43 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

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.

Well, in that example, Wrex makes it clear that he's going to kill him, and he didn't seem to have any issues sassing C-Sec as if he was ready to just mow over them. If you brought him along, what happens afterward is kind of your fault. 

[BabyPuncher]

As I said. It's early in the game. It's possible that Wrex is the first new squadmate the player meets. It's completely natural the player want to try out the squad selection mechanic and see how it works. Punishing them for doing so is stupid.

 

The very least they could have done is a short scene with Ashley or Kaidan with them telling Shepard shouldn't bring Wrex to fist.

[AresKeith]

As I said. It's early in the game. It's possible that Wrex is the first new squadmate the player meets. It's completely natural the player want to try out the squad selection mechanic and see how it works. Punishing them for doing so is stupid.

 

The very least they could have done is a short scene with Ashley or Kaidan with them telling Shepard shouldn't bring Wrex to fist.

 

Then don't bring him when he clearly said he'll kill him, DUH

[The Hierophant]

As I said. It's early in the game. It's possible that Wrex is the first new squadmate the player meets. It's completely natural the player want to try out the squad selection mechanic and see how it works. Punishing them for doing so is stupid.

 

The very least they could have done is a short scene with Ashley or Kaidan with them telling Shepard shouldn't bring Wrex to fist.

As long as you have a hard save to reload from then you're good. 

[In Exile]

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!

 

I think it's a great idea. I don't have anything useful to add but wanted to echo how much I am in favour of it. 

[Evamitchelle]

The biggest example of this would be the deep roads in DA2, when bringing your sibling with or without Anders makes a pretty big difference. I personally like this approach, though I can understand why someone wouldn't.

[Miss Golightly]

One of the things from Dragon Age 2 that I liked was how having certain party members present could kind of change some outcomes. Some characters can help you avoid conflict, while others might act as the instigator. You could ask your party members for their opinions or even their assistance with something. I keep thinking about one quest where someone is being possessed by a demon or something, and you can ask Merrill if he's still possessed, and she'll tell you no. You can later report to the Templars that the character is no longer possessed because you tested and made sure. I thought that was neat.

 

Heck, having a certain character in your party could mean life or death for another character.

 

Spoiler

if you bring Bethany/Carver to the Deep Roads with you, she/he will die unless you have Anders in your party. If Anders is present, Bethany/Carver can become a Grey Warden and survive.

 

I think this could have a place in Mass Effect, certainly

[In Exile]

Then don't bring him when he clearly said he'll kill him, DUH

 

I thought that moment was absolutely hilarious, because they subvert the usual "NPC gives empty threat, but leaves choice up to player" trope. Laughed for a full minute when it happened. 

[KaiserShep]

I thought that moment was absolutely hilarious, because they subvert the usual "NPC gives empty threat, but leaves choice up to player" trope. Laughed for a full minute when it happened. 

Yeah, it was pretty funny, and I did kind of expect Wrex to shoot him but it still kind of took me by surprise. People were pretty annoyed when BioWare did that, yet again, with Sera. It was all the more reason for me to enjoy it.

[In Exile]

Yeah, it was pretty funny, and I did kind of expect Wrex to shoot him but it still kind of took me by surprise. People were pretty annoyed when BioWare did that, yet again, with Sera. It was all the more reason for me to enjoy it.

 

See, I thought with Sera is was obvious she was going to shoot an arrow in that guy's throat. I mean, she's volatile. And probably half-crazy. 

[KaiserShep]

See, I thought with Sera is was obvious she was going to shoot an arrow in that guy's throat. I mean, she's volatile. And probably half-crazy. 

 

Well, aside from that, the final interjection ends with a warning, but people are surprised that it ends in violence. My city elf Warden would have been proud. Another rotten shem bites the dust. 

[JedTed]

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 . 

 

More of this in Mass Effect!  My favorite part of Omega DLC was how my Engineer Shep could look like a bad ass by using his brains.

[Valkyrja]

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. 

 

Rather than locking people out of content if they don't have the right party the focus could be on completing the goal in different ways.

 

A quest could always involve you taking down a crime lord on the Citadel but Garrus could bluff your way into the compound, Tali could hack the security and get you in through the vent system, and Grunt, being Grunt, will just open fire at the entrance.

[BabyPuncher]

Rather than locking people out of content if they don't have the right party the focus could be on completing the goal in different ways.

 

A quest could always involve you taking down a crime lord on the Citadel but Garrus could bluff your way into the compound, Tali could hack the security and get you in through the vent system, and Grunt, being Grunt, will just open fire at the entrance.

 

A much smarter idea would be actually giving the player all of those options and letting them pick instead of what is effectively randomly assigning them one based on which squadmate happens to be present at the moment.

 

It also allows players to accept which consequences occur. In this example, some players not actually want to gun down people if it can be avoided.

[Jester]

A much smarter idea would be actually giving the player all of those options and letting them pick instead of what is effectively randomly assigning them one based on which squadmate happens to be present at the moment.

 

It also allows players to accept which consequences occur. In this example, some players not actually want to gun down people if it can be avoided.

The choice comes when choosing squad for this mission in this example. It is not random. 

You have mission description and you get information on how squadmates can contribute.

 

The purpose of this idea is to show that companions can contribute in more ways than just in combat.

[In Exile]

A much smarter idea would be actually giving the player all of those options and letting them pick instead of what is effectively randomly assigning them one based on which squadmate happens to be present at the moment.

It also allows players to accept which consequences occur. In this example, some players not actually want to gun down people if it can be avoided.

Actually, the proper system is to create class-specific special options that can be triggered either by the player or the companion. An engineer PC and, say, Tali would both get the option.

[BabyPuncher]

Actually, the proper system is to create class-specific special options that can be triggered either by the player or the companion. An engineer PC and, say, Tali would both get the option.

 

No, that's actually an even worse idea than the original suggestion.

[In Exile]

No, that's really just as bad of an idea as the original suggestion.

How could having the same option open to two people be a "bad" idea. That's nonsense. If class is the driver behind the option then every member of that class should have the option.

[BabyPuncher]

First of all, because the player has no way of knowing which 'options' will be open when they pick the class. Just like they won't know which options will be locked or unlocked by taking certain party members unless the game tells them. Which is stupid enough on it's own, but for classes, the game can't tell the player which options will be unlocked for every single mission when they pick their class at the beginning of the game.

 

Second of all, because it compels the player into selecting a class they might not actually enjoy playing to get the story they want. Which is imbecelic game design. My preferred 'story' class is engineer, but I never play it because I don't like using the drones and turrets at all. I think the other classes are much more fun. Being compelled to play a class I don't like, to have less fun, a less enjoyable experience to unlock whatever story options I want to unlock is flatly stupid. There's only a 1/6 chance that the class a player actually wants to play is the one they think leads to the best story.