so I won't be able to control companions in battle

[D-Black Catto]

and they have less equipment slots too

so what are they for, some forced banter?

[skullymex]

Not directly, no. You'll be able to give them commands, sort of like in Mass Effect. Someone who's already played the game said they feel like an extension of the player now.

[skullymex]

Originally posted by Butcher:

Originally posted by skullymex:

Someone who's already played the game said they feel like an extension of the player now.

What is that supposed to mean? So you, player, being able to directly control heroes and set up their AI is not extension of the player. But not having half of that control IS extension of the player?

Also, who is that mysterious "someone"? Someone with ties to Bioware and most obvious conflict of interest?

That's just how she worded it, man. She goes by Ghil Dirthalen and she's gotten to play the game at various stages of development, along with other prominent content creators like Lady Insanity. She has a podcast with some other guy where she talked about it more, if you care.

[D-Black Catto]

The game is being promoted as "companions being their own people" and this phrase is used to justify why we can't control them in battle. Making them feel like an "extension of mc" is contrary to the spirit of this phrase.

[skullymex]

Originally posted by Butcher:

Dude, I searched her and... What a "prominent" "content creator" with 20k views on average. That's like barely step above literal nobody.

In other words, conflict of interest and close ties to Bioware confirmed.

Right. You've got this all figured out, i see.

[skullymex]

Originally posted by D-Black Catto:

The game is being promoted as "companions being their own people" and this phrase is used to justify why we can't control them in battle. Making them feel like an "extension of mc" is contrary to the spirit of this phrase.

You're confusing gameplay with narrative, I'm afraid. They're their own people as in, they've got their own things going on. Story-wise. To make them feel more like their own people. The "extension of the main character" bit is referring to combat.

[skullymex]

Originally posted by Butcher:

Originally posted by skullymex:

Right. You've got this all figured out, i see.

Say it ain't so? And even if we put her person aside, the statement makes no sense, as "extension of player" implies high degree of control and in comparison to DA:O with its AI editor and direct control its most obviously not true.

I don't think it implies high degree of control. To me it implies less seperation between the two. It makes sense considering you can give them commands directly, without having to switch between characters.

[skullymex]

Originally posted by Butcher:

Both are wrong. Nothing can beat pausing and giving commands to each hero. And now you separating me from ability of direct control RTWP gives.

I haven't made any assessments so far about which one is better or preferable or whatever, so I'm not sure why you're going there.
I'm only relaying impressions someone else has talked about after playing the game. If you're looking to argue about which one is better, do it with someone else.

[D-Black Catto]

Originally posted by skullymex:

Originally posted by D-Black Catto:

The game is being promoted as "companions being their own people" and this phrase is used to justify why we can't control them in battle. Making them feel like an "extension of mc" is contrary to the spirit of this phrase.

You're confusing gameplay with narrative, I'm afraid. They're their own people as in, they've got their own things going on. Story-wise. To make them feel more like their own people. The "extension of the main character" bit is referring to combat.

You're confusing what I wrote with what you think I wrote.

So let me repeat. The devs are saying that this will be "the most character driven dragon age to date" and "companions will feel like their own people" and they use these phrases not only when they try to hype the narrative, but also to justify player not having control over companion characters in battle.

They also use these phrases to justify why we can only have 2 companions with us now, they say that it will feel more "intimate". Yes, that's the exact word they used.

[skullymex]

Originally posted by D-Black Catto:

You're confusing what I wrote with what you think I wrote.

So let me repeat. The devs are saying that this will be "the most character driven dragon age to date" and "companions will feel like their own people" and they use these phrases not only when they try to hype the narrative, but also to justify player not having control over companion characters in battle.

They also use these phrases to justify why we can only have 2 companions with us now, they say that it will feel more "intimate". Yes, that's the exact word they used.

I see now, I'm sorry for misreading that. The marketing for this game has been a little uncoordinated for sure, but that's nothing new for the series sadly. Let's hope we'll get more info at SDCC in a few days.

[skullymex]

Originally posted by Butcher:

I haven't made them either, I merely told that this statement is completely bullcrap no matter how you look at it.

If you want to put words in my mouth I kindly invite you to stop.

Ah, so you're using "nothing beats X" in a neutral, non-evaluating way I'm not familiar with then.

[skullymex]

Originally posted by Butcher:

Originally posted by skullymex:

Ah, so you're using "nothing beats X" in a neutral, non-evaluating way I'm not familiar with then.

I am using it as a way to show that one provides way more control than another. And use it to prove that statement is complete bullcrap.

Where has anyone stated that having less control over companions gives you more control than directly controlling them?

[skullymex]

Originally posted by Butcher:

Originally posted by skullymex:

Where has anyone stated that having less control over companions gives you more control than directly controlling them?

Well, it can be concluded from statement naming system with less control "extension of player", which implies more control.

Kinda like "an extension of your arm" is used for things that are easily controlled.

Like I said, it's not about direct control, but about less degrees of seperation. Going with your metaphor, it's the difference between having another arm that you can direct, and having a, I don't know, a summon that you can take over and assume direct control of.

[skullymex]

Originally posted by Butcher:

Originally posted by skullymex:

Like I said, it's not about direct control, but about less degrees of seperation. Going with your metaphor, it's the difference between having another arm that you can direct, and having a, I don't know, a summon that you can take over and assume direct control of.

Separation... from what? In DA:O you can play only as your main character if you setting up AI properly without switching. You also always have tightest control and essentially you are the whole party and party is the player.

Like I said, it is bullcrap no matter from which perspective you look.

Seperation between controlling your character and directing your companions.
But really, all of this is just speculation on my part since I haven't played the game yet and am basing all of my assumptions on one sentence from one person who also has limited experience! So all of this is pointless. We'll get to see for ourselves soon enough.

[Cat]

Not being able to control the party is a downgrade to me no matter how intimate it's meant to be. Building a party and having the ability to take control of those party members to try their play styles is a big part of what party based rpgs is to me.

[D-Black Catto]

Originally posted by criffyzou:

And despite that, I was two steps above most of my Dragon Age friends who would never even open the tactics tab or put any thought into the builds. I think their stats showed a lot of players did that, unfortunately.
I wonder how many people played the entirety of Inquisition without ever seeing a single focus ability from their party, as they're disabled by default.

In origins I would obviously micromanage everyone all the time, in inquisition....only during harder fights.

But that's because the game was rather easy, and clearly not designed to be very tactical anyway. So if these bioware people look at stats and see that most players didn't use tactical combat mode a lot, that only means the game didn't require it, that doesn't mean the players wouldn't prefer it. Personally I like a combat system like in origins the most, except I prefer it to be turn based and not real time with pause.