at your example. Supposed there was a mission in ME 2 that focuses on repairing an AI, like you said. You could easily argue that yes, you should take Tali because she's an expert. You could also argue that maybe because Tali does not trust AI at this point, she's the last person you should take and maybe taking her will cause the mission to fall apart. A developer could go either way.

 

I think you're really far underestiming the complexity of these 'clues.'

 

In the ME universe, if you're going in to deal with an AI situation, it would make complete sense that an AI expert would be a wise choice to take with. But that doesn't mean that you would be punished for not doing so, because you would still resolve the conflict and the quest. 

 

It certainly could punish the player if taking the 'right' character not only leads to an alternate but objectively better outcome. If it allows a 'third' option to a choice, for example.

[AlleyD]

I don't think its that stupid an idea. Having character skills and talents built into the script and having "optimum" team builds could be accounted for in a pre-mission briefing where the crew discuss the target location and the objectives for the mission. ME2 suicide pre-mission briefing sort of thing.

 

eg on an infiltration mission to capture an artifact from a heavily guarded facility may be set up for different tactical approaches and team selection in a mission briefing. One tactic coulc be a rush approach with heavy firepower units, or a more stealth based approach requiring different choices.

[Hadeedak]

I don't know if I'll be able to play a vanguard again. Obviously, I hope so with an unrivaled passion. And if, at any point, I have a conversational trigger that's vanguard charge....

 

Well. I would make such a noise of joy that it would probably shatter fishtanks.

[The Hierophant]

He never really said if he did lol

After all that time i thought David had finally played these games. LOL

[BabyPuncher]

How do you feel about situations where bringing a certain squad member leads to negative repercussions, such as Wrex and Fist in ME1?

 

Stupid. Unless, again, the player is reasonably able to tell they shouldn't bring this character beforehand.

 

This particularly example might (that's a might) have worked later on, but it was very early in the game, where the player is still getting used to the squadmate selection and such. And besides, it's natural to want to try out new squadmates when you get them. It screws players for trying out a character the story literally just gives to them, as players are naturally inclined to do. Very poor design.

[KaiserShep]

I don't know if I'll be able to play a vanguard again. Obviously, I hope so with an unrivaled passion. And if, at any point, I have a conversational trigger that's vanguard charge....

 

Well. I would make such a noise of joy that it would probably shatter fishtanks.

I'd pack my bags and move to Andromeda myself.