13 réponses à ce sujet

[kidbd15]

So I was going over some older IGN articles from earlier this month regarding ME2, and I came across this:
http://xbox360.ign.c.../1067658p1.html

I really didn't read much, just snippets here and there... I didn't really get or care for his complaining, but he made one really good point:

"Why, in a game with loyalty missions, isn't there a loyalty system based
on Shepard's squad commands during combat? If I make smart choices for
my party members in the middle of an ambush, wouldn't that be a better
way of creating loyalty? Wouldn't moments like the crew conflict between
Jack and Miranda be even more powerful if they were based on my actual
gameplay performance? Wouldn't that have added just as much to the death
risk in the end, knowing that a character whose personality I liked but
didn't ultimately use very much, had stopped trusting me because I
never chose them? I do well with a biotic team in battle but bungle with
soldier class characters, then let that be the trigger for a dramatic
hissy-fit in which I get to choose whom to coax and whom to snap at?
That could have been a way to personalize the combat and tie it into the
same system of consequence in the dialogue. "

This would be quite awesome actually... BW should have done this, it would have made
the game much more personal and difficult in terms of gaining loyalty,
that way we would actively be trying to gain loyalty throughout the 
entire game for every character, not just do the loyalty missions for a
single character and be done with it. 

Of course the loyalty missions
should still be there, as say %50 of the total loyalty, but the
remaining 50% would be a combination of picking them on your team and
how you order them around (i.e. placement on battle field, how many
times they die in the battlefield and how quickly you heal them, which
of their powers are used, etc). 

Of course, conversation after each mission should also come in to play.  On a bit of a side note, did anyone else feel that after each mission, the entire crew should have been in the meeting room, not just Jacob and Miranda... it totally took away from the whole "team" aspect of the game.  I think everyone I deemed important enough to acquire is definitely important enough to be included in these meetings where their input would also be interesting to hear.

In the end, if all your teammates
survived, you know you were a good leader on and off the battle field,
and would feel like you actually accomplished a true feat by keeping you
entire crew alive.

Thoughts on this type of loyalty scheme?

[superimposed]

No.



They're AI controlled, do not respond instantly and perfectly to how you want them. You can tell them to move to cover two metres to their right and they'll go left and around a pot plant and then die.

[NICKjnp]

superimposed wrote...

No.

They're AI controlled, do not respond instantly and perfectly to how you want them. You can tell them to move to cover two metres to their right and they'll go left and around a pot plant and then die.

or use unity to revive them and they will run right back under the praetorian and get squished again.

[guise709]

kidbd15 wrote...

Of course, conversation after each mission should also come in to play.  On a bit of a side note, did anyone else feel that after each mission, the entire crew should have been in the meeting room, not just Jacob and Miranda... it totally took away from the whole "team" aspect of the game.  I think everyone I deemed important enough to acquire is definitely important enough to be included in these meetings where their input would also be interesting to hear.

This

[GnusmasTHX]

Or they just don't bother moving at all.

[Onyx Jaguar]

That would just confuse the hell out of the situation. I do not agree with that at all, plus tell me once were a game has accurately put something like that in place.

[kidbd15]

So.... in other words, improve team battle response commands before even thinking about making it critical in loyalty.

[fanman72]

God no. A nightmare for the devs, and now i"m getting scrutinized by my teammates while fighting

[Onyx Jaguar]

kidbd15 wrote...

So.... in other words, improve team battle response commands before even thinking about making it critical in loyalty.

Yes, the AI in ME 2 was better than ME 1 but such a system would confound matters if they were to put it in place, need refinement before advancement.  

[kidbd15]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

That would just confuse the hell out of the situation. I do not agree with that at all, plus tell me once were a game has accurately put something like that in place.

I don't know of any game that has done it... but innovation is key, and if any company could do it, BW could.

[GuardianAngel470]

Didn't Kotor 2 have a system where your decisions dictated who was loyal? For instance, If you were an upstanding gentleman the Jedi monk woman would be loyal but Sith leaning and rogue characters wouldn't be. I didn't like it much in that game, and making it an integral part of why certain squad members survived would make it worse.

EDIT: I know Bioware didn't make KOTOR 2, Obsidian Entertainment did

Modifié par GuardianAngel470, 02 mars 2010 - 06:39 .

[Lekke]

Yes it did

[enormousmoonboots]

Yeah, but it just added a frustrating micromanaging aspect. Very Guide Dang It. "Can't do that quest, I have Kreia with me and she'll get mad if I resolve it to make Bao-Dur happy." In one memorable conversation, I got all of these notices:

-Influence Gained: Kreia

-Influence Lost: Kreia

-Influence Gained: Atton

-Light Side Points Gained

-Dark Side Points Gained



God damn, was it frustrating.

[Mnemnosyne]

Yeah, something like this would only work if the control system was perfect, which it's not. AI squad mates constantly get killed for reasons outside your control. In a game like Dragon Age where you can directly control your team that might be an interesting way to do things, but not when you have to rely on the AI to carry out your orders in exactly the way you intend.



You order a squad mate to move to a position. Assuming he even responds instantly and moves to the position you order, which route does he take - the one you intended, that keeps him safe and under cover, or the one that leads him to run through an exposed line of fire and take a missile to the face?