172 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's not. The combat isn't meant to be some form of simulation of reality, designed only as the barest representation of stylized reality. The goal is expressly not simulation: that's why you have party based controls, nonsensical mechanisms like HP, etc. When I say it is a gameplay contrivance, I mean it is designed with the goal of being something other than an accurate representation of reality, which includes the wholly impossible hive-mind control perspective.

Whereas dialogue is meant to be simulation.

I disagree. If the dialogue were a simulation, we'd have more freedom about what to say. That we're limited to choosing from a finite set of (vague) options necessarily renders the dialogue abstract.

Dialogue is every bit as much of a gameplay contrivance as the rest of the game is.

[Zeroth Angel]

Yes. I would have loved to play as our companions.

I was even kind of dissapointed when we couldn't do that after playing Dao.

[MrFob]

                                                                        <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

What reason do you have for thinking it becomes a fundemental change in gameplay?  The sole fact that I can take over squad member 2 who is less powerful than the squad leader? Come on, don't be silly.

 

Frankly, I found Shep to be way overpowered. I believe the reason was because Bio can't program a decent AI capable of controlling the squad mates in a good tactical manner ... ie: using their skill sets to max advantage in combat. To compensate, Bio had no choice but to increase Shep's offensive/defensive abilities.

 

If Bio can develop a AI script like in DAO for our two squad members, then there is little incentive to "switch" character in a fight. Until then, I want that option if ever I need it.

 

Just read what you just wrote. Your second paragraph answers the question you pose in the first. You want to control squad mates but then you also want changes made that will make it necessary to control them (for example, make the fights so difficult that you will not be able to handle it with AI companions but you have to switch). It's fair enough that you want it, after all, you do want to play as companions and if BW implemented the feature they would be wise to also design the game towards the use of it. However, this will necessarily mean that - in order to avoid the feature - I'll have to play the game with restrictions (be it lower the difficulty not making use of the level architecture properly, etc.). I don't want to do that, not with something as central to the game as combat. Therefore, in this instance, I am against the entire feature. That was exactly what I said in my previous post and I don't think I am being silly (at least not on purpose )..

 

Apart from that, if I were a level designer, once it is decided that companions can be controlled, I'd work with that in the level design. I'd start making levels that are allowing players to use the advantages of this control without having to rely on AI or line-of-sight- orders. I am talking about enemies in rooms with multiple entrances, so I can flank, different height levels where you can place your guys and have them snipe, ambushes etc. Think Rainbow Six games. This kinda stuff won't work without direct squad control because you couldn't effectively order your people to do it as they would have to be out of the line of sight of the protagonist. Now I am not saying that this stuff isn't cool, I am just saying that I realize that keeping in the skin of the protagonist demands compromises, which I am willing to accept right now for the benefit to immerse myself in the role of this one guy. Once this restriction falls away, the devs will use the new possibilities unless they are completely incompetent. And then my "option" as the player to ignore the new feature suddenly messes a lot with the gameplay. And no one would design such a central feature independent of the rest of the game.

 

BTW, I am not against AI scripts for companions, that would be a good idea. It's kinda like the protagonist and team discuss tactics before heading out.

 

BTW2: Maybe there is a compromise here. If there were a lore reason for this entire thing. Say, every team member has a helmet camera and my guy can access this camera and then give orders accordingly, that might work if it's done really really well. I am not sure though, would have to see the system to know if I'd be ok with it.

[Mdizzletr0n]

I'd definitely do it. Especially outside of combat, with companions that have skills or talents that I don't have or do as well. Hacking computers, unlocking doors, etc. The whole protagonist immersion thing already falls apart if I'm already locked into a character thats nothing that I would ever be and says nothing that I'd ever say like Shepard was/did.

[Mcfly616]

I don't want to control my companions. That would break the immersion of role-playing my character. 

 

 

What I do want is for my squadmates to do a much better job of following my orders and being something a little bit more than useless.

[KaiserShep]

I didn't think they were so bad in 3. In ME1 and 2 I had more trouble with various characters running around doing whatever they wanted, especially in 1, where characters would either freeze where they stood or run way ahead and take on a group of enemies solo, which was something Ashley loved to do on Feros with those krogan.

[Lady Artifice]

I get the "it breaks immersion" position, to a degree. But that's never been a problem for me with DA, and mostly I'm interested in maximizing my fun. If companions have unique abilities in combat, or even just different abilities from the protagonist, I'd love the chance to experience their perspective and test them out. 

[Hiemoth]

I get the "it breaks immersion" position, to a degree. But that's never been a problem for me with DA, and mostly I'm interested in maximizing my fun. If companions have unique abilities in combat, or even just different abilities from the protagonist, I'd love the chance to experience their perspective and test them out. 

 

It's a fair point for arguing for wanting things that maximize one's enjoyment, but I would point out that the systems in DA and ME are vastly different. ME3 is a TPS with a constant distance from the character, manual aiming of weapons and active cover mechanics. Even in DAI, which shifted to having the constant button pressing for attacks, the terrains are open, tactical map is an option and character positioning, while mattering, isn't really crucial to the degree it is in the ME games where the system design depends on constant visual and audio feedback of the system.

 

Curiously, the more I see comments on how people would have liked to have experienced the game from the perspective of the party members, the more it justifies ME design choices. They wanted the game to experienced as Shepard, not as the party members, and for the game to feel played with the character chosen. So if you play as a soldier, you will constantly engage fights as a soldier instead of occasianolly switching to being an adept in the middle of the fight.

[Mr. Homebody]

I prefer to control only my protagonist. I like to perceive companions as separate beings. Direct control hurts immersion but unfortunately in Dragon Age series on high difficulty setting it is necessary. Therefore I prefer Mass Effect approach and I hope it will remain this way.

[Joseph Warrick]

+1 for the Mass Effect system.

[KaiserShep]

I prefer to control only my protagonist. I like to perceive companions as separate beings. Direct control hurts immersion but unfortunately in Dragon Age series on high difficulty setting it is necessary. Therefore I prefer Mass Effect approach and I hope it will remain this way.

 

In Dragon Age, it's necessary regardless, since class-specific talents are often needed to access something or complete a quest (such as the mage being the only one to seal tunnels), then there are puzzles that might require having the party present. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I prefer to control only my protagonist. I like to perceive companions as separate beings.

Separate from whom?

I perceive all of the characters as separate from me, which is all I need to maintain their distinctness in my mind.

This is even easier in ME because I cannot control Shepard's personality.

Direct control hurts immersion

I think it helps.

[Vazgen]

Better AI is a given. But I'm not opposed to controlling my squadmates. Theoretically it can provide a ton of options for roleplaying. But even if Bioware would not integrate that feature into the story, there is still room for it in gameplay. Several TPS games (old Conflict game series, for example) pulled it off without any problems, I don't see why Mass Effect can't. 

As for what I talk about story integration - some dialogue changes based on the amount of time you controlled a squadmate. Would've been neat

[Equalitas]

I want friends to be able to control my companions

[Kmaru]

There is DA and there is ME. Those two should not be the same.

Companions with unique habilities, should be playable in some part of the game. Or if an event split ur group in two. Like DAO final battle. It would be interesting to lead the two to a meeting point, switching between characters.

 

But the best way is to keep ME system and bring back a gambit system (FFXII similar to what we had in DAO). The only way to really have a full control of ur companions. Yet Garus was a great snipper, i never had problem with him doing anything else but shooting powerful ennemies in the head.

[Mercyva]

Do you want to be able to control companions or just the protagonist? I'm just curious about people's opinions. While we can't play as other alien races in the story mode, I personally would love to at least be able to play as our companions who fight alongside Shepard.

 

 

OF COURSE! i mean, i would assume because we will explore more in this game than the older ones, BUT i would love if they improve on that. because DAI had me in so many awkward moments when i try to swap to my character... personally, i wont have a problem with it.. just hoping they improve on what DAI did.

[sjsharp2011]

I prefer to control the main character only.

 

 

So do I I only tend to switch if me or one of my teammates goes down and then I tend to only switch to the mage for their revival power really

[Sartoz]

 Snip

-------

Curiously, the more I see comments on how people would have liked to have experienced the game from the perspective of the party members, the more it justifies ME design choices. They wanted the game to experienced as Shepard, not as the party members, and for the game to feel played with the character chosen. So if you play as a soldier, you will constantly engage fights as a soldier instead of occasianolly switching to being an adept in the middle of the fight.

 

                                                                         <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

Out of curiosity, how often have you seen your squad members  do something useful?

When you play for Example:

1. Vanguard?

2. Soldier?

 

At the moment, I'm playing ME1. Most of the time, in active combat, the squad is in the periphery. I have little clue what they are doing. To keep them alive, I must assign holding positions, while I attempt to clear the area. As a squaddie, I can see my Big Bad Leader kicking ass, as I defend his/her six.

 

I see it as an advantage, regardless of level design.

[Kynare]

I hardly even control my companions on DA. I need a consistent narrative throughout the game, or else I lose the immersion. That's just me though. As it is, I like how you have to order your teammates to do a specific move, because it's like how it would work in a real scenario. You call out your orders. Y'know, commander.

[Kmaru]

Since i start playing as a vanguard, i do not care that much about my companions position.

During my first playtrough as an adept i find some Companion more helpful than others, i also was thinking about field + ennemies + obstacles.

 

I think all will depends on what classes we will have in Andromeda.

[mickey111]

we controlled them enough in ME3.

[Navasha]

Prefer it the way it was I think for a shooter game like ME.    Issuing quick easy order in a paused situation is more than sufficient.     Its not like this is a tactical level squad game like Xcom (though I would LOVE that).   

 

DAI has sort of dropped tactical gameplay sadly, so I don't see them moving toward more tactical gameplay in ME either.   That said, I do hope we get to still issue companion orders and aren't completely taken over by AI control.   That would be worse. 

[HarbingerCollector]

Yes,i'd like to control companions,as it was shown in the mass effect 1 E3 2006 video.
As long you can give them tactics like DA:O

or give the ability to make your own tactics

It would be a welcome return.
Instead of just doing the usual  "You lead and i just follow you shooting"