30 réponses à ce sujet

[jones81381]

I realize ME:A is too deep in development for this but maybe Bioware can take notes for their future titles. One thing I'd love to see in a modern game is a large, dynamic companion roster.

 

What I mean is, as example, 21 potential companions each with their own loyalty/approval system but the player wouldn't be able to recruit but a few of them based on various factors such as player alignment (paragon or renegade in ME's case), some companions only joining good characters, some only joining bad characters, and some only joining characters that take a more neutral path, as well as other things like maybe two companions are complete opposites and hate each other and both are willing to come but when you recruit one then the other won't come with you.

 

Another feature that would make games more interesting is if you start playing an evil/renegade/bad character and recruit the bad guy companions then do a 180 and start doing good deeds all over the place then your bad guy companions are going to get pissed and leave you because what you're doing goes against their nature.

 

To take that a step further, if you're a goody goody good guy, recruit the people that will come with you and then start being mean, if your companions like you enough you might be able to convince them to stay on with you anyway so as examples, Jimmy is your BFF but Jane barely liked you before you did a 180, you can convince Jimmy to stay with you despite your descent into debauchery, crime, and general villainous behavior but Jane won't have it and ditches you (perhaps even some characters might make their displeasure known by fighting you, trying to stop you). Keeping opposite alignment companions would be very difficult because you'll lose affection/respect/whatever every time you do something they disapprove of, so Jimmy likes you a little less every time you shake down some shop keeper or mercilessly slaughter people that have surrendered and if their loyalty drops too low they will leave you.

 

To go a step even further, if your companion likes you enough AND your speech skill is high enough (both of these would generally be really high checks, varied depending on the companion) you might be able to convince them to do a 180 with you and your goody good guy companion is now reveling in murder and mayhem. 

 

Should be an achievement for recruiting all companions at once since, at least as it is in my head, it'd be very difficult to pull off without cheating.

[Cyonan]

It seems like an interesting idea but the sheer amount of resources needed to do while maintaining a half way decent level of quality in the companions this ensures that we'll pretty much never see it happen.

[jones81381]

It seems like an interesting idea but the sheer amount of resources needed to do while maintaining a half way decent level of quality in the companions this ensures that we'll pretty much never see it happen.

 

idk, a good dev team could pull this off if they were determined. It would just raise their production costs and take more time, but it could be done. 

[Sartoz]

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

 

A dysfunctional team is a broken team with no coherency. A tough and hardened team works because each member supports the other and all play by the same rules.... to survive.

 

You are asking for a chaotic team where jealousy, animosity, dislike, anger eats at the core of the unit....

 

Sorry, Op, I don't buy the idea.

[Zekka]

I like the idea but the number of companions doesn't have yo be that high. You can still have the regular amount that previous Bioware games had but male companions less integral to the story. The companions would be able to leave, be killed or not be recruited at all based on player choice or the companions likes and dislikes. You don't necessarily need a paragon or renegade system to accomplish this though.

[NoForgiveness]

Ha 21? That's not realistically possible unless you want characters as interesting as... everyone in skyrim.

[AlanC9]

idk, a good dev team could pull this off if they were determined. It would just raise their production costs and take more time, but it could be done.

And the game would cost $100.

[Ahriman]

21? You do realize the number here?

As for the rest part - it could work for some fantasy game with party of adventurers. In ME:A it will be some sort of paramilitary where people know what they were signing for. Soldiers aren't supposed to go "omg, you are so mean, I'm out" and vice versa on their superiors.

[wolfsite]

Wouldn't work, Bioware came out and said that the 12 characters we had in ME2 was a bit too much for the game, if you look back they were right:

 

-Some characters had little dialogue outside of there missions, romance,  and initial banter.

-Some even had dialogue cut due to time/resources (Was supposed to be a confrontation between Mordin and Grunt, etc.)

-Many of the characters overlapped with there powers a bit too much which left a few of them to be ship warmers........ Jacob.

 

 

Though on the plus side this allowed Garrus to get really good at calibrations.

[Hiemoth]

Isn't what the OP is pushing for pretty much BG2? And wouldn't it result in pretty much the same thing with almost all companions being completely divorced from the story as the writers couldn't know if they would be there and having pretty minimal input in general? With only a 2-3 dialogues with the PC?

 

Wouldn't work, Bioware came out and said that the 12 characters we had in ME2 was a bit too much for the game, if you look back they were right:

 

-Some characters had little dialogue outside of there missions, romance,  and initial banter.

-Some even had dialogue cut due to time/resources (Was supposed to be a confrontation between Mordin and Grunt, etc.)

-Many of the characters overlapped with there powers a bit too much which left a few of them to be ship warmers........ Jacob.

 

 

Though on the plus side this allowed Garrus to get really good at calibrations.

 

ME2 approach was worth it just for the calibration meme and the jokes they were able to pull off of it in the ME3. Especially the Citadel discussion in the container still makes me crack up.

[themikefest]

ME2 did have too many squadmates. Why have 12 when 8 was only needed to get through the relay and have everyone survive? If squadmates weren't required for the upgrades to the ship, then only 6 squadmates would be needed for everyone to survive.

[holdenagincourt]

ME2 did have too many squadmates. Why have 12 when 8 was only needed to get through the relay and have everyone survive? If squadmates weren't required for the upgrades to the ship, then only 6 squadmates would be needed for everyone to survive.

 

That's one way to look at it, but BioWare's core constituency generally values characters based on their value as...characters rather than whether they give Silaris plating or not.

 

Cut out six or even four squadmates from ME2 and thousands of fans (at minimum) are losing some of their favorite characters in the series.

 

Who goes? Thane? Samara? Kasumi? Jack?

 

Even Jacob has a few fans out there.

[themikefest]

That's one way to look at it, but BioWare's core constituency generally values characters based on their value as...characters rather than whether they give Silaris plating or not.

 

Cut out six or even four squadmates from ME2 and thousands of fans (at minimum) are losing some of their favorite characters in the series.

 

Who goes? Thane? Samara? Kasumi? Jack?

 

Even Jacob has a few fans out there.

Then I would've had mandatory deaths on the suicide mission instead of having everyone live.

[AlanC9]

But mandatory deaths only help if particular people always die. If it's random, you're still paying the full costs.

(FWIW, my ME2 playstyle is to always force Reaper IFF immediately, so there isn't tine to do all LMs.)

[themikefest]

My ME2 playthroughs, unless I'm doing a specific playthrough, I always recruit only 8 and no more. So when I get to Horizon I have 8 squadmates. Since I don't recruit Tali, I will always have at least one death.

[CuriousArtemis]

Mmm, not for me. I'd rather have six companions, all of whom react differently to me depending on my personality and choices (but I don't want anyone to leave or turn on me the way they do in the Dragon Age series). Tbh I very much like the way the Mass Effect series has handled companions. (And agree there were too many in ME2... personally would have gotten rid of Thane and Samara since I can see no direct connection to any of the many series-long plot lines.)

[Gothfather]

I realize ME:A is too deep in development for this but maybe Bioware can take notes for their future titles. One thing I'd love to see in a modern game is a large, dynamic companion roster.

 

What I mean is, as example, 21 potential companions each with their own loyalty/approval system but the player wouldn't be able to recruit but a few of them based on various factors such as player alignment (paragon or renegade in ME's case), some companions only joining good characters, some only joining bad characters, and some only joining characters that take a more neutral path, as well as other things like maybe two companions are complete opposites and hate each other and both are willing to come but when you recruit one then the other won't come with you.

 

Another feature that would make games more interesting is if you start playing an evil/renegade/bad character and recruit the bad guy companions then do a 180 and start doing good deeds all over the place then your bad guy companions are going to get pissed and leave you because what you're doing goes against their nature.

 

To take that a step further, if you're a goody goody good guy, recruit the people that will come with you and then start being mean, if your companions like you enough you might be able to convince them to stay on with you anyway so as examples, Jimmy is your BFF but Jane barely liked you before you did a 180, you can convince Jimmy to stay with you despite your descent into debauchery, crime, and general villainous behavior but Jane won't have it and ditches you (perhaps even some characters might make their displeasure known by fighting you, trying to stop you). Keeping opposite alignment companions would be very difficult because you'll lose affection/respect/whatever every time you do something they disapprove of, so Jimmy likes you a little less every time you shake down some shop keeper or mercilessly slaughter people that have surrendered and if their loyalty drops too low they will leave you.

 

To go a step even further, if your companion likes you enough AND your speech skill is high enough (both of these would generally be really high checks, varied depending on the companion) you might be able to convince them to do a 180 with you and your goody good guy companion is now reveling in murder and mayhem. 

 

Should be an achievement for recruiting all companions at once since, at least as it is in my head, it'd be very difficult to pull off without cheating.

 

In a word NO. NO. No. NO. NOOOOOO. NOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

DA:I already suffered from too many companions. 12 companion/advisors did not improve the companion experience. Quantity isn't quality. The above isn't a recipe for a great game. I don't want the budget for companion split between 21 companions I want it split between as few characters as possible to give us both variety, but also lost of depth of character. Thinning out the companion experience even more isn't a good idea. And No budgets are limited so you can't reasonably expect a company to increase the budget to include 21 voice actors just to voice your companions so we can have options. Player choice isn't the be all and end all of good game design. It comes at a cost and your idea costs too much.

 

The story narrative should determine where your character fits into any morality scale and your companions should too. In NWN2 had a similar idea to yours and it was clunky because it never made any sense why a CE character would join your team or why you would accept Bishop on your team? but he was added in for this very dynamic you are talking about and it feels clunky and gamey. Not something i want in my companion systems.

[Killroy]

I really wish the "alignment" chart nonsense would die. It's not a useful writing or role playing tool, it's just a stupid toy for stupid people to try to fill in blanks like Mad Libs, 

"Hurrrrr, tha Joker is 'chaotic evil' and Batman is 'lawful good' and tha Riddler is lawful evil durrrrrrrrr!"

 

Actually wanting the writers to adhere to such simplistic, trite BS is just... stop it.

[Mdizzletr0n]

I agree that companions should judge/follow/love/hate you based on what you do or say, but solely by alignment is just a bit too simplistic.

[Cyonan]

I really wish the "alignment" chart nonsense would die. It's not a useful writing or role playing tool, it's just a stupid toy for stupid people to try to fill in blanks like Mad Libs, 

"Hurrrrr, tha Joker is 'chaotic evil' and Batman is 'lawful good' and tha Riddler is lawful evil durrrrrrrrr!"

 

Actually wanting the writers to adhere to such simplistic, trite BS is just... stop it.

 

It can be useful as long as you realize that a chaotic character doesn't have to be all chaos all the time, or that a good person can sometimes do bad things.

 

The problem is in thinking that once you have the alignment, you are locked into it and may only take actions of that alignment.

 

We're not all Paladins who magically lose their powers if they go against being lawful stupid.

[Killroy]

It can be useful as long as you realize that a chaotic character doesn't have to be all chaos all the time, or that a good person can sometimes do bad things.

The problem is in thinking that once you have the alignment, you are locked into it and may only take actions of that alignment.

We're not all Paladins who magically lose their powers if they go against being lawful stupid.

 

You just explained why the alignment chart system is stupid. It literally forces characters into narrow boxes, and deviation from those narrow boxes makes the whole system pointless. And the whole thing flies in the face of good writing. Making simplistic characters that tick off a box is bad writing. Making complex characters that can't be assigned a box is a sign of good writing.

[SlottsMachine]

Killroy, are you the user formerly known as  android by any chance? Yay or Nay? Inquiring minds need to know. LOL.

[AlanC9]

It can be useful as long as you realize that a chaotic character doesn't have to be all chaos all the time, or that a good person can sometimes do bad things.
 

How is it useful?

[Cyonan]

How is it useful?

 

It can help as a jumping off point to start defining and fleshing out a character, deciding what kind of a person they are.

 

Provided you don't get stuck in the mentality of "This character is lawful, so they might only ever take lawful actions" and use it more as a general guideline for the character than a set in stone rule.

[Killroy]

Killroy, are you the user formerly known as  android by any chance? Yay or Nay? Inquiring minds need to know. LOL.

 
No. My former handle was Steppenwolf.
 

It can help as a jumping off point to start defining and fleshing out a character, deciding what kind of a person they are.
 
Provided you don't get stuck in the mentality of "This character is lawful, so they might only ever take lawful actions" and use it more as a general guideline for the character than a set in stone rule.

 

That would only lead to bad writing. It's not organic, it's writing by numbers. 

 

"I need a true neutral character to balance out these lawful good and chaotic evil characters..."

 

It's not a useful tool at all. It's simple and trite BS for simple and trite people.