185 réponses à ce sujet

[Ahriman]

Imagine mission(loyalty one) in where you go to help one of your companions out.

However during their mission there is that final choice that must be made that will define this entire mission and even your companion and you as leader in group as per usual tell them what to do, which choice to make, you even use your max persuasive skill(whatever that might be in ME:A) to convince them, there is no way anyone refuses you but.......instead your companion just says "I don't make decisions for you, neither you will for me. I'm doing my mission my own way." and then they simply make they own choice regarding of what you wanted them to.

 

THE END

Only if I can answer "Rudimentary creature of blood and flesh, you touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding."

 

Lelianna the mary sue in training is the perfect example of how to never implement companions going they're own way, since it pretty much shatters the already poorly delivered messiah fantasy of the Inquisitor. Like, my MC is some all powerful Jesus allegory whose choices effect nations, whose decisions determine the fate of nations and can have people assassinated on a whim doesn't even command enough respect from their own spymaster to stand down when directly ordered, and can't even chastise their servant for disobeying a direct command.

 

I'd rather have PC special snowflakedom than have to suffer through awful design like that again.

You are mixing together companion's and your choice. You don't have to make choice for other people, but you should have a choice on how to react on that. Like having an option to kick Lelianna the Undying out, which you don't.

[Midnight Bliss]

The follow up dialogue is great as well. You either get a giggle or an 'Oh, ****. I created a monster.' Moment.

Except you don't create a monster. She's out of control by default and becomes a "monster" By default if you choose any set of choices that isn't the nonsensical carebear interaction with her with most people's Inquisitor's having to go wildly out of character in multiple instances of dialogue.

 

She should have begun the game neutral, and either become more vicious or more merciful based on player choice and interaction with her, leaving whatever came afterward beyond your control and forcing you to deal. But then again that wouldn't have permitted her to run rampant throughout most of the game with forced "badass" Moments either, and required she have some actual character development and a fresh story arc.

 

You are mixing together companion's and your choice. You don't have to make choice for other people, but you should have a choice on how to react on that. Like having an option to kick Lelianna the Undying out, which you don't.

Well, yeah, if they let you kick her out/kill her it would have been fine, but realistically I don't see that type of thing ever happening so I didn't even bother bringing it up.

 

The Inquis was sort of the king of not being able to react properly to situations though,- two of the worst offenders being forced into a weird OOC bff or worst enemy interaction with Sera, and standing there like a moron as Bianca threatens them.

[Mdizzletr0n]

Leiliana changed a lot from DAO to DAI personality wise. When I saw her I was thinking: "Who is this woman and what did she do with Leliana?" Lol. I liked how she stood up for her ideals regarding the ashes. Sure, depending on your playthrough she may have died over it but it was a good touch. F

[Mdizzletr0n]

Except you don't create a monster. She's out of control by default and becomes a "monster" By default if you choose any set of choices that isn't the nonsensical carebear interaction with her with most people's Inquisitor's having to go wildly out of character in multiple instances of dialogue.

She should have begun the game neutral, and either become more vicious or more merciful based on player choice and interaction with her, leaving whatever came afterward beyond your control and forcing you to deal. But then again that wouldn't have permitted her to run rampant throughout most of the game with forced "badass" Moments either, and required she have some actual character development and a fresh story arc.


Well, yeah, if they let you kick her out/kill her it would have been fine, but realistically I don't see that type of thing ever happening so I didn't even bother bringing it up.

The Inquis was sort of the king of not being able to react properly to situations though,- two of the worst offenders being forced into a weird OOC bff or worst enemy interaction with Sera, and standing there like a moron as Bianca threatens them.

That's kind of Bw's general thing with their protagonists.

[Midnight Bliss]

That's kind of Bw's general thing with their protagonists.

Not really. I can't remember a single situation like that in ME or DAO. (Probably not DA2 either, but I forget)

[KaiserShep]

Not really. I can't remember a single situation like that in ME or DAO. (Probably not DA2 either, but I forget)

 

One key one for me is Jack's first encounter. At the docking area, right then and there I should have had the option to abandon her, because maybe Shepard might not want an erratic killer biotic aboard the ship, would rather see her go down with the station than have her roaming the Normandy's corridors, but once you do the mission, you have no choice but to take that character regardless of what they might be like in the end. 

[themikefest]

One key one for me is Jack's first encounter. At the docking area, right then and there I should have had the option to abandon her, because maybe Shepard might not want an erratic killer biotic aboard the ship, would rather see her go down with the station than have her roaming the Normandy's corridors, but once you do the mission, you have no choice but to take that character regardless of what they might be like in the end. 

I agree.

 

The moment Jack says to femshep "you sound like a .......", my femshep would've smashed her in the face and leave her to die.

[fraggle]

I think this is a good idea, but imo a player should also be allowed to work on a desired outcome (for something like Loyalty missions at least).

 

So I'm thinking... maybe something like the DAI approval system? If you don't have a high enough approval by the time you are supposed to make a choice/whatever for your companion, said companion will make the choice him/herself based on what outcome they prefer, regardless of your 2 cents on how to deal with something. Not sure how well this would work though. I think it depends on some things, your relationship to each other for example (is said companion your subordinate or someone who joined up voluntarily?).

 

What about Zaeed then as an example. So say we work with approval and your approval with him is very low. When the time comes to make a choice whether to pursue Vido or free the workers, Zaeed will overrule a choice that differs from his own preference and runs away. The player could then have the choice to follow Zaeed, which would gain approval, or the player could pursue his own desired path at the expense of a 3rd companion and will gain even more disapproval. The consequences? If it's a standalone game, you could either work on your differences, split up afterwards, send companions away (hell, or maybe they'll quit themselves ). In a standalone game that is doable I guess. They've done that already. For example BW recently made a very cool betrayal scene based on a previous choice that pushes a certain character towards this outcome. I'm always in favor for something like that, so... betraying, leaving, being their own character, I'd really welcome anything like that

If it's another trilogy with potential returning companions, it should probably be a simpler system or else we'll get another ME2 squad mate treatment. I guess in that case I'd prefer special dialogue or a special situation to solve the dispute one way or another.

[Zazzerka]

I agree.

 

The moment Jack says to femshep "you sound like a .......", my femshep would've smashed her in the face and leave her to die.

 

You wouldn't even let her finish her sentence?

 

Rude.

[Hazegurl]

 I would love the option of companions having free will, especially during their own missions. I'm sick and tired of playing mommy to a bunch of adult children. However, it would be nice if my character isn't standing around like some doormat either. If I give an order and it's disobeyed I would also like the option to not be cool with it and toss them from the group or punish them. Choices should have consequences for the companion too.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

No objection, as long as I can respond by kicking them off the squad or killing them.

 

They're welcome to be their own person.  So am I.

 

I have to agree here. I have no problem with it, as long especially with people under my command, that I can punish or reward them as a consequence of their actions.

 

For example: Character X disobeys my order and kills someone with vital intel I need before I get said intel. Then I should have the option to relieve them of duty, arrest, kill, let them go, or maybe some combination to Character X for their actions.  

 

Giving NPC characters some free agency shouldn't allow them to be free of consequences of their actions regardless if the player has any control and/or input to what or how those consequences should or will be. 

[Midnight Bliss]

One key one for me is Jack's first encounter. At the docking area, right then and there I should have had the option to abandon her, because maybe Shepard might not want an erratic killer biotic aboard the ship, would rather see her go down with the station than have her roaming the Normandy's corridors, but once you do the mission, you have no choice but to take that character regardless of what they might be like in the end. 

For me that was a narrative problem, since it didn't do a very good job of establishing why they wanted her at all, and why she was trustworthy. But you did get the chance to react to her being hostile and act hostile back which was enough for me. Whereas with Lelianna and Bianca the Inquis just stands there like a moron and can't even have a reaction.

[goishen]

That's an odd way to say that.  "I don't make decisions for you, neither you will for me."  It's just a highly odd way of putting that.  Just tossing it out there.

 

Back on topic.  Remember Horizon from ME2?  When the quarians decided not to help Shepard?  Yah, they thought that they could go their own way?  Yah, that stuff already happened.

[Iakus]

No objection, as long as I can respond by kicking them off the squad or killing them.

 

They're welcome to be their own person.  So am I.

Hey in DAI, if the Inquisitor doesn't take a specific dialogue option that's unlocked by a perk you might or might not have, she'll essentially take a renegade interrupt and "finish the mission" her way without input from the Inquisitor if you don't do it yourself (she even warns you about it)

 

And then you can kick her to the curb in the post mission conversation

[SNascimento]

Mass Effect already had that, Mordin is probably the best example. I believe one of the "problems" is that you can generally get your way by chosing the "right" options. Take Samara for example, it's not Shepard that convinces her no to take her own life, but he is the own that buys enough time for her daughter to say she would stay on the monastery.

I all in favor of squadmates not bowing down to the PC as if he was a godlike being, But saying Mass Effect was purety that is dead wrong.

[SlottsMachine]

I agree.

 

The moment Jack says to femshep "you sound like a .......", my femshep would've smashed her in the face and leave her to die.

 

Haha. That was the moment she became my favourite character.

[goishen]

Haha. That was the moment she became my favourite character.

 

 

It was at that moment that made me just sit up and say, "Wait...  What?  Did she just say what I think she said?"  But I agree, Jack is awesome and my most beloved character.

[Iakus]

I don't dislike Jack.  But I never understood why we had to bring a violent, possibly unstable person with a serious mad-on for Cerberus onto our ship, crewed largely by member s of Cerberus.

[Helios969]

I wouldn't mind terribly and would go so far as to have scenarios in which other companions who are morally opposed to the first companion's prospective actions that they slam the PC with an ultimatum: "Do that, and I'm outta here."  That would create quite the dilemma.  Of course, I don't think that would go over too well with the fan base at large.

[MaxQuartiroli]

There must be at least something that influence, at least indirectly, your companion's choice. Otherwise how you decide it? By chance? Or do you want all loyalty missions to finish always in the same way no matter what you do? What about choices-> consequences then? What about replayability value? One of the most (justified) criticism that people moved towards DA2 was exactly this one: "I cannot stop Anders from pursuing his plans no matter what I do". "I cannot avoid to kill both X and Y at the end, no matter who I side with".

 

And then there is the "indirect consequence approach" like Ciri's final choice in TW3 and also the new divine choice in DA:I. While someone could say that it's still better than playing the "mommy's role" I still can see many faults in this one: many players complained that such important outcomes were determined by some choices which were not very foreshadowing and having the ideal outcome was more a matter of luck than logic. Personally, i don't like it because I see it like a reason to metagame even more, and something that forces you to plan very well in advance your playthrough. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Hey in DAI, if the Inquisitor doesn't take a specific dialogue option that's unlocked by a perk you might or might not have, she'll essentially take a renegade interrupt and "finish the mission" her way without input from the Inquisitor if you don't do it yourself (she even warns you about it)

And then you can kick her to the curb in the post mission conversation

Who's that?

Sounds like Sera.

[KaiserShep]

I agree.
 
The moment Jack says to femshep "you sound like a .......", my femshep would've smashed her in the face and leave her to die.

You know what else would have been amusing? Selling out Kasumi to Donovan.

[themikefest]

You know what else would have been amusing? Selling out Kasumi to Donovan.

Ha.

 

Maybe turning Garrus over to C-Sec  for attempting to kill a civilian.

Let Uvenk kill Grunt

Kill Mordin and bring Maelon on the ship

Take Kal'Reegar and not Tali

Having Thane thrown in jail for his previous crimes and take Koylat in his place

[Iakus]

Who's that?

Sounds like Sera.

It is, in fact, Sera

 

Spoiler

 On her personal mission if you take to many investigate options she will interrupt your interrogation and kill him herself, unless you have the Nobility Knowledge perk and use the dialogue option it unlocks

 

Now that I think about it, Fenris in DA2 will eventually leave the party if you take too long to do his Act 2 quest once it unlocks.

[KaiserShep]

Well, I suppose once Mordin creates the countermeasure for the seeker swarm, his usefulness is spent.