inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
Member is Online
Sept 23, 2024 1:20:42 GMT
25,401
themikefest
15,320
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Aug 13, 2024 11:24:53 GMT
ME 1: Have to recruit Kaidan, Ashley, Liara (vital to the plot), optional Garrus (have to interact with him) and Wrex (think you have to interact with him but I am not sure) Wrex will show up at the elevator if Shepard doesn't talk to him before that. Samara, Tali and Thane are not mandatory. Jack, Garrus, Miranda, Jacob, Mordin are mandatory. The player has to have at least 8 squadmates to complete the game A/K are mandatory at the beginning of the game, but the player has the option to bring them back, or not, on the SR2 after the coup. I don't recall Anders being mandatory Isabela is optional as well. I know since I missed her in my first playthrough of the game.
|
|
inherit
664
0
3,047
Grog Muffins
Seethingway
1,126
August 2016
grogmuffins
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by Grog Muffins on Aug 13, 2024 11:29:50 GMT
This not only has an effect on role-play but it also bears asking about the gameplay function of the companions. We know something about the relationship meter (I'd like to know even more because even that is explained vaguely), but what about the classic sense of leveling up? How do companions gain exp? Do they gain exp and level up only from this relationship meter if you bring them along and interact with them during important quests? Does it apply only to main quests or also to side quests? Do they gain exp through combat? Quest completion? Do they gain exp only if they're in the active party or do they gain exp passively, even if not present? This also leads to how much grinding do you have to do. They've said they don't want the player to grind for progression, but what does using some companions more than others mean for their level progression? Are the companions you use more often going to be more advanced and the ones used least going to fall behind and do you feel compelled to switch them out to avoid the need for grinding? Again, confusing and vague messaging here that I hope gets cleared up at some point. Take it with a grain of salt, but I feel like I've read recently that all the companions will level up at the same time, but I don't have a source for that info. So my assumption would be they might level up with Rook, or there will be some milestones? And this is just a pure speculation, but I understand the relationship meter being either for special skills you unlock or maybe just the way the AI will behave (maybe a character with good relationship will do better to protect Rook in combat?). I am really curious about how that one will work too.
Either way, I don't think there will be much grinding, it sounds like the game will be more streamlined than the Inquisition.
This is what I expected was going to happen before the marketing started. I think that the GI articles were confusing in how they explained the relationship system because maybe they were told that everything outside of it functions exactly as in the previous games, so they didn't think they'd need to mention it in relation to this new system. I will for now trust the very little grinding information because that I did hear straight from the devs themselves, and for everything else I will wait until further clarification is provided, either by the next round of interviews and gameplay showcases, or by what's in the game itself post launch.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
Sept 23, 2024 1:27:05 GMT
34,730
colfoley
18,217
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Aug 13, 2024 11:48:46 GMT
This also makes me think to this point as well that BioWare does not force us to use all 7 companions, or how many of them in a given game, on missions. Sure there is probably other technological reasons and logic reasons behind those situations but at the end of the day BioWare is not forcing you to interact with companions or take them with you or interact them with them in a certain way. Like I get it, player agency is important to consider for these games but I think at the very least as a basic buy in for these games we can do them the curteousy of at least letting them introduce their hard work.
Hm... Perhaps so but I think they are "forced upon us" if only tangentially. The Skill Tree may contain certain "skills" that you like and select but during the game you find out they come from a companion that you have no affinity for. Yet, to obtain that skill you must "unlock" it via a Relationship level progression with that person. Increasing the relationship Level requires interaction. Thus, the game gives us no/little player agency here and the word "forced" is applicable, imo.
Funny that courteous is mentioned. Marketing's only obligation is to sell a product and their description of said product can be "elastic" but never cross the line to become a lie. Remember the time during the heavy micro transaction era when game review sites received a promo game with the xmts removed? ...great reviews were given... them being courteous to us?
That's just part and parcel of the player choice I am talking about in these games and how player choice can matter even in a situation where you have a wide variety of companions. During ME 2 I was in a situation where my cannon Shepard didn't like Samra or Grunt to give them A team status pretty much and I as a player went in a different direction as well. Yet during the Collector Ship mission I find their skills particularly useful. Given how I tend to play these games I was presented with a choice on what was a 'main story' mission. Do I play the game how I normally do and take weak companions on? Or do I take a team that has tactical benefits for a particularly annoying difficult mission? All apart of the choices you can have in games in which some choices are mandatory you get a wide variety of choice in the team you take with you on these missions. Do you take characters your character gets along with? Or those that can benefit you for a mission? Do you metagame or strictly play in role? Again I am not saying that you can't play the game a certain way and nor is BioWare. You are still free to take a wide lattitude of choice when it comes to the inclusion of your companions in gameplay and the ignoring of their content the only slight difference this time is you at least have to recruit them. From there the ball is pretty much in your court. Yes you may get the occasional cutscene where you have to interact with them even after that but that is not really taking your choice away the other 99.9% you have it. Which is largely the reason I find this argument that this somehow invalidates player agency to be pretty illogical. You have all the agency to interact in the game how you wish no one is taking that away from you the only thing BioWare has done is move the needly maybe .1% away from your control and into their corner. No but I expect my video games to behave in a logical and consistent manner both in and out of universe. And I want my gameplay to reflect that since I expect myself to behave in a logical and rational manner by proxy when I am playing my Inquisitor, Ryder, or Rook. And if you want to play games in a different way then me then you can and BioWare is allowing you to do so. I only brought up it in the specifics of your logic that you used that even being forced to interact with companions you don't like as a no no. But lets go down the list. ME 1: Have to recruit Kaidan, Ashley, Liara (vital to the plot), optional Garrus (have to interact with him) and Wrex (think you have to interact with him but I am not sure). ME 2: Optional- Legion, Grunt, Zaeed (DLC), Kasumi (DLC). Mandatory Miranda, Jacob, Garrus, Jack, Samra, Thane, Mordin (vital to the plot), Tali. ME 3: Optional- Javik (DLC), Ashley/ Kaidan Mandatory-virtually everyone else, or at least, again, have to interact with them. DAO-You are right the only exception to this rule. DAA- Everyone mandatory. DA 2- Optional Fenris, Sebastian (DLC) DAI Optional, Blackwall, Sera, Vivienne, Iron Bull, Cole, (have to interact with) Dorian (have to interact with). So for the vast majority of these games the majority of these companions had to be recruited, or at the very least interacted with the only real exceptions being Inquisition and Origins. This I doubt very much. Indeed in all the interviews to this point they have talked about how important these companions are for the story of the game and how much they have been advertising this game as getting back to their roots from a character perspective. "Back in the day" Bioware was a role playing game company. And because they were a roleplaying game company people could choose to exclude certain companions because, and not limited to - Good run, evil run, Anti some faction run, hate their face run. Considering their roots were DnD and DnD emphasises PLAYER CONTROLLED stories, this made people happy. Taking back control goes against what their original playerbase likes and therefore there may or may not be some pushback. Also if I find Wrex is an ass and I want eject him into outer space, I should be able to do that. Whether you like real world logical and consistency in your runs doesn't really matter. Like I said, Bioware's original playerbase was DnD and DnD stories get crazy. Concerning my original words, let's deep dive shall we - "So there'll be zero interactions with companions you don't want around with the player in the game then". If a player doesn't want to interact with a character that would imply enough previous interactions for the player to decide whether or not they want to keep them around. This doesn't mean ZERO interactions, although it could if for example she wears the tabard from the knighthood of the church of the Spaghetti monster and you are a rival faction. This means that the player should be able to choose whether the character can join OR when to dismiss that character. It does NOT mean no interaction at all. BG1 had more than 20 chars. BG 2 had more than 20 chars. Almost all of which can be recruited and dismissed at your leisure. KOTOR introduced more mandatory companions and ever since really only some have always been optional or dismissable. It has NEVER been the vast majority. DAA gets an exception because it was an expansion (almost nobody played). Otherwise, and this may not be the cause, but if you look at the games with the most mandatory chars, these have probably been the worst received of their respective franchises. ME3 and DA:2. It may not be because of the chars, but I believe it reflects a change in philosophy of which was not so much enjoyed - DA:2 being a very linear, char focused game and ME:3 having the ending hijacking player agency away from people. Also while you may doubt it very much, this is how game writing works. While the companions are very important to the story, no doubt, nobody said those chars which were important to the story had to be companions. And that ALL your companions were important to the story. This is a very arbitray decision, NOT one that was forced upon them because the story demanded. See you basically proved my point though. There are some things in BioWare RPGs you can't do. You can't just randomly kill Wrex because you don't like him. In KOTOR you can't just randomly go off and join Malak. Even in BioWare's supposed RPG hey day you were limited in some choices you could do by the writers or the resources they were provided with. And thus BioWare is still a company that makes RPGs because this has not changed from what we have seen from Veilguard we have already seen dialgue options, choices, and customization in appearance and character levelling. And the thing is these limits go for every Video Game and TTRPG every made. Every single game ever falls somewhere along the line of Player Agency versus on rails developer mandated. Or DM and rule set in the case of D&D and other TTRPGs. You even acknowledged this by calling it the illusion of choice. And I guess some people tend to believe in this illusion to the exclusion of all else. And while I appreciate player agency and do value it in games that do it well I also recognize its an illusion and thus Game Developers aren't going to be able to allow us to do everything, sometimes to the betterment of said projects. Not D&D. Not BG III. And certainly not BioWare who never really have done that level of RPing in either ME or DA or even KOTOR. I think you are getting things a bit turned around here. The story mandates nothing other then the story BioWare wants to tell. BioWare wants to tell this story. BioWare wants this story to have 7 companions in it and BioWare wants this story to focus on companions more then they have usually done even in past games. BioWare is making these decision, a story can't mandate anything out of a background, its the story BioWare is choosing to tell. I don't get it. Did Bioware confirm that all of the companions are mandatory and you must recruit all of them, no exceptions? I don't get it. Did Bioware confirm that all of the companions are mandatory and you must recruit all of them, no exceptions? As far as I know, not confirmed one way or another. And even being forced to use companions hasn't been confirmed, only if you want to progress their quests. This all started from a theoretical I believe? Ell Oh Ell I am pretty sure this has been confirmed and said by BioWare devs in interviews over the last few weeks. Of course I don't have the quote, nor the game, in front of me so I can't be 100% sure, but then I wouldn't argue the point as strongly as I did unless I strongly believed it and strongly believed that this could be a good thing for the game. they mention you can't really do something without having specific people around, but then that your Rook can still do things that the companions can also do, if you choose to build Rook that way. The messaging seems non-committal. This is a part which also confuses me. Because They don't make it clear enough what they mean. Or contradict themselves. As i have said more than onces this is bad marketing. If you say something say it so that everyone know what you mean. The vagaries of human perception makes that an impossible standard. People tend to have different points of view based on their own individual perception and biases. Even pretty basic information can fall into this spectrum and given that people can view the written word different ways or interpret information in different ways means that BioWare probably can't have every single person on the planet view their info the same way. I think it was implied when they said you need them to defeat... Whatever we will face in the endgame. So they can leave, but will return when needed. I also got the impression they might be mandatory for some missions, although it's not clear if the missions themselves are mandatory. Either way, I personally don't turn down companions since it's content, so for me it doesn't matter. Sorry for those who really like that feature, but if it means they can make them more relevant to the plot it's a win for me personally. Companions I dislike I just leave at camp (looking at you Sera). The missions where companions are mandatory could also just be companion missions too, yeah. We really need a bit more info. I thought we'd have more info by now TBH :S Got about what I have been expecting so far. ME 1: Have to recruit Kaidan, Ashley, Liara (vital to the plot), optional Garrus (have to interact with him) and Wrex (think you have to interact with him but I am not sure) Wrex will show up at the elevator if Shepard doesn't talk to him before that. Samara, Tali and Thane are not mandatory. Jack, Garrus, Miranda, Jacob, Mordin are mandatory. The player has to have at least 8 squadmates to complete the game A/K are mandatory at the beginning of the game, but the player has the option to bring them back, or not, on the SR2 after the coup. I don't recall Anders being mandatory Isabela is optional as well. I know since I missed her in my first playthrough of the game. Thanks! Forgot about Anders. Granted did that in a hurry and also dealing with that 'how dare BioWare makes me interact with these people' line of reasoning so I am pretty sure you can't skip Anders. Though now that I am thinking about it also just occured to me think you can skip Anders in 2.
|
|
Andraste_Reborn
N4
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 1,711 Likes: 7,397
inherit
469
0
Sept 12, 2024 23:09:48 GMT
7,397
Andraste_Reborn
1,711
August 2016
andrastereborn
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Andraste_Reborn on Aug 13, 2024 11:56:41 GMT
Though now that I am thinking about it also just occured to me think you can skip Anders in 2. You cannot. The only optional companions in DA2 are Isabela, Fenris and Sebastian. Everyone else is compulsory, even Merrill, which always seemed odd to me. (I think the game just doesn't want to risk you being left without a mage companion after Bethany leaves if you throw Anders off the team in Act II or kill him at end game, but it's pretty odd that Hawke is forced to keep her in the roster even if they tell her they don't plan to visit her in the city and never speak with her again.)
I think you can skip everyone in DAA - you certainly don't have to recruit Anders, who can be given back to the Templars. The only one I've never turned down myself is Oghren. (As in DAO, I think there's an option to not recruit him but I've never actually found it.)
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
Sept 23, 2024 1:27:05 GMT
34,730
colfoley
18,217
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Aug 13, 2024 12:01:17 GMT
Though now that I am thinking about it also just occured to me think you can skip Anders in 2. You cannot. The only optional companions in DA2 are Isabela, Fenris and Sebastian. Everyone else is compulsory, even Merrill, which always seemed odd to me. (I think the game just doesn't want to risk you being left without a mage companion after Bethany leaves if you throw Anders off the team in Act II or kill him at end game, but it's pretty odd that Hawke is forced to keep her in the roster even if they tell her they don't plan to visit her in the city and never speak with her again.)
I think you can skip everyone in DAA - you certainly don't have to recruit Anders, who can be given back to the Templars. The only one I've never turned down myself is Oghren. (As in DAO, I think there's an option to not recruit him but I've never actually found it.)
I'll admit I threw the Awakening list out there at the last minute as a live hand grenade because I forgot about it till the last minute. Also missed Andromeda which I am pretty sure you don't have the option to not recruit everyone...maybe Drak? Even then though the rest of them are all mandatory and I at least consider Andromeda to be BioWare's second best RPG from an RP perspective. And Isabella, correct me if I am wrong but recruiting her was mandatory (which is what we have been talking about to my understanding), but then can get her leave later?
|
|
inherit
11611
0
Sept 22, 2024 16:54:55 GMT
1,191
fairdragon
1,821
Jul 30, 2020 17:14:13 GMT
July 2020
fairdragon
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate
|
Post by fairdragon on Aug 13, 2024 12:21:24 GMT
I am pretty sure this has been confirmed and said by BioWare devs in interviews over the last few weeks. Of course I don't have the quote, nor the game, in front of me so I can't be 100% sure, but then I wouldn't argue the point as strongly as I did unless I strongly believed it and strongly believed that this could be a good thing for the game. The only text to that i can find is this.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
Sept 23, 2024 1:27:05 GMT
34,730
colfoley
18,217
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Aug 13, 2024 12:22:44 GMT
I am pretty sure this has been confirmed and said by BioWare devs in interviews over the last few weeks. Of course I don't have the quote, nor the game, in front of me so I can't be 100% sure, but then I wouldn't argue the point as strongly as I did unless I strongly believed it and strongly believed that this could be a good thing for the game. The only text to that i can find is this. Yeah that is certainly not the line I was thinking of it.
|
|
our_lady_of_darkness
N2
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 247 Likes: 574
inherit
899
0
Mar 23, 2017 21:52:34 GMT
574
our_lady_of_darkness
247
Aug 11, 2016 14:01:28 GMT
August 2016
ourladyofdarkness
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by our_lady_of_darkness on Aug 13, 2024 12:25:40 GMT
You cannot. The only optional companions in DA2 are Isabela, Fenris and Sebastian. Everyone else is compulsory, even Merrill, which always seemed odd to me. (I think the game just doesn't want to risk you being left without a mage companion after Bethany leaves if you throw Anders off the team in Act II or kill him at end game, but it's pretty odd that Hawke is forced to keep her in the roster even if they tell her they don't plan to visit her in the city and never speak with her again.)
I think you can skip everyone in DAA - you certainly don't have to recruit Anders, who can be given back to the Templars. The only one I've never turned down myself is Oghren. (As in DAO, I think there's an option to not recruit him but I've never actually found it.) And Isabella, correct me if I am wrong but recruiting her was mandatory (which is what we have been talking about to my understanding), but then can get her leave later? I think you can miss Isabela if you don't go to the tavern in the specific in-game period. And if you recruit her, you can definitely make her leave you later in the game.
|
|
sjsharp2010
N7
Go Team!
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 12,250 Likes: 20,234
inherit
2309
0
Sept 22, 2024 17:38:41 GMT
20,234
sjsharp2010
Go Team!
12,250
December 2016
sjsharp2010
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by sjsharp2010 on Aug 13, 2024 12:49:56 GMT
And Isabella, correct me if I am wrong but recruiting her was mandatory (which is what we have been talking about to my understanding), but then can get her leave later? I think you can miss Isabela if you don't go to the tavern in the specific in-game period. And if you recruit her, you can definitely make her leave you later in the game. Yea hyo ucan ge the rt oleave a ssh escampre soff wit hthe book i you don't reacjh a high approva lwith he leavin gyou high an ddry t odea lwith the Qunari on you rown and no tcomin gback. Generally she does com eback in m yplaythrough's thoug has most of my Hawke's do build a good relationship with her a sm yHawke' stend t omake all their companoins feel welcome in their group
|
|
inherit
8885
0
Sept 20, 2024 23:17:06 GMT
7,318
river82
5,008
July 2017
river82
|
Post by river82 on Aug 13, 2024 13:07:43 GMT
See you basically proved my point though. There are some things in BioWare RPGs you can't do. You can't just randomly kill Wrex because you don't like him. In KOTOR you can't just randomly go off and join Malak. Even in BioWare's supposed RPG hey day you were limited in some choices you could do by the writers or the resources they were provided with. And thus BioWare is still a company that makes RPGs because this has not changed from what we have seen from Veilguard we have already seen dialgue options, choices, and customization in appearance and character levelling. And the thing is these limits go for every Video Game and TTRPG every made. Every single game ever falls somewhere along the line of Player Agency versus on rails developer mandated. Or DM and rule set in the case of D&D and other TTRPGs. You even acknowledged this by calling it the illusion of choice. And I guess some people tend to believe in this illusion to the exclusion of all else. And while I appreciate player agency and do value it in games that do it well I also recognize its an illusion and thus Game Developers aren't going to be able to allow us to do everything, sometimes to the betterment of said projects. Not D&D. Not BG III. And certainly not BioWare who never really have done that level of RPing in either ME or DA or even KOTOR. I think you are getting things a bit turned around here. The story mandates nothing other then the story BioWare wants to tell. BioWare wants to tell this story. BioWare wants this story to have 7 companions in it and BioWare wants this story to focus on companions more then they have usually done even in past games. BioWare is making these decision, a story can't mandate anything out of a background, its the story BioWare is choosing to tell. Actually I didn't, because everything I've suggested is something they used to do ... back in BG times. You could kill Edwin, you could kill Viconoia, you could recruit or dismiss anyone you wanted. While I appreciate that there are some things you can't do, stating "there are some things in Bioware RPGs you can't do" when they used to do what we were talking about back in BG is a weak argument. Then you talk about player agency and miss the point because it isn't about there being things you can't do, it's about the decreasing amount of player agency in Bioware games over time. There's a reason for this you know. And it has to do with how much more expensive content is to create with cinematics and voice acting than in the olden days when everything was text based. It's extremely easy to have killeable companions and non recruitable companions when you typed words into a program and had sprites in an in game engine with very few cutscenes. Now games cost 300 million dollars. It's also why there used to be 20-30 companions in a Bioware game and now there's 6, or 7. It's why BG3 was very impressive. It was obviously very expensive and I'm pretty sure every one of your companions can die, nevermind not being recruited. And not just died, but story killed also. Very nice, you don't see these things in modern gaming much. Veilguard apparently has 80000 lines of dialogue (the 140k lines was different voiceactors for different protags IIRC). 300 actors recording tons of lines. That's a lot of resources. Very little in game development is about what's possible, and much more is about what's feasible with your budget and your time. Which is why I'm very disparaging about AAA. Which is the point I made in my original post. AA games tend to align more with my priorities whereas AAA games are increasingly spending money and time on things I don't find important to the detriment of things I do find important, like player agency. Regarding story, yes it is about what Bioware wants to do. I'm saying it's a conscious choice, not something that needed to be done. Bioware are perfectly within their rights to tell any story they want, but it's a want, not a need. So if Bioware has mandatory companions it's not about what the story needs, it's about what Bioware wants. Which is an important distinction. As for confirmation, the only place it would have been confirmed is the Edge magazine interview IIRC. And that's been paraphrased sometimes badly around the internet. Until I see a direct source, quoted not paraphrased, in my mind it remains unconfirmed.
|
|
inherit
11611
0
Sept 22, 2024 16:54:55 GMT
1,191
fairdragon
1,821
Jul 30, 2020 17:14:13 GMT
July 2020
fairdragon
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate
|
Post by fairdragon on Aug 13, 2024 13:44:00 GMT
Yeah, I was asking if they specified the companions that leave would return at the end and I just missed that clarification, or they assumed that people would understand that's what they meant. I remember from the Discord Q&A they said the companions would leave and return after a while, and I understood that as not right at the end for the last confrontation with the BBEG, but some time before that, kind of like what Solas does after his quest but a little more extended. In the QA they don't said when they are back only that they comeback. I look at the moment for the infos came after it. That make it clear that they comeback at the end.
|
|
githcheater
N3
Games: Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
Posts: 991 Likes: 1,191
inherit
959
0
Sept 23, 2024 1:05:41 GMT
1,191
githcheater
991
Aug 13, 2016 20:29:15 GMT
August 2016
githcheater
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by githcheater on Aug 13, 2024 14:02:12 GMT
I am pretty sure this has been confirmed and said by BioWare devs in interviews over the last few weeks. Of course I don't have the quote, nor the game, in front of me so I can't be 100% sure, but then I wouldn't argue the point as strongly as I did unless I strongly believed it and strongly believed that this could be a good thing for the game. The only text to that i can find is this. ... The above "forced regular intervals", "mandatory companions" & "companions not available" comments concern me greatly, as it will often force me to use companions I would prefer to ignore.
|
|
inherit
664
0
3,047
Grog Muffins
Seethingway
1,126
August 2016
grogmuffins
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by Grog Muffins on Aug 13, 2024 14:04:52 GMT
Yeah, I was asking if they specified the companions that leave would return at the end and I just missed that clarification, or they assumed that people would understand that's what they meant. I remember from the Discord Q&A they said the companions would leave and return after a while, and I understood that as not right at the end for the last confrontation with the BBEG, but some time before that, kind of like what Solas does after his quest but a little more extended. In the QA they don't said when they are back only that they comeback. I look at the moment for the infos came after it. That make it clear that they comeback at the end. Hmm, do you mean the first GI article, the big 12 page one? I didn't read that one because of story spoilers so if it's mentioned there, I missed it. If it's explained in any of the other articles or in a series of questions answered on the Discord or on Twitter, if you remember, can you point me to it? No worries if you don't. I'll also mention that I didn't watch pretty much any of the community council people's videos (save maybe 2 or 3 more general ones from Ghil'dirthalen) to avoid possible story spoilers they might unknowingly give out and, from what I understand, the game has changed a lot from when they playtested it, anyway.
|
|
inherit
7754
0
Sept 23, 2024 0:33:01 GMT
3,935
biggydx
2,428
Apr 17, 2017 16:08:05 GMT
April 2017
biggydx
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
BiggyMD
|
Post by biggydx on Aug 13, 2024 14:25:27 GMT
Got question for everyone, given some comments made by a BioWare developer in a recent article.
When you all hear a developer say, "Modern Audiences," what's your initial perception and what do you believe the term means?
|
|
inherit
277
0
10,065
QuizzyBunny
No 1 bunny giffer
2,645
August 2016
theycallmebunny
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
InquisitorBunny
430
1114
|
Post by QuizzyBunny on Aug 13, 2024 14:44:01 GMT
Tough one, it would imply that the current audience has expectations that didn't exist before. My guess is that it could relate to the type of characters you meet in a game, that they reflect more diversity, or perhaps that the stories reflect societal and personal issues that are in the lime-light today. I guess it could also connect to expectations regarding content and interactions with the game and how and when you access it (micro transactions or live service for example).
|
|
saandrig
N5
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 3,640 Likes: 7,584
inherit
2719
0
Sept 22, 2024 8:09:52 GMT
7,584
saandrig
3,640
January 2017
saandrig
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by saandrig on Aug 13, 2024 14:46:14 GMT
Got question for everyone, given some comments made by a BioWare developer in a recent article. When you all hear a developer say, "Modern Audiences," what's your initial perception and what do you believe the term means? "People that haven't replayed our old games 62903 times and won't stomach our old formulas due to lack of a nostalgia factor."
|
|
inherit
∯ Oh Loredy...
455
0
Sept 22, 2024 12:48:06 GMT
29,897
gervaise21
12,602
August 2016
gervaise21
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights
|
Post by gervaise21 on Aug 13, 2024 15:05:39 GMT
And this is also a bit strange because, if companions can die, they clearly can't be there to help at the end, unless they pull a Justinia and spirits take on their forms and help us because that's what our departed friends would want (or something of the sort). If they die and, as a consequence, things end up badly for us in the final fight, that's a representation of their importance. If they leave but show up at the end, have they been doing something in the meanwhile? Leaving because they hate Rook's face/morals/methods means that they part ways and work towards the same goal but by different means. This would show to me the narrative importance of these characters, kind of like the ME2 companions being specialists in their fields, and that they have that existence outside of Rook the devs keep talking about. If they die but something functionally takes their place or they leave and then come back without really having done anything except wait for us to get to the end so they'd rejoin the picture, that sounds kind of disappointing to me. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how DAV is going to work, bearing in mind all the things you have highlighted and that apparently they are still free agents in the world even after you recruit them. Also, they have hinted that it might be necessary to sacrifice a companion at some point, which doesn't seem much of a threat to me if they maintain you need everyone to successfully complete the game as clearly they don't die even if you think they do, or they have been misleading us. They have also indicated that the companions represent their factions and presumably we need to interact with them during the game, plus there is the matter of our specialisms being tied to a faction. There are certainly very mixed messages over all of this. So, I think I'm going to withhold judgement until I have actually played the game. I've said all along that after ten years I am going to treat it as a new game rather than a continuation of the old ones and just enjoy it (or not as the case may be) on its own merits instead of comparing it with what went before.
|
|
inherit
1047
0
Sept 22, 2024 20:42:42 GMT
1,707
ClarkKent
1,001
Aug 17, 2016 20:27:17 GMT
August 2016
clarkkent
|
Post by ClarkKent on Aug 13, 2024 15:12:04 GMT
Got question for everyone, given some comments made by a BioWare developer in a recent article. When you all hear a developer say, "Modern Audiences," what's your initial perception and what do you believe the term means? People that grew up with the MCU films.
|
|
Gileadan
N5
Agent 46
Clearance Level Ultra
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Origin: ALoneGretchin
Posts: 2,818 Likes: 7,059
inherit
Agent 46
177
0
Sept 22, 2024 20:55:33 GMT
7,059
Gileadan
Clearance Level Ultra
2,818
August 2016
gileadan
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
ALoneGretchin
|
Post by Gileadan on Aug 13, 2024 15:21:49 GMT
Got question for everyone, given some comments made by a BioWare developer in a recent article. When you all hear a developer say, "Modern Audiences," what's your initial perception and what do you believe the term means? I have honestly no idea. I don't remember ever talking to a gaming person who considered themselves part of those "modern audiences". Also, why the plural? Is there more than one and if so, what's the difference between them? It's probably just marketing speak though. I just hope it's not a nice sounding way of saying "we're ditching our old fan base and are going for a new one".
|
|
jennica
N3
Party like a krogan
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 445 Likes: 967
inherit
6523
0
Sept 22, 2024 23:14:24 GMT
967
jennica
Party like a krogan
445
Mar 29, 2017 10:24:07 GMT
March 2017
jennica
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by jennica on Aug 13, 2024 15:29:08 GMT
Got question for everyone, given some comments made by a BioWare developer in a recent article. When you all hear a developer say, "Modern Audiences," what's your initial perception and what do you believe the term means? Hm, hard to say. I think it really depends on context.
|
|
Frost
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Jade Empire
Posts: 715 Likes: 1,800
inherit
1542
0
Sept 22, 2024 13:45:56 GMT
1,800
Frost
715
Sept 11, 2016 16:54:37 GMT
September 2016
frost
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Jade Empire
|
Post by Frost on Aug 13, 2024 15:43:37 GMT
Got question for everyone, given some comments made by a BioWare developer in a recent article. When you all hear a developer say, "Modern Audiences," what's your initial perception and what do you believe the term means? What people like now. The question is how well companies know what people like now. Bioware hasn’t done a good job of this with Anthem and Andromeda. Bioware tends to use modern audiences as an excuse to remove things that work well in their games and to waste time adding things from other games that don’t fit with theirs. In contrast BG3 was also targeting a modern audience and, considering how successful BG3 was both critically and financially, did a great job of it. They knew how to build on their previous games and make them better. Will have to see if they can continue to do so with their next games.
|
|
inherit
7754
0
Sept 23, 2024 0:33:01 GMT
3,935
biggydx
2,428
Apr 17, 2017 16:08:05 GMT
April 2017
biggydx
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
BiggyMD
|
Post by biggydx on Aug 13, 2024 15:46:45 GMT
Got question for everyone, given some comments made by a BioWare developer in a recent article. When you all hear a developer say, "Modern Audiences," what's your initial perception and what do you believe the term means? I have honestly no idea. I don't remember ever talking to a gaming person who considered themselves part of those "modern audiences". Also, why the plural? Is there more than one and if so, what's the difference between them? It's probably just marketing speak though. I just hope it's not a nice sounding way of saying "we're ditching our old fan base and are going for a new one". I've heard a number of differing answers from people I've asked in other media circles. In no order, a list of responses I've been given was the following: - Appealing to people who haven't played the studios prior games multiple times over, or have played them at all. - Appealing to people who enjoy specific video game titles, such as Call of Duty, Fornite, Overwatch, etc. Basically, games commonly played by younger audiences. - Appealing to younger audiences - Appealing "Twitter" People - Making considerations for controller inputs and UI/visual experience that today's audience is more familiar with. - Appealing to people who've played contemporary games (i.e. games that have released within the last 5-7 years). It's been all over the place. Sometimes I really had to get people to nail down what they mean specifically. I did this because some responses were, "it means a game that is not for me." Others would be more contentious, such as, "games that were made by DEI devs."
|
|
inherit
11611
0
Sept 22, 2024 16:54:55 GMT
1,191
fairdragon
1,821
Jul 30, 2020 17:14:13 GMT
July 2020
fairdragon
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Baldur's Gate
|
Post by fairdragon on Aug 13, 2024 15:47:41 GMT
I think jackdaws video is about the articel from the snippets you postet here. As i am not watched the whole video. I put it in spoiler taks.
|
|
inherit
664
0
3,047
Grog Muffins
Seethingway
1,126
August 2016
grogmuffins
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by Grog Muffins on Aug 13, 2024 16:02:37 GMT
Got question for everyone, given some comments made by a BioWare developer in a recent article. When you all hear a developer say, "Modern Audiences," what's your initial perception and what do you believe the term means? To me this is a catch-all phrase that marketing people want to mean something but very often ends up not meaning nothing because it's extremely broad and, when used, it's barely ever used to narrow down a scope, so people know what you're talking about. It could refer, in games, to types of gameplay. If we look at the most successful games today, they're games that you can drop into for short and fast sessions with some friends, like Fortnite, Overwatch, League of Legends, even some MMOs. However, these are very specific types of games and their gameplay doesn't lend itself to every single game genre out there. The gameplay aspect could also refer to people's preferences to not have to think too much or need to do too much work before getting to the game itself, stuff like simple character builds, streamlined gear upgrades, more hack and slash combat that relies on fast combos. It could also refer to narrative attention, the subject matter discussed in the game being treated with more respect because the issue has been studied more in the real world. For example, not having another character like Oghren whose alcoholism, attachments issues, and toxic relationship with Branka are treated as a joke. It could also refer to inclusivity respect, cultural, racial, and in terms of sexual orientation being the most obvious, but there's also aspects like disability inclusivity. This could tie in with the narrative attention I mentioned above, having characters with disabilities in the narrative but also how players with disabilities can play it, as well.
|
|
inherit
The Smiling Knight
538
0
Sept 23, 2024 1:10:03 GMT
23,187
smilesja
14,236
August 2016
smilesja
|
Post by smilesja on Aug 13, 2024 16:26:30 GMT
Thanks for mansplaning and trying to gaslight my impression of what I've seen, not seen, and what is just bizarre in how it's been explained. Still haven't changed my mind but good try. What is it about the term gas lighting being thrown around with no regard to its actual usage? Having a different opinion then you is not gaslighting. Mansplaining as well? Seriously?
|
|