What I didn't understand was why I had to oppose him.
That game hadn't given me any reason to want to destory Saren's genophage cure.
That would be a poor decision.My concern is that BioWare would also compensate by creating more companions with content spread thin between the lot of them. Just look at ME3's treatment of the bulk of ME2's disposable ragtags. It then necessitates interchangeable stand-ins or simply having no meaningful role in the plot. Imagine if Cassandra could die right in DA:I's prologue. She now has no solid role for the game as a result. Man, and then there's Solas. Being what he is and how important he is, death in combat permanently is not an option.
I completely agree with this. However, I will add that not every "punishment" should be because of the player's actions. Things should happen that are beyond your control. People should, at times, die regardless of what you do. In a game like ME, you're playing one character, and what one person can do is limited. I'm not neccesarily talking about Kai-Leng-eqsue "he's just better than you" railroading, that you rightly dislike, but putting the player is impossible situations where nothing you can do will make a difference. Why? Beacuse thats how reality works. And thus having that kind of thing makes the game more believable and immersive.
What you suggest is exactly what they did in DA2, and it's still one of the biggest complain about that game.
On the contrary, I think they should do things like that. When done well, and not just for a cheap emotional ploy, it can work wonderfully in conveying sadness, sacrifice and sorrow as a theme.
The reason Bioware struggles with it in sequels is because they like to populate their worlds with cameos rather than introduce new characters to fill the void of one who could die.
Part of what made Dragon Age: Inquisition so devoid of urgency and threat was the fact that none of your companions could die in the main game, this reduced Corypheus' viability as a dangerous force that can harm the people you care about if you are not careful, it turned him to this caricature of a villain, and in my personal opinion, made him the worst and most boring villain Bioware has ever created.
Make it possible for them all to be killed off. All these people worrying about future installments, when the devs should be solely focused on the current game at hand. Hopefully they make this game stand entirely on its own, with no worry of having to continue it over the course of a trilogy.
Make it possible for them all to be killed off. All these people worrying about future installments, when the devs should be solely focused on the current game at hand. Hopefully they make this game stand entirely on its own, with no worry of having to continue it over the course of a trilogy.
I always thought they had the complete trilogy written before starting the first game. And then afterward they would add/remove/change minor details.
But answering OP's question, there are certain circumstances where it makes sense to have companions fall in combat. I always sacrificed Kaidan in ME1, he always seemed to be a boring character IMO but his death makes sense (I always leave him protecting the nuke). My first playthrough of ME2 I wished I could kill Zaeed and Jack myself, but after several playthroughs I repented of even thinking such a thing. Once in a while I will let Cortez die in ME3. But I do die a little inside when Mordin, Legion and Thane die.
No, do allow key companions to die should a point in the story open up to allow them to.
No one in Andromeda needs or should have Liara's plot armour.
They should develop a system to determine which two are likely your favourite companions.
and then force you to choose between them.
LOL. And then have the one that you chose to die end up being the one that lives.
No squad mates should be in the safe zone all should be able to die i do not want another Liara.
Some should be able to die after there role in the game is done like with Anders or if someone disagrees with a choice you made and trys to kill you with Wrex no squad mates being able to die is boring.
That would be a poor decision.
The same number of companions, with the same connection to the story.
But if the companion isn't there, that part of the story has to allow for that absence (possibly by no longer happening).
Being able to die at any time limits the character's significance to the story. Solas, for example, must be able to live in order for his part of the story to continue. If he could die at any time, then that thread dies with him, unless they do like ME3 and have stand-ins, which I consider to be vastly inferior.
As for a story simply not happening, that's only workable if it's something small, like a companion quest, but again, something like Solas is a major story development that can't simply be abandoned before it's resolved.
Being able to die at any time limits the character's significance to the story. Solas, for example, must be able to live in order for his part of the story to continue. If he could die at any time, then that thread dies with him, unless they do like ME3 and have stand-ins, which I consider to be vastly inferior.
This is why I never had a problem with companions with Plot armor
Guys if you don't want another "Liara situation" you should want fewer squadmates to be killable.
At the end of the day you have to build a story around characters and having more of them guaranteed to be alive will result in a wider distribution of content instead of relying on the handful that will be there now matter what.
Guys if you don't want another "Liara situation" you should want fewer squadmates to be killable.
At the end of the day you have to build a story around characters and having more of them guaranteed to be alive will result in a wider distribution of content instead of relying on the handful that will be there now matter what.
This is why Bioware should make the next games more loosely connected than the Shepard trilogy, to avoid this situation entirely.
Please don't kill key companions, especially if you're gonna use them for later games. Something with headless Lelianna or random understudies took the roles of dead companions just seem out of place. At least, if you're gonna do it, then create alternative contents or changes it so that the decisions matter. A lot of the companions suffer because they're killable. Ashley and Kaidan are basically the same. Ashley's personality and Kaidan's personality were toned down and mix together for the same storyline. They both suffer a bit from characterization. Are our decisions actually matter if all the game contents basically the same regardless? Dead companions are actually just being replaced by a color swap character.
This was one of the things that Mac Walters complained about during some interviews - He said something to the effect of "when we went to write the story of ME3 it we faced a lot of difficulties because some key characters could have died in ME2." And so what they did was put characters like Geth VI, Padok Wiks, and Wreav. I don't know what happened on Palaven without Garrus.
I really think they've learned this lesson.
Being able to die at any time limits the character's significance to the story. Solas, for example, must be able to live in order for his part of the story to continue. If he could die at any time, then that thread dies with him, unless they do like ME3 and have stand-ins, which I consider to be vastly inferior.
As for a story simply not happening, that's only workable if it's something small, like a companion quest, but again, something like Solas is a major story development that can't simply be abandoned before it's resolved.
And this is the problem that GRR Martin has run into with Song of Fire and Ice series. All the characters that anyone really cared about or could really influence things are dead. He's written himself into a corner. It will be interesting to see how many ass pulls he has to do to write himself out of it. I see a Mass Effect 3 ending.
This was one of the things that Mac Walters complained about during some interviews - He said something to the effect of "when we went to write the story of ME3 it we faced a lot of difficulties because some key characters could have died in ME2." And so what they did was put characters like Geth VI, Padok Wiks, and Wreav. I don't know what happened on Palaven without Garrus.
I really think they've learned this lesson.
It literally runs the same just without Garrus lol
Padok Wiks and Wreav were well done stand-ins imo
This was one of the things that Mac Walters complained about during some interviews - He said something to the effect of "when we went to write the story of ME3 it we faced a lot of difficulties because some key characters could have died in ME2." And so what they did was put characters like Geth VI, Padok Wiks, and Wreav. I don't know what happened on Palaven without Garrus.
I really think they've learned this lesson.
I hope so, and that they don't make future games so interconnected. Obviously, there should be some choices that carry over, but the games shouldn't focus on the same characters each time.
It literally runs the same just without Garrus lol
He added nothing to ME3
Padok Wiks and Wreav were well done stand-ins imo
Padok Wiks is a good character. I like Wreav more than I like Wrex
He added nothing to ME3
Which is a shame too, and he didn't even get a stand-in either lol
Padok Wiks is a good character. I like Wreav more than I like Wrex
I liked that Wreav had more of a character than the other stand-ins
Please don't kill key companions, especially if you're gonna use them for later games. Something with headless Lelianna or random understudies took the roles of dead companions just seem out of place. At least, if you're gonna do it, then create alternative contents or changes it so that the decisions matter. A lot of the companions suffer because they're killable. Ashley and Kaidan are basically the same. Ashley's personality and Kaidan's personality were toned down and mix together for the same storyline. They both suffer a bit from characterization. Are our decisions actually matter if all the game contents basically the same regardless? Dead companions are actually just being replaced by a color swap character.
I disagree. I think they should full on TWD outta this ****. Make us care about characters, only to have them blown away. I am not joking about this either.
EDIT : Or eaten by zombies. Uhhh, BTW for any of you that haven't watched season six of TWD, slight spoilers.
I think the point is that if they do choose to kill the companions, make it actually matter, don't cop out by making a stand in or have some crappy explanations why they are still alive. They need to plan the games in advance, maybe less cameos and those who are killed are less likely to appear and cameos at best instead of stand in. It's just cheapen the choices matter when the game would always be the same, no matter what, except a random color swapped character took the companion's place.
Retour en haut