59 réponses à ce sujet

[Killroy]

The squadmates in Mass Effect have largely just been along for the ride, either after playing a minor role in a small plot element(Tali, Garrus, Liara, Wrex, Ashley) or added for plot reasons(the ME2 roster) only to be bystanders for the remainder of the game. So should squadmates have actual roles in the plot of the game?

 

I had this thought when I was thinking about what I want to see in the game and I realized I very much want more interaction with and development of squadmates. An idea I have to illustrate what I want:

 

-Your actions as leader are not universally praised by your squad. Some of them publicly oppose your actions, others hide their opposition. 

-As the game goes on, you see signs that someone on your squad is undermining you and gathering resources/support to depose you/seize command. All signs point to a smooth-talking, roguish N7 agent who specializes in infiltration, espionage and assassination. Let's call him Blake.

-As you attempt to gather evidence against Blake the plan to depose you is put into action, and it's being lead by a different squadmate that you never had reason to suspect. Now you're on the run on the Ark. As you attempt to retake command and put down this coup, Blake is your only ally. Assuming you haven't already locked him up in the brig.

-After you end the coup, retake command and detain the mutineers you get to decide their fates, including that of your squadmate.

 

That's just an idea I kicked around for a bit, but what do you guys think of giving the squadmates greater plot significance?

[Ahglock]

I love the concept. I'm unsure if I think bioware can pull it off well. Their idea of plot significance is probably making liara the shadow broker out of the blue.

[pkypereira]

I think they should. ME2 is a good example, whenever I got the game and saw Thane on the cover I assumed he would have a much larger role than he did in the game, where he appears around half-way through the game. Maybe it's not as feasible to have 12 squadmates and have all of them play large roles but with a small squad of 6 there may be possibilities to have more interaction.

 

And in that scenario, I would allow Blake to try to redeem himself and when the coup is done, execute Blake in front of mutineers and let them know that they will suffer the same fate if they even think of stepping out of line.

[Killroy]

And in that scenario, I would allow Blake to try to redeem himself and when the coup is done, execute Blake in front of mutineers and let them know that they will suffer the same fate if they even think of stepping out of line.

 

...but Blake wasn't a mutineer. Why would you execute an ally instead of the actual mutineers?

[Friera]

I loved how central Solas´s role was. I hope we see something similar in ME.

[Jewellzify]

I think this would be awesome. I really enjoyed in ME2 assigning the different jobs to each companion to survive the mission. I think that by giving each character an important role in quests and side missions, it would add so much to the game! I mean in the ME trilogy the companions all had special classes, (ie Garrus: sniper, Legion & Tali: Tech Support, Liara: Biotic, etc.) why not give them actual roles and purposes within the gameplay instead of just choosing your favs to go everywhere (although, I will admit to being happy to get away from Liara from time to time lol).

[Killroy]

I loved how central Solas´s role was. I hope we see something similar in ME.

 

His role was only central in retrospect though. Once you get past the prologue he can be sidelined as much as any of the least relevant companions.

[EpicNewb]

imo they tried the larger role thing with Miranda, bringing Shep back to life, but didn't go as far as they could have.

[EpicNewb]

I like the idea of a mission that revolves around mutiny.  It's perfect since the major theme of ME: A is exploration.

[Sanunes]

The problem is if BioWare adds the important quests or seems to have an unbalance distribution it becomes the issue of "favoured" and "hated" companions.  Like what became of Liara in Mass Effect 3 because everyone else that returned could be dead so they placed a lot of information in Liara's dialogue.

 

With that being said I wouldn't mind a bit more, but I would understand if they didn't.

 

Edit:

 

Using the mutineer's plot, I could easily see the forums drowning under "BioWare did this so everyone would hate the person I like".

Modifié par Sanunes, 27 octobre 2015 - 07:57 .

[pkypereira]

...but Blake wasn't a mutineer. Why would you execute an ally instead of the actual mutineers?

 

I thought he was the leader of the resistance. I would execute the leader of the resistance is what I meant.

[Gothfather]

The squadmates in Mass Effect have largely just been along for the ride, either after playing a minor role in a small plot element(Tali, Garrus, Liara, Wrex, Ashley) or added for plot reasons(the ME2 roster) only to be bystanders for the remainder of the game. So should squadmates have actual roles in the plot of the game?

 

I had this thought when I was thinking about what I want to see in the game and I realized I very much want more interaction with and development of squadmates. An idea I have to illustrate what I want:

 

-Your actions as leader are not universally praised by your squad. Some of them publicly oppose your actions, others hide their opposition. 

-As the game goes on, you see signs that someone on your squad is undermining you and gathering resources/support to depose you/seize command. All signs point to a smooth-talking, roguish N7 agent who specializes in infiltration, espionage and assassination. Let's call him Blake.

-As you attempt to gather evidence against Blake the plan to depose you is put into action, and it's being lead by a different squadmate that you never had reason to suspect. Now you're on the run on the Ark. As you attempt to retake command and put down this coup, Blake is your only ally. Assuming you haven't already locked him up in the brig.

-After you end the coup, retake command and detain the mutineers you get to decide their fates, including that of your squadmate.

 

That's just an idea I kicked around for a bit, but what do you guys think of giving the squadmates greater plot significance?

I would much rather see fewer squad mates that have far greater development than twice as many squad mates each with 1/2 as much development and dialogue.

 

I would like to see the PC just be normally skilled without having special knowledge or powers but instead be the person in command to get this special person where they need to be to do whatever. So if they did a Lord of the rings game you don't play as Frodo but you play as Aragon or Gandalf leading the fellowship to get Frodo to where he needs to be. Not a perfect example but I think you can ken my meaning from it.

 

I don't think your example is the best because these types of arcs in a game often get rushed and poorly handled and players don't take betrayal well. And often the game puts artificial restrictions on you to further these kinds of plots. Think Bishop in Neverwinter nights 2, most players would have zero reason to EVER let this guy join or quickly kick him out once you get a measure of his character but it is important to the plot so you get saddled with him. Because companions are a very finite resource in games they don't really give options to replace them. i don't trust so and so, so I am going to replace them with someone I do trust. err but we didn't make a spare set of companions to transfer to your command anyone you don't trust so umm... When you don't have this kind of "real world" freedom any acts of betrayal feel contrived and rarely play out well with players.

 

It is the problem with the medium, to have the freedom you need lots of companions but lots of companions create a situation where each individual companion story/content is less then a situation with fewer companions as the "companion content/budget" get divided by the number of companions. Gaming budgets are finite there isn't really away around this unless procedural content can be improved greatly that they use it to reduce the costs of game design in one area and transfer these funds to a different area development.

[RoboticWater]

I think the main reason this doesn't happen often in Mass Effect is because BioWare can't assume exactly which squad members you have at any given moment. In this instance the mutineer squadmate would need to be a core squadmate whose acquisition is tied into main plot for this side plot to definitely occur. Of course, there's the option of just 

 

We also know that BioWare are not keen to restrict or wildly differentiate content based on decisions. Case and point: the Rachni are always in ME3 no matter what you choose. A "cheaper" method might be to always have the mutiny, but you get some different dialog based on whether or not you chose to recruit the mutineer or if you suspected him/her. Not as exciting, but certainly more cost effective.

 

It's a wonderful idea, but I have to wonder what the cost of implementation would be.

 

As for vocal disagreement however, this should definitely happen. In fact, DA:O has this happen quite frequently, so we know BIoWare is capable. Essentially all this entails is an extra few lines of dialog added per dissenting squadmate. Not a negligible cost, but a worthy one for a BioWare game. Having squadmates turn on you after certain decisions might be more difficult both for the reasons mentioned previously and because it might be too difficult to accommodate in the TPS gameplay

[Abraham_uk]

I love this idea. However I think it should be based on their character.

 

Let's use the ME 2 squad as an example:

 

Garrus, Zaeed and Miranda are more leadership characters. I can imagine them leading people in certain circumstances.

They lead a team of misfits to take out a group of terrorists.

 

Tali and Legion are more tech savvy so they would be intercepting communications and sabotaging the terrorist's devises. The terrorists are unable to pull the trigger because their trigger mechanism is broken and heck so is the bomb itself. To make things worse their weapons don't work.

 

Jack and Samara are the biotic specialists. They would be creating a barrier around an area so that if the bomb did go off it wouldn't destroy the entire area.

 

Kasumi is the sneaky infiltrator type. If it weren't for her, Garrus, Miranda and Zaeed wouldn't know about the planned attack.

 

After the situation has been contained, Mordin Solus analyses the bomb and finds out how said bomb was made.

 

Now Grunt had learnt a lot about bomb construction when he was in that tank. He points towards likely locations that pin point the bomb's origins.

 

Jacob and Miranda use their investigative skills to find out more about the threat and how many of those bombs were sold to the terrorist group.

 

As a result of the investigation, 5 key targets have been identified. These are big players in the group. Seems like some assassinations are in order. Time to call Thane to take them out.

 

 

 

So I was thinking something along those lines, but of course without ME 2 squadmates.

Throughout the game you can allocate tasks towards squad mates like the Suicide Mission. However the whole game is frequently asking you to do this. If you have a poor understanding of the squad, everything will go wrong. If you have a good understanding of the squad, everything should go well.

[Hazegurl]

I would LOVE to have squad mates integrated with the plot.  Especially a squad mate who turns out to be a rival, even better if that person can be romanced.  Companions just sitting on a ship taking orders and waiting for you to solve their issues is getting really old.

[Seboist]

I would LOVE to have squad mates integrated with the plot.  Especially a squad mate who turns out to be a rival, even better if that person can be romanced.  Companions just sitting on a ship taking orders and waiting for you to solve their issues is getting really old.

 

A squaddie like Tela Vasir would be rather nice.

[7twozero]

I'd like it if I got to play as squad mates on certain missions, maybe like solo loyalty side quest stuff.

[Sartoz]

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

 

 

ME:A's approach appears to be on recruiting, which can lead to dissension, as the Op says.  Which leads me  to to ask the OP. "Don't you find your idea a distraction to the main event/purpose of ME:A?".

 

 

[Killroy]

A squaddie like Tela Vasir would be rather nice.

 

You mean dead?

[Killroy]

<<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>
 
 
ME:A's approach appears to be on recruiting, which can lead to dissension, as the Op says.  Which leads me  to to ask the OP. "Don't you find your idea a distraction to the main event/purpose of ME:A?".

Your approach seems to be making things up. Which leads me to ask you. "Don't you find your baseless assertions to be stupid?".

[The Night Haunter]

KotOR is my favorite Bioware game, hands down. Bastilla and Carth's role in the main plot are a great part of what makes this so. Bastilla isn't just some random hotty that your enemies barely even know exist, she is a powerful force user who is actually pretty high up on your opponents mind. In KotOR the companions are a part of plot, not part of separate subplots (for the most part). In DAI your companions are largely invisible to the greater plot. Would you have stopped Cory without any companions? Yes, people have done it. Would the Inquisition still be more or less the same? Yes, almost no-one has any lasting impact on the Inquisition apart from the Inquisitor (and maybe a little Cullen).

 

A plot that involves the Companions is far FAR superior to one that is flexible enough to accommodate NOT having them.

 

Please Bioware, we know you want to give us choices, but having the choice of NOT recruiting a companion means that ultimately they can have no real impact on the story, otherwise not recruiting them would severely dampen the story. DONT give us a choice not to recruit a companion, give us a choice to fire/kill/etc them later. That way they can be more involved in the main plot.

[Killroy]

I'll probably get some blowback on this, but I would also like to see missions that force a specific squadmate to be in your party. ME2 did it in a limited capacity with the loyalty missions, and ME3 did it in an even more limited capacity a few times, but I would like it if the major missions caused you to have to take along each squadmate at least once. It would force you to interact with every squadmate instead of letting you re-use the same 2 favorites over and over, and it would inject them into the plot.

[Jewellzify]

I'll probably get some blowback on this, but I would also like to see missions that force a specific squadmate to be in your party. ME2 did it in a limited capacity with the loyalty missions, and ME3 did it in an even more limited capacity a few times, but I would like it if the major missions caused you to have to take along each squadmate at least once. It would force you to interact with every squadmate instead of letting you re-use the same 2 favorites over and over, and it would inject them into the plot.

 

I agree with you! I think this would add more to the game rather than subtract.

[RoboticWater]

I'll probably get some blowback on this, but I would also like to see missions that force a specific squadmate to be in your party. ME2 did it in a limited capacity with the loyalty missions, and ME3 did it in an even more limited capacity a few times, but I would like it if the major missions caused you to have to take along each squadmate at least once. It would force you to interact with every squadmate instead of letting you re-use the same 2 favorites over and over, and it would inject them into the plot.

No, that's just sensible game design. The more ardent "I do what I want" kind of roleplayers will probably be annoyed, but the benefits of forcing squadmates would far outweigh the novelty of complete freedom. Not only would it greatly enhance the character development potential, but the player would be forced to adapt to different gameplay tactics.

[Mirrman70]

No, that's just sensible game design. The more ardent "I do what I want" kind of roleplayers will probably be annoyed, but the benefits of forcing squadmates would far outweigh the novelty of complete freedom. Not only would it greatly enhance the character development potential, but the player would be forced to adapt to different gameplay tactics.

 

Sylvius would definitely not be happy.