David Gaider wrote...
Then how else would you suggest we do it? In my experience you have a limited set of options if you intend for a relationship with a companion to develop inside of a non-linear storyline (and non-linear in this context means only we don't always know what order you're doing things and when they're happening, which is usually the case in our games):
1. You develop a relationship only by talking to them, and the relationship builds in a pre-set sequence of interactions.
2. You have companions react to specific events, as in 'you do X, companion reacts with Y no matter what'.
3. You track a variable whereby the companion reacts to your decisions which determines their overall disposition, without necessarily being aware of all the specific causes of the variable change (you might track a few, but you need to be wary of how many you're tracking lest they start to cross paths).
Typically we do one or two of the above. The difference with the approval system as we've implemented it in Dragon Age is that we show the feedback to you-- but feedback of some kind is required, since in a game you're not going to have access to the subtle nuances of human interaction that exist in real life. At some point you do have to recognize that this is a video game and than a mechanic of some kind is required just as with combat-- all you require is enough buy-in from the player that they are willing to suspend their disbelief. So far, I feel confident that we've been pretty successful in doing just that.
A combination of 1 and 2. Number 2 I've been harping about for as long as I've been on the old forums, and was really glad to see it implemented in Awakening. It feels a lot more natural and organic to talk to companions about something that's happening in the adventure rather than random and mostly unrelated trivia from their past.Thats where general exposition should come from.
Number 1 is good for romance or friendship arcs. Have a couple of early conversations where you can trigger that path and then have the progression be tied to completing major plot events, so that it's spread out evenly throughout the story and you get the sense of gradual development.
The problem with approval based systems is three-fold.
1. It turns the process into a mini-game, encouraging meta-gaming. The process of interaction with a companion should feel like a relationship, not a game that you can (and are strongly encouraged to) win.
2. Uneven distribution of content. You can pump up a companions approval to 100 within the first 20% of the game, see most of what they have to say and have them go completely silent. The combination of 1 and 2 that I suggested automatically avoids that problem.
3. It's shallow and simply makes no sense. Like I said, if you're fighting and bleeding with someone side by side, it's impossible for a camaraderie
not to develop. The way that you handle minor issues will not hamper that.
Quite frankly I don't see any upside to it. Maybe I'm missing something, but what does the approval system add which is not covered by your options 1 and 2 other than the problems that I outlined?
Retour en haut
Have timers on companion initiated conversation when wandering out of combat zones. Plus have event related conversations where they ask you why you did something or tell you not to do something. Have them interject in your conversations too. Your answers govern there like or dislike of you. I kinda loved the times when some one in my party in BG2 would stop to talk to me and the conversation would get other party member to comment on what we're saying. Was hilarious sometimes to see Jaheria, Arie and Vicona yelling at each other over what some one said.
