Forum:Companions Based on Decisions

Forums: Index > Game DiscussionCompanions Based on Decisions

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4358 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not continue it unless it really needs a response.

In DA2, we have either Bethany or Carver based on our class. In DAO, we travel across Ferelden to gather allies and followers, but what did we get? 2 from Lothering, 1 from Orzammar, 1 from Korcari Wilds, 1 from Ostagar, 1 from Circle of Magi and so on. In DA3, I want to have more options than this. For example, if we visit one city or province, it will good to have different people as options to be companions, because it's so hard to imagine that there is only one person in every major place who is willing to accompany our journey. I will give examples based on DAO. Example 1: When we first meet Alistair, he is arguing with a mage, so we must have the option to intervene and side with one of them, and resulting to that person becoming our follower. Now don't tell me that the mage isn't a Grey Warden and Duncan instructed us to find Alistair and only Alistair. As I have said, this is only an example. I'm using the situations we are all familiar with and not the quest or lore itself. Example 2: In Brecilian Forest, you have the option to side the either Zathrian or the Lady of the Forest by killing either of them. So that results in the death on one character then the other becoming our follower. Example 3: When we arrived in the Circle of Magi, we meet Wynne and she immediately accompanies us, then asking Petra to look after the apprentices. But what if we get to choose who will accompany us and who will stay to look after the other mages? This will result in the death of the one who stayed, then the other becoming our follower. Now don't tell me that Wynne is the only one who can open the barrier and she should do that because she is one of the senior enchanters, and Petra will not be given permission to leave the Circle because she is just an apprentice herself. Relax, it's only an example. Example 4: In Redcliff, we have the option to sacrifice Isolde or kill Connor. This will also lead to the same result, and don't tell me that Isolde will not join us because we killed her son. Again, it's only an example and I'm sure you can think of better and more realistic situations. So the bottom line is that, if we visit a city or a province, there are a lot of people in that place who are potential companions, but choosing one will result in the other one not becoming a follower, or worse, death. And no, you can't choose them both. It will definitely add more to the story, decision-making and replayability. Juan Tutri (talk) 18:44, May 11, 2012 (UTC)

BIG BIG problem with that Juan. It will just make the game overly complicated, it will end up with too many possible companions, there will be a problem of continouty( which gets more complicated as each game is made), too much dialouge will have to be recorded and hey most of the companions join as part of paying off a debt to the main character, they are friends with them, want to stab them in the back or it's part of their duty. Also DA has enough desiscion making and replayability.

---

For example for origins I played though multiple times to change how i did things(though not that much in DA) , The Dark Ritual, which dwarf was made king, who i romanced, who was crowned king of fereldan,whether i hardened Alistair,if my warden became Queen and if i killed the artichect or not.
i'm happy with the companions the devs provide us with, as each will have thier own part to play in the story, if you can just pick up Joe Bloggs the merc for hire, it'll make no sense (to me)
Oh and you only get 1 companion from Lothering and that's Lelianna.

---

In both games you could lose companions depending on your choices, e.g choosing Alistair or Loghain in the Landsmeet and Sebastian throwig his dolly out of the pram if you let Anders live, plus many others examples.
Phoenix96 (talk) 19:21, May 11, 2012 (UTC)

^ You get 2 companions in Lothering, Leliana and Sten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.139.68.194 (talk)

Opps, sorry forgot Sten as i never pick him up, he did murder some kids.Phoenix96 (talk) 20:22, May 11, 2012 (UTC)

Eh I wouldn't mind this idea for one or two characters, but having too many different optional characters, some who will maybe never be picked up by certain players, is a little jarring for both the players and the developers. But like I said I definitely would like to see this idea carried out once or twice in DA3. MrRexfire (talk) 19:46, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer a Witcher 2 style game where the story branches off early on and you get one of two possible second halves depending on your choice. That's much more interesting. With mutually exclusive companions Bioware seems to be moving in the direction of making them very different not just in terms of personality but also class and skill set. I'd really rather not base my decision on which class I want, and that's what I ended up doing in DA2. Since I only really enjoy playing a mage, I got stuck with Carver. When I wanted to get to know Bethany I had to grit my teeth through battle after battle as a rogue, despite not enjoying it at all. If it's an Alistair vs Loghain type choice I won't mind as much, but even then I'd rather have more mutually exclusive storylines than companions. 82.169.133.94 (talk) 21:49, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

You should have played a Warrior. Imho, Warriors are a lot more fun than Rogues in DA2. (But an Archer Rogue is surprisingly tolerable.)

Anyway, I think one of the major faults with the companions in DA2 is that their classes also seem to determine their politics. Fenris is vehemently anti-mage, and while Aveline is more reasonable, she still favors the Templars heavily. So if you want side with the Mages AND have a Tank in you party, it has to be YOU. Likewise with Anders and Merrill, who will constantly gripe if you act against mages in the slightest way.

I'd like it if, regardless of choices, you always had access to a balanced party. Some characters could be exclusive to which sides you take, but I never want to feel like I can't bring a healer into my team if they're going to balk every time I put a blood mage to the sword. Son Goharotto (talk) 23:35, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

Don't you guys remember In DA Origins you could end up with Loghain in your party and Alliaster either leaving or dying and then in the end of DA2 you pretty much had to chose between Anders and Sebastian so Bioware has given us a few small choices in who our followers are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.48.114.150 (talk)

Why on Earth would I want to pick between my followers? Then they wouldn't be written nearly as well, and turn into disposable cannon fodder with different faces. Rathian Warrior (talk) 00:58, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

I think this might work at ONE point in the game, for example like in DA2 when you got either Bethany or Carver. The problem with this idea is that if we do as you say and pick the mage instead of Alistair and therefor leave him to die in Ostagar we would be forced to put Anora on the throne. See what I mean? Characters you would have to choose between would have to either have minimum story impact or fill out the same role as Bethany and Carver did. Individuality is important and so we need different kinds of companions. I think your idea might work ONCE in a game, not multiple timesBlighter (talk) 05:39, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

I do see the point, although I can't see how one would implement it. It would have been nice as a mage Hawke to have Bethany around, instead of "Y U NO TAKE MONEY FROM THAT BEGGAR" Carver. But the only way to implement this is to possibly do an MMORPG where your companions are live players. Otherwise, it would become a programming nightmare.

I'd rather not have another MMORPG. Even WoW fire's dying down at last. - 08:18, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Personally I've wanted to see one instance of this in relation to Nature of the Beast, with you gaining the same companion as either a human turned recently by the wolves or a human not turned. In one scenario he may be a simple farmer forced to become a (at first terrible) warrior for whatever reason and you have to help him, and in the other same thing but his transformation means he accomplished his task on his own and now you must stop his rampage until he can regain his humanity (but not human form). Wildly different plotlines but common base. True it may not be the best use of companion devoted resources but it's something I, in all my selfishness would like to see. YGuy (talk) 10:08, May 14, 2012 (UTC)