59 réponses à ce sujet

[Former_Fiend]

I've been thinking about making a thread on this subject, myself. 

 

I think one of the questions we need to answer is what does a "larger role" really mean? Is it having them perform key functions in the plot that no one else can do? Can you do that for seven people in a way that makes it still feel organic? And after one's function in the plot is served, how do you keep them relevant after that instead of just having them hang out?

 

Or is it as simple as just having them hang out, but with more conversations tied to the main plot instead of just shooting the breeze and talking about their history and culture? Just having them be present for more plot relevant cut scenes and interacting in those scenes more, even if they aren't really doing anything other than contributing to conversation?

[Laughing_Man]

Well, regarding Blake, my assuption would be that he has simply put himself in the best position to stab me in the back should everything else fail.

All this by using his supposed innocence as a cover, and give you a reason to keep him around. After all, you really have no one else right now.

 

It would be nice if that would have been the case, even though in most video games I would expect him to counter-intuitively actually be innocent.

(which would be boring)

 

 

Yeah, that could be interesting, but I think that the creators of "Deus Ex" for example would do a better job at something like this than Bioware.

Bioware is more at home with Disney characters and with antagonists that were apparently mind-controlled so it's not really their fault...

[Seboist]

You mean dead?

 

That could be one outcome if the rivalry with the femPC results in them fighting like two hyenas in heat, yes.

[AresKeith]

One of the major problems with this idea is that companions with "larger roles" make them less likely to be optional and given how Bioware's fanbase reacts towards companions like that I don't except them to do it with a lot of them, at best it'll only be one or two squadmates 

[RoboticWater]

I've been thinking about making a thread on this subject, myself. 

 

I think one of the questions we need to answer is what does a "larger role" really mean? Is it having them perform key functions in the plot that no one else can do? Can you do that for seven people in a way that makes it still feel organic? And after one's function in the plot is served, how do you keep them relevant after that instead of just having them hang out?

 

Or is it as simple as just having them hang out, but with more conversations tied to the main plot instead of just shooting the breeze and talking about their history and culture? Just having them be present for more plot relevant cut scenes and interacting in those scenes more, even if they aren't really doing anything other than contributing to conversation?

There's a few options that stick out to me:

1. Upgraded ME3 Method

Essentially have a plot like ME3's where there are a few major plot arcs contained in a single space. 2-3 squad members could have an affiliation with that space that makes each of them necessary (or at least plot relevant enough to justify forcing their inclusion) for a specific mission. Essentially a Rannoch or a Tuchanka, but we're forced to take a plot relevant character for almost every mission. 

2. Star Trek Style

If the story frequently gave us round table discussions with our team, then we'd get to hear their opinions more often. As long as BioWare can get an excuse to bring in your whole team, we can have more plot-relevant dialog (hell, it could even be over the radio or video conference). Even simply having a mission briefing with the whole team before major battles would help (somewhat similar to ME2's suicide mission).

 

One of the major problems with this idea is that companions with "larger roles" make them less likely to be optional and given how Bioware's fanbase reacts towards companions like that I don't except them to do it with a lot of them, at best it'll only be one or two squadmates 

I think people will go along with whatever as long as it's well written. I would be annoyed if I had to sit through a whole mission with James talking about his abs the whole time, but if there was good character development and presentation, then I think that would satisfactory for most.

[Former_Fiend]

One of the major problems with this idea is that companions with "larger roles" make them less likely to be optional and given how Bioware's fanbase reacts towards companions like that I don't except them to do it with a lot of them, at best it'll only be one or two squadmates 

 

To be fair, as DAI proved with Varric, "mandatory" doesn't necessarily mean "plot relevant".

 

Unless we're counting "being here to call Hawke so they can give you the same exposition on the Legacy DLC as I'm going to give you" plot relevant. 

[Seboist]

One of the major problems with this idea is that companions with "larger roles" make them less likely to be optional and given how Bioware's fanbase reacts towards companions like that I don't except them to do it with a lot of them, at best it'll only be one or two squadmates 

 

I have no problem with it personally, provided there's dialogue options to verbally slap them around ala Joker in ME2(Man, i hated that tosser).

[Former_Fiend]

There's a few options that stick out to me:

1. Upgraded ME3 Method

Essentially have a plot like ME3's where there are a few major plot arcs contained in a single space. 2-3 squad members could have an affiliation with that space that makes each of them necessary (or at least plot relevant enough to justify forcing their inclusion) for a specific mission. Essentially a Rannoch or a Tuchanka, but we're forced to take a plot relevant character for almost every mission. 

2. Star Trek Style

If the story frequently gave us round table discussions with our team, then we'd get to hear their opinions more often. As long as BioWare can get an excuse to bring in your whole team, we can have more plot-relevant dialog (hell, it could even be over the radio or video conference). Even simply having a mission briefing with the whole team before major battles would help (somewhat similar to ME2's suicide mission).

 

I think people will go along with whatever as long as it's well written. I would be annoyed if I had to sit through a whole mission with James talking about his abs the whole time, but if there was good character development and presentation, then I think that would satisfactory for most.

 

I see them as already having done that prior to ME3. 

 

In Dragon Age: Origins, Oghren and Shale were relevant to the Orzammar arc, Wynne was relevant to the Circle Tower arc. Alistair and Morrigan were relevant to the main plot. Zevran had some tangential connection to the main plot. Only Sten and Leliana were completely irrelevant to the plot and they became more relevant in later games and media.

 

In Dragon Age 2, Varric, Anders, and Bethany/Carver were relevant to the Act I main conflict. Isabela and Aveline were relevant to the act two conflict. And Anders and to a lesser degree Sebastian were relevant to the act three conflict. This left Merrill and Fenris on the outs. 

[AresKeith]

To be fair, as DAI proved with Varric, "mandatory" doesn't necessarily mean "plot relevant".

 

Unless we're counting "being here to call Hawke so they can give you the same exposition on the Legacy DLC as I'm going to give you" plot relevant. 

 

DAI was more of the opposite side, where the optional companions should have had more importance in some of the plotlines 

[yolobastien6412]

What I thought is more that you are playing as the Blake. Maybe you are the "bad" guy trying to take control because you disagree with whoever is in charge (could be the N7 from the teaser), or maybe you are the "good" guy and try to take control from the N7 guy as he is making bad decisions, or unnecessarily putting lives at risk?

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

While I don't think any squadmate should be mandatory, I have no problem requiring the presence of one to unlock a mission. That mission would obviously have to be optional, but then I think all the missions should be optional.

In a perfect world, the mandatory squadmate could be a fourth, thus eliminating any need to play a different way, but if the level of difficulty is comparable to ME3 or DAI (both of which offered none), playing differently isn't much of a burden.

I'd like to further propose that some missions should prohibit some squadmates. Even more, I would like the main protagonist to be prohibited sometimes, like the solo missions in KotOR and KotOR2, or the raid at the end of KotOR2 when you had to assemble a full squad without the Exile.

[LinksOcarina]

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.

 

Which they did in Mass Effect 3 a few times.

 

I think the real question would be this: is it possible to replace squadmates mid-way through with others?

 

I think that would be the way to go. Have say a potential 11 person roster, but you are only guaranteed 7 squadmates at one time. Three are premanent for the most part due to the plot (like Dragon Age II with Varric and to an extant Aveline) and the other 4 can be interchanged based on the narrative structure.

 

There are ways to do that. I just fear people will be pissed about it in some way because they feel they are being locked out of content or something silly.

[Killroy]

That would literally make the squadmates interchangeable. I don't think I would like that approach. If the only consequence for losing a squadmate is having her/him replaced with another squadmate(likely of the same class and with less creative emphasis than the original squadmate) then the whole system would feel arbitrary.
I would much prefer something with more teeth. If your choices lead to a squadmate turning on you and you execute them or throw them in the brig that's it. No replacement. You choices led to a conflict and you have to live with the consequences. Having companions work like a Pez dispenser would just be lame.

[DuskWanderer]

The squadmates were interchangeable in the 1st game due mostly to poor design, the 2nd game's squadmates had to be interchangeable due to the nature of the suicide mission, and since most of your squddies could be dead in 3, there was a problem there.

 

I've no problem with mutiny outlined like you describe, but it can't be just one person. People need to side against you for multiple choices. 

[afgncaap7]

Only if that larger role doesn't turn them into a creator's pet.

[LinksOcarina]

That would literally make the squadmates interchangeable. I don't think I would like that approach. If the only consequence for losing a squadmate is having her/him replaced with another squadmate(likely of the same class and with less creative emphasis than the original squadmate) then the whole system would feel arbitrary.
I would much prefer something with more teeth. If your choices lead to a squadmate turning on you and you execute them or throw them in the brig that's it. No replacement. You choices led to a conflict and you have to live with the consequences. Having companions work like a Pez dispenser would just be lame.

 

Yet they can still have personality.

 

The part that makes it interchangable is what they do, and who replaces them. If their mechanical function in the games design is doing that, what causes resonance and impact is how its done.

 

Simply put, you make potential squadmates possible, and give them time to flesh out their character. Their role in terms of gameplay may be the same (Say, swapping a Adept with another Adept) but their personality and narrative flavor is different. Bioware has done this in past, with varying degrees of success. I see no reason why it won't work here.

[Killroy]

Yet they can still have personality.
 
The part that makes it interchangable is what they do, and who replaces them. If their mechanical function in the games design is doing that, what causes resonance and impact is how its done.
 
Simply put, you make potential squadmates possible, and give them time to flesh out their character. Their role in terms of gameplay may be the same (Say, swapping a Adept with another Adept) but their personality and narrative flavor is different. Bioware has done this in past, with varying degrees of success. I see no reason why it won't work here.

I don't think they have the stuff to pull it off right any more, but I also just don't like the concept. Having replacements waiting in the wings who could and should have been fighting for you already is just too goofy.

[LinksOcarina]

I don't think they have the stuff to pull it off right any more, but I also just don't like the concept. Having replacements waiting in the wings who could and should have been fighting for you already is just too goofy.

 

Really depends on the situation.

 

Here is a scenario I was thinking about: You have one guy as a potential squad-mate, a military man, career solider who deviates from the rules but is otherwise by the books, part of your team from the get go.

 

Lets say we get first contact, or meet up with a group of  a new alien species; the meeting goes wrong for whatever reason. Our military leader kills them in cold blood or something or sees them as hostiles because they attacked first.

 

Say one of those alien beings was a leader and rabble-rouser who tried to organize them to fight back in self-defense, claiming they were shot on first. Now you can have a potential side-quest scenario on how to make peace; you side with the military you are with and kill this rabble-rouser, or you can side with the rabble-rouser and fight your own troops. 

 

You had the military guy as a long range soldier type in your party, and if you side against them, you lose him because he dies and the alien rabble-rouser joins you instead; a gesture of good faith for sparing his people. Now you hear his side of the story and his personal beliefs.

 

Maybe this even comes to play later on; tensions boil and having one of those characters can be used for, or against, diffusing a situation between the military and the aliens.

 

Or maybe a happy ending exists, where both sides reconcile. Then you pick one of the characters to continue on with you, while the other becomes a quest giver or background role, like Ashley/Kaiden can be in Mass Effect 3.

 

This is obvious a fan-styled scenario, but such a situation makes sense; it changes the narrative tone, some missions, is a complete side-quest styled part of the game, and can deepen the characterization of not only the protagonist, but the two characters here representing their specific sides.

[Oldren Shepard]

I like the idea, i have thought something similar.

Copy and paste from other topic

http://forum.bioware...d-in-mea/page-2

 

-Our potential partners should have their own agenda, but when they join us before or after, if what we do goes against their moral or their behavior, they could go and leave the mission or perhaps try to stop us. And for the enemies something similar too(but for them of course).

-Differents kinds of grenades not just the combination of the tech or biotic powers

-And the eyes of the characters to move as a normal person not as in some occasion they look static, as if it were a doll, hair also looks like if were made of static plastic.

-More things to do with money

-More things to do after the year and half after the release of the game in the multiplayer

-Other ways to earn the weapons and upgrades that just random

 

Not a major thing but kids and more variant of faces even for aliens

[Former_Fiend]

I think that one thing that could help with the concept of having some companions be mandatory for some missions is to go with the Suicide Mission mechanic of while you're on point, the rest of your squad is tackling secondary objectives, and you're communicating with them over the radio, so you still have communication with the squad mates you like while you have the mandatory one on your point team.

[Killroy]

Really depends on the situation.
 
Here is a scenario I was thinking about:
-snip-

The problems here are with how completely circumstantial that mechanic would be, and such a mechanic would rely on a substantial number of players making an objectively dumb choice. Siding with Andromedan aliens over your own military in an opaque situation? The only reason anyone would make that choice is for metagaming reasons.

[LinksOcarina]

The problems here are with how completely circumstantial that mechanic would be, and such a mechanic would rely on a substantial number of players making an objectively dumb choice. Siding with Andromedan aliens over your own military in an opaque situation? The only reason anyone would make that choice is for metagaming reasons.

 

Not necessarily.

 

If you yourself are sympathetic to the aliens cause, or abhor the treatment they received by the military, it can lead to a more complex moral choice.Do you do your duty, or go against it? 

 

If our military commander is already on board with the idea of wiping them out, how do you convince him not too? Same with the rabble-rouser in the end? You can do that option where a conflict is avoidable  (Geth/Quarian-level of complexity) but at the same time, it could be a microcosm for the bigger picture at hand.

 

Heck, the scenario later in the game, where the government or leaders of the andromedian aliens are ready to go to war for territory...if you have the rabble-rouser alive maybe it prevents a major problem down the line in the game, or in subsequent games. If the military man is still alive, the conflict is inevitable? Or perhaps if both reconcile, both work for a greater good.

 

No choice is ever objectivly dumb. It really depends on the context of the character you play as, and what they feel about the situation. It should be a difficult situation, one that is morally gray, like the Mage/Templar conflict in Dragon Age II.

[Killroy]

Some choices are objectively dumb. Alienating your own people in an opaque situation to support a group that you couldn't possibly know enough about is a dumb choice.

[LinksOcarina]

Some choices are objectively dumb. Alienating your own people in an opaque situation to support a group that you couldn't possibly know enough about is a dumb choice.

 

I disagree.

 

It depends on the circumstances, also depends on whether or not all of your people are alienated. Note how I set it up as two side-quest factions; they are not part of the bulk of the force, but they would represent the bigger problems. 

[marcelo caldas]

I would like that, but beware about week main character like the inquisitor, the mais character has to be strong, capable, strongwilled and aware of what he is doing.

 

Thats another part of ME3 problems, you spend all game not knowing what yuo are doing