106 réponses à ce sujet

[Nomen Mendax]

I like the idea of having companion centred missions. But I'd like it possible to have them end badly for your relationship with the companion; Zaeed's probably being the best example of this. Generally in ME 2 if you did the loyalty quest then you got the companion's loyalty whether you wanted it or not. The same thing applies to the companion quests in DAI (I'd have loved to have been able to find Vivienne's tomes and then sell them, for example). In ME 2 this meant that it was pretty easy to get the best ending in the suicide mission just by completing game content - which I intended to do anyway since I paid for it! 

 

I'd like to be able to complete all of the content related to a companion regardless of their approval (romances excepted) and I'd like companion quests to have the possibility of both positive and negative consequences.

[Feybrad]

Yes. Approved.

[Nitrocuban]

I think companion related missions should be (optional) sidequests on a primary story mission.

As much as I loved ME2, with the Collector threat in mind the totally unrelated loyalty quests for every squadmate felt a little forced.

[SnakeCode]

I'd actually like them to switch it up a bit. Instead of recruiting a bunch of misfits with nothing in common, and having to earn their trust, respect and loyalty like every party based rpg ever. I'd actually like to already have an experienced team that are loyal to you from the start. That's not to say I wouldn't want companion quests, but maybe not have that companion's loyalty being the end goal. I just think it'd be an interesting dynamic to have a squad that is already assembled and loyal from the get-go.

[Abraham_uk]

Loyalty missions are fun, however they're a little silly when you think of it.

 

 

Miranda: Hey Shepard. I like you. Do you know what would really make you like me?

Shepard: What?

Miranda: If you got involved in my personal affairs and dealt with a convoluted situation involving my father.

Shepard: Umm... Sure. I'll add that to my really long list of missions for each of my squad. Hey Joker. We have more daddy issues to resolve.

Joker: Yeah Shepard. Are we ever going to deal with this Collector problem? What about that giant swarm of Reapers coming for us?

Shepard: I need to earn their loyalty first.

Joker: Your word is gospel, Shepard. I just think we're wasting time. That's all.

[Nomen Mendax]

I'd actually like them to switch it up a bit. Instead of recruiting a bunch of misfits with nothing in common, and having to earn their trust, respect and loyalty like every party based rpg ever. I'd actually like to already have an experienced team that are loyal to you from the start. That's not to say I wouldn't want companion quests, but maybe not have that companion's loyalty being the end goal. I just think it'd be an interesting dynamic to have a squad that is already assembled and loyal from the get-go.

I don't have a problem with that, although if they went that route I'd like there to be at least a couple of companions who were added to your team, particularly if they had an impact on the team dynamic. That, and make it possible for them to die (but that's another thread).

[Cyonan]

If they're gonna do consequences, I think I would prefer if you couldn't Paragon/Renegade dialogue option your way out of it like you could for most of the ones in Mass Effect 2.

[BabyPuncher]

If they're gonna do consequences, I think I would prefer if you couldn't Paragon/Renegade dialogue option your way out of it like you could for most of the ones in Mass Effect 2.

 

And why not?

[dreamgazer]

Loyalty missions are fun, however they're a little silly when you think of it.
 
Miranda: Hey Shepard. I like you. Do you know what would really make you like me?
Shepard: What?
Miranda: If you got involved in my personal affairs and dealt with a convoluted situation involving my father.
Shepard: Umm... Sure. I'll add that to my really long list of missions for each of my squad. Hey Joker. We have more daddy issues to resolve.
Joker: Yeah Shepard. Are we ever going to deal with this Collector problem? What about that giant swarm of Reapers coming for us?
Shepard: I need to earn their loyalty first.
Joker: Your word is gospel, Shepard. I just think we're wasting time. That's all.

The brilliance of ME2's plot is the gift that keeps on giving.

[Cyonan]

And why not?

 

Consequences are pointless if the game lets you overturn them.

[BabyPuncher]

The brilliance of ME2's plot is the gift that keeps on giving.

 

You really do struggle with grasping the concept of 'characters need to have conflicts' don't you?

[BabyPuncher]

Consequences are pointless if the game lets you overturn them.

 

It's not pointless at all. It's an enunciation of the player character's qualities. Ideally, anyway.

[dreamgazer]

You really do struggle with grasping the concept of 'characters need to have conflicts' don't you?

You really do struggle with the concept that character conflicts can be (far) more than daddy issues and contrived live-or-die loyalty mechanics, don't you?

[slimgrin]

 

 

I'd like to be able to complete all of the content related to a companion regardless of their approva

 

Terrible approach for a true RPG. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

[dreamgazer]

Consequences are pointless if the game lets you overturn them.

Especially if they're based on bipolar extremes like ME2's morality system.

[BabyPuncher]

You really do struggle with the concept that character conflicts can be (far) more than daddy issues and contrived live-or-die loyalty mechanics, don't you?

 

Is 'daddy issues' your magic little buzzword for when you whimper about personal conflicts? I certainly seem to see it often enough. As I correctly pointed out in the other thread, BioWare companions are very largely barred from participating in the central conflict and plot. That pretty much by definition leads to the scenario you were whining about just now, when yup, it turns out that content not related to the central plot isn't related to the central plot. How incredibly insightful of you. 

[Cyonan]

It's not pointless at all. It's an enunciation of the player character's qualities. Ideally, anyway.

 

If you're going to allow people to completely negate the consequence by using a mechanic that we all get automatically with absolutely no sacrifice, then the consequence was pointless to give us in the first place.

 

It's like the suicide mission. Once you know the correct answers it's got very little to do with your character and more of a question of "do you as the player want anybody to die?".

 

Even the most charming or intimidating person in the world can't avoid all consequences for their actions by yelling at people in blue or red.

[BabyPuncher]

If you're going to allow people to completely negate the consequence by using a mechanic that we all get automatically with absolutely no sacrifice, then the consequence was pointless to give us in the first place.

 

Even the most charming or intimidating person in the world can't avoid all consequences for their actions by yelling at people in blue or red.

 

First of all, it's completely silly to imply that the player can 'avoid all the consequences.' Even an absolute perfect playthrough the series, Shepard is still encountering setbacks and loss on many occansions.

 

More importantly, the idea here seems to be that the only legitimate narrative way to make progress is through 'sacrifice.' You have to 'sacrifice' to achieve anything. You have to 'sacrifice' to  move forward. Obviously it's legitimate to say you have to sacrifice to achieve some things, but you're acting as if you have to sacrifice to achieve anything. Where's the basis for this? It's not and never has been about sacrifice, it's about competence.

[dreamgazer]

Is 'daddy issues' your magic little buzzword for when you whimper about personal conflicts? I certainly seem to see it often enough. As I correctly pointed out in the other thread, BioWare companions are effectively barred from participating in the central conflict and plot. That pretty much by definition leads to the scenario you were whining about just now, when yup, it turns out that content not related to the central plot isn't related to the central plot. How incredible insightful of you.

Lots of blabbering and self-aggrandizing, no actual retort.

Conflicts can, and should, be about more than personal issues, many of which dealt with daddies and mommies in ME2. The number of character missions that don't involve those elements in the contrived loyalty missions is disappointingly low. The fact that they dictate who lives and dies in the Suicide Mission, and the fact that it's the only actual deviation story-wise in that mission until you get to Space Terminator, makes it even worse.

PS: I clearly am not the only one who views it this way.

[LordSwagley]

I like the idea of having companion centred missions. But I'd like it possible to have them end badly for your relationship with the companion; Zaeed's probably being the best example of this. Generally in ME 2 if you did the loyalty quest then you got the companion's loyalty whether you wanted it or not. The same thing applies to the companion quests in DAI (I'd have loved to have been able to find Vivienne's tomes and then sell them, for example). In ME 2 this meant that it was pretty easy to get the best ending in the suicide mission just by completing game content - which I intended to do anyway since I paid for it! 

 

I'd like to be able to complete all of the content related to a companion regardless of their approval (romances excepted) and I'd like companion quests to have the possibility of both positive and negative consequences.

I believe you can give Viv a regular Wiveryn heart for her boring "Loyalty Mission" but it does not really change anything. Maybe force us into more difficult situations such as...

 

-Marine Guy: Captain Pathfinder, my little Sister is on a ship that broke up in an asteroid field but there is one life-pod left. Its damaged but if my sister and the crew is in there...

-Captain Pathfinder: Of course! I'll reroute us there, then after we save her we'll bang ok?

-Pilot: Captain! There is a Quarian Vessel under attack! We can intervine but we have to act fast!

-Marine Guy:What about my sister?

-Quarian Crewmember: *Bursts In* Captain! We have to save that ship and crew! They have important data and stuff!

-Marine Guy: There may be as many as 30 crew members in that lifepod and that Quarian ship is mostly automated. Ten crew Max!

-Quarian Crewmember: That lifepod is not even broadcasting! They're Dead!

-Marine Guy: We don't know that! Captain please!

-Captain Pathfinder:...

 

Obviously it would alot better written that my poor excuse of an example but conflicting interests of squad members could ensure we're never best friends with everyone, creates conflict and tension between crewmembers and between the Player. Combine a couple Loyalty missions and make us choose between squadmembers. These could effect friendship and romance arcs too. Sort of like in ME2 between Jack and Miranda or Tali and Legion where they would argue and we'd have to pick sides (Only in ME2 they gave us a third option that made everyone happy) only now it would come in the form of a mission with no "3rd options". Just a suggestion.

[BabyPuncher]

Obviously it would alot better written that my poor excuse of an example but conflicting interests of squad members could ensure we're never best friends with everyone, creates conflict and tension between crewmembers and between the Player. Combine a couple Loyalty missions and make us choose between squadmembers.

 

What exactly is it you think this is supposed to accomplish, narratively?

[BabyPuncher]

Lots of blabbering and self-aggrandizing, no actual retort.

Conflicts can, and should, be about more than personal issues, many of which dealt with daddies and mommies in ME2. The number of character missions that don't involve those elements in the contrived loyalty missions is disappointingly low. The fact that they dictate who lives and dies in the Suicide Mission, and the fact that it's the only actual deviation story-wise in that mission until you get to Space Terminator, makes it even worse.

 

Simple logic isn't a retort for you, huh?

 

This really isn't that difficult to follow. If players are vehemently opposed to characters mandatorily being present on missions, vehemently opposed to companions being present and having very influential roles regardless of how they feel about them, vehemently opposed to not being able to kill or dismiss or at the very least ignore any character they don't personally like, you're going to have a very difficult time integrating even one or two characters heavily into the central plot and conflicts. Much less a half dozen or more of them.

 

I personally disagree. I think BioWare should heavily involve squadmates in the central conflicts, and if players don't like that 'their' character acts in a certain way, that's just too bad. But I seem to be in the minority there.

 

So where exactly do you imagine this leaves us? If we take away the possibilities involving characters and the central plot, I would say that leaves us with the possibilities not involving characters and the central plot. That seems pretty simple to me. That doesn't seem pretty simple to you?

[Nomen Mendax]

Obviously it would alot better written that my poor excuse of an example but conflicting interests of squad members could ensure we're never best friends with everyone, creates conflict and tension between crewmembers and between the Player. Combine a couple Loyalty missions and make us choose between squadmembers. These could effect friendship and romance arcs too. Sort of like in ME2 between Jack and Miranda or Tali and Legion where they would argue and we'd have to pick sides (Only in ME2 they gave us a third option that made everyone happy) only now it would come in the form of a mission with no "3rd options". Just a suggestion.

Agreed. I was going to mention the idea of conflicts between companions but omitted it for brevity. And yes, it would be nice to have some genuine zero sum conflicts where there wasn't a third way. Of course, the tricky part is making sure that the player doesn't feel rail-roaded into picking a side.

[BabyPuncher]

Agreed. I was going to mention the idea of conflicts between companions but omitted it for brevity. And yes, it would be nice to have some genuine zero sum conflicts where there wasn't a third way. Of course, the tricky part is making sure that the player doesn't feel rail-roaded into picking a side.

 

Once again, what is it that you think this accomplishes narratively?

[Feybrad]

Once again, what do you think this accomplishes narratively?

 

Tension. Conflicts. Guilt. Remorse. Character Motivations. The Feeling, that your Choices Matter.Things to talk about. Excitement.