Unless it's a ragtag group of civilians, I want them to continue to follow orders, but the only difference is that their disposition changes based on how much they agree or disagree with certain decisions. What I definitely don't want is a group of multistate characters in the first game, provided that they are going to carry over into another.
Influence on Squadmates and Crew
Débuté par
SojournerN7
, août 02 2015 03:18
Retour en haut
#27
Posté 03 août 2015 - 05:43
Cheviot
-
- Members
- 1 485 messages
While it'd be a great idea in theory, the example (there are plenty) of the paragon/renegade checks in the conflict between Jack & Miranda and Legion & Tali shows that most players aren't concerned about seeing the consequences of their choices play out but instead gaming the system to get the best result.
#28
Posté 03 août 2015 - 05:51
MrFob
-
- Members
- 5 413 messages
While it'd be a great idea in theory, the example (there are plenty) of the paragon/renegade checks in the conflict between Jack & Miranda and Legion & Tali shows that most players aren't concerned about seeing the consequences of their choices play out but instead gaming the system to get the best result.
Isn't that kind of a point in favor of an alignment system though?
One problem with the paragon/renegade system (and by far not the only one) was that - no matter which side you choose - choosing a persuasion option would always give you the winning result.
With an approval system, you can do more nuanced things. Once path may please character A but anger Character B, while the other one will be the opposite. There is no longer a perfect way to game the system and thus, the decisions can have more weight outside of the context of the win-mechanic.
I'd be all for it. And, give us the option to have all these effects play out invisibly in the background. At least DA:I got rid of the approval-meter but still, whenever you make a decision, you see on the side "Character X approval +4" or whatever. If that weren't there but characters would just behave differently, I think that would make the system much more dynamic and "life-like" if you will. You'll just have to decide what YOU actually want to do and then you'll just be confronted with the consequences eventually.
#29
Posté 03 août 2015 - 05:57
KaiserShep
-
- Members
- 23 847 messages
While it'd be a great idea in theory, the example (there are plenty) of the paragon/renegade checks in the conflict between Jack & Miranda and Legion & Tali shows that most players aren't concerned about seeing the consequences of their choices play out but instead gaming the system to get the best result.
Thats the nice thing about an approval system. Some characters may be set against a certain path while others are for it. Take Fenris and Anders. There's absolutely no way to keep their friendship high without leaving one or the other behind for most quests. You simply can't take both out at the same time and do something both will agree with most of the time.
#30
Posté 07 août 2015 - 07:04
sjsharp2011
-
- Members
- 2 676 messages
Yes and no. I like it when squad mates voice their opinions, but i hate it if they ignore me because I dont agree with them
yeah once you've made the decision as the commanding officer you'd want them to respect the decision even if they disagree with it. Because that's what life in the military is like. You have a chain of command and you have to follow it. The characters rcognised that Shepard was in command of the missions and therefore respected the decisions he/she made in the story . They obviously voiced concerns if they had any but knowing it was amilitary situation and that Shepard was a military comaander they knwe they should trust him/her to see them through.
