24 réponses à ce sujet

[Blood Mage Reaver]

Every DA game since Origins has kept the formula of a four man party on every quest with only a few uncontrollable NPCs for the occasional help.

 

While this ties in with the usual D&D play that Origins was inspired by, technological advancements made it possible for much more complex gameplay arrangements to be made.

 

Provided that they don't make a brutal increase in graphics detail, the next DA game should be able to put a massive amount of enemies in a single encounter and since party management is getting simplified after each installment then wouldn't it be possible to increase our quest parties to 5 or 6 members?

 

I mean, I know that more party members can reduce the difficult of battles or consume to many resources but if they increase the difficulty of the game by throwing hordes at you and increase healing options then said problems can be balanced out.

 

My idea is having the story play out LotR style with a six man fellowship on a quest to stop Solas and whoever comes above him.

 

Your thoughts?

[ArcadiaGrey]

I'd find it too complex tbh.  When you're new to a game and learning what your companions can do, upping the number from 3 to 6 would make it a serious headache for me.

 

I like the group of 3 + your pc the best.  ME is too few with only 2.

 

However a one off, set piece battle with many ppl involved could be cool.  Just not all the time.

[Patricia08]

I would love to see a party with more members so 6 members or even more in my party would be okay for me. I would love all the party banters that will come with so many companions. I have played a game where there were 8 members ( sometimes even 10 ) in the party and i loved it the more the better.   

[Blood Mage Reaver]

I'd find it too complex tbh.  When you're new to a game and learning what your companions can do, upping the number from 3 to 6 would make it a serious headache for me.

 

I like the group of 3 + your pc the best.  ME is too few with only 2.

 

However a one off, set piece battle with many ppl involved could be cool.  Just not all the time.

In Origins our party grew over time and was well integrated to the story, we started out with only Alistair and Morrigan as mandatory party members by roughly a third of the game but we had to do various quests to recruit more and this is what made a bigger party so rewarding.

 

Another feature was filling yet unoccupied party slots with cannon fodder which was at least more entertaining than watching a stray NPC engage in suicidal runs against random enemies.

 

I would love to see a party with more members so 6 members or even more in my party would be okay for me. I would love all the party banters that will come with so many companions. I have played a game where there were 8 members in the party and i loved it the more the better.   

I agree, a major problem in DAI is that much of companion character development comes from party interaction but we are restricted to few companions at each time.

 

In DAI we can only bring 3 companions out of 9 in each quest but if we could bring some 6 companions out of 12 it would become more interesting.

[vertigomez]

Ahhh, the good old days of ga_party_limit(9).

[Dai Grepher]

Origins had more than 4 party members.

The Skip the Joining exploit lets you have Daveth and Ser Jory in Lothering along with Alistair, Morrigan and Dog. It is fun to play as a 6 member party, and it is easier. As for it being a lot to deal with, that can be corrected with a better tactics system.

Even without the exploit, your mages could animate dead and your rogues could summon beasts. Multiple beasts with an exploit.

I think there should be missions where all of your party members are present, like at the battle of Denerim, but as more than just NPCs.

Then for other missions, the party can be split into two different groups, again like at Denerim.

[Force of the North]

I wish there were options of things to do with party members not in your group. Maybe similar to the war table.

[Knight of Dane]

I think 3 of each is fitting. You can have a full party of [PC's Class] if you want to then.

[Wulfram]

Not with the current design. More party members would need to mean fewer actions per character or much better AI.

[Blood Mage Reaver]

Not with the current design. More party members would need to mean fewer actions per character or much better AI.

No doubts about that but we are talking about a future game with considerably improved technology.

[wtfman99]

Maybe start small with the standard party configuration but at the half way point of the game once people become more familiar with tactics, abilities etc, then have it become a bigger group. 

[SonnyKohler]

Doesn't matter to me.  It would just be 5 other people (btw LOTR was 9 - Frodo, Sam, Boromir, Aragorn, Merry, Pippin, Gandalf, Gimli, and Legolas - I know there were always supposed to be 9 to match the number of Nazgul, but, if Merry & Pippin weren't supposed to be going anyway, who were the other two that they were going to chose?  Elrond's sons?  Hmm...) that I need to equip with armor, weapons, potions and stuff and then let do their thing 'cause the only time I ever switch to another character is when I'm playing and need to unlock a door or kick down a wall (I usually play a mage).

[Inkvisiittori]

I think three companions and your character is good. If there is some big battle then we can just bring extra allies with us like in the Battle of Denerim.

 

I wish there were options of things to do with party members not in your group. Maybe similar to the war table.

 

Good idea. Maybe send them to do some missions for you or something like that? I like the Wartable idea.

[Gervaise]

Well back in the days of Baldurs Gate we had 5 companions plus the PC.   I liked that arrangement and it did allow certain interactions to play out that would have been missed if we had only had 3 companions with us.    I found there were many companion dialogues I missed altogether because the skill mix didn't allow for certain people to be in the same party; this was particularly the case with the warrior companions.   Even when I did include, say, both Bull and Blackwall in the same party to try and get them to interact, the banter system didn't work reliably enough to allow this.   With most of the companions you needed to have them with you throughout to get them to work through all their conversations.

 

However, I would settle for simply having the opportunity to use all companions, like with the Battle of Denerim where the companions who weren't in your party had their own mini-battle with you controlling them.   An extension of that idea would be appreciated.

[Nefla]

You lost me at "the game will throw hoards of enemies at you."

[MidnightWolf]

I'd rather it stays as it is, and they put more effort into the AI and tactics. Companions already spend enough time getting in the way and trapping me in tight spaces, without adding more of them to the mix. Granted I can switch to one of them to escape, but it's still annoying.

[nightscrawl]

I think three is a decent amount, particularly when you have three classes in the series. You have the PC and whatever their class is, and then can choose from the variety of followers to accompany you based on your needs, or simply your preference for the person.

 

Also, another reason I prefer the smaller number IS for the "preference in person" factor. If you only have a need for a single mage, but have three available mages, you are more free to take whomever you prefer rather than being forced to bring along multiple people you dislike people just to fill out the party.

[Phoe77]

I'm not overly fond of the idea unless they also increased the number of potential companions.  A big part of replayability in the dragon age games, for me at least, is going through the game with different characters.  Aside from that, past games (mostly BG2) don't make me think that we'd see a big increase in banters between more than 2 companions anyway.  

[AnimalBoy]

No

[Guildmasterron]

I prefer what Baldur's Gate gave us - a party maximum of 6, five companions plus the PC. I like having a pool of characters to draw from, so one can mix and match. Baldur's Gate 2 was an awesome game for its time. Great story.

[CoM Solaufein]

A party of six like Baldur's Gate would be great. Bioware seems to go backwards at times from the great success of the BG series.

[The Night Haunter]

Yes, more companions active = more options for companion dialogue. There was a bit in DA2 that was actually impossible to hear unless you used mods/console to bring out more than 3 companions (very minor stuff, but the point remains). If Bioware brings back tactics from Origins/DA2 then it wouldn't matter how many allies you get, it would end up being manageable, even for those who wish to play more 3rd person control-only-protagonist style.

 

One of the things that never makes sense to me is in ME you always have at least 6 squadmates, yet 2/3 or more of them will sit on the ship, twiddling their thumbs, while you go out and save the galaxy. Whenever we see the inside of that drop ship it always looks so empty with just 3 people in it. I loved that the final mission on NWN2 let you bring out literally your entire group.

[BSpud]

Yes

[Dragongirl24]

I say yes to 

[thebigbad1013]

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand it would be great as there would be more companion dialogue available, but I have always seen that as one of the many reasons to replay BioWare games--to use some of the other companions that you maybe didn't use as much in your first playthrough and get to know them a little better. I guess, in the end, I wouldn't be opposed to them raising the number of companions we can bring with us, but I also wouldn't complain if they kept the number where it is.