77 réponses à ce sujet

[Stefanocrpg_rev91]

Mary Kirby wrote...

Giltspur wrote...

Party members still react to your decision. But approval won't be handled the same way. They mentioned in the GI article that the approval ratings led to metagaming. Basically people do whatever results in the highest number rather than doing what their character actually wants to do. So getting rid of that number, assuming that's what the GI article is suggesting, seems like a good move. How they'll handle party conflict and rapport...who knows.

There's still approval. But now instead of only getting content and combat bonuses based on positive approval, you can either build a rapport or an antagonistic relationship with your companions. Negative approval means they want to show you up, or see you fall on your sorry behind, but they still stick around.

There are way fewer gifts, and the gifts are follower-specific. (No more giving dog bones to everyone to boost approval.)

And followers can still turn on you or abandon you, regardless of how much they like you, based on your actions. (Like Leliana and Wynne at the Urn.)

That's ok, but I hope that if someone really hates my character, he/she try to betray me or leave me alone when he/she have the opportunity. Not just something like Leliana and Wynne at the Urn (which, still, is a very good thing to have in the game, ehy) , they have to try to leave or kill me (this changes from characters to characters... I mean, for example a good guy may just leave if he just hates me and I don't perform a terrible evil act, but a not so good person would likely stab at my back) when they find a proper way to do it.

The thought of having someone who really hates me and still stay with me, obeying my orders and following me for even ten years just sounds bad.

[kaispan]

iTomes wrote...

Slidell505 wrote...

Helena Tylena wrote...
Wait...
Leliana's in the game?

Makes sense, she did live in lothering.

well propably even talk to sten

I don't know... I don't want to meet Sten with a different character and not be able to drag him off with me away from the Warden SHE DOESN'T LOVE YOU LIKE I DO--oh--oh, that's right, we've never met.
...excuse me.

Modifié par kaispan, 19 juillet 2010 - 12:27 .

[syllogi]

Do companions still give the PC gifts? I know that Alistair's rose was *extremely* effective with me, and I'm a real person. There's nothing wrong with meaningful gifts progressing relationships, in my eyes, as long as they are accompanied by dialogue which underscores the meaning.

[iTomes]

well the only thing im a lil worried about is that there propably are parts in the game were i have to choose between two party members....i like the idea of keeping the whole team together . but if i cant.... ehhh what the hell **** happens right^^

[Artemis_Entrari]

dan107 wrote...

Artemis_Entrari wrote...
A quick way to fix that gift giving thing is they could just make you lose approval if you give someone the "wrong" gift.  For instance, giving Oghren a pair of Antivan velvet shoes would result in a -15 approval and Oghren threatening to shove the shoes somewhere.

Which could potentially be the final straw and result in a stout brother in arms leaving you because you gave him shoes?

Don't give him shoes?

I mean, that's the whole point of roleplaying, isn't it?  If you make a choice, the game world reacts to that choice.  If you ****** off a companion to the point where the final straw is he leaves your party because of a gift you gave him, then that's exactly what's happening; the game is reacting to your choice(s).

It's almost like you want them (BioWare) to remove any features that you think provides a difficult decision for the PC to make.  "Oh no, a party member might leave my group if I give him something he doesn't like.  Remove the feature!  We can't have my decisions actually affecting how my party sees me!"

[tmp7704]

Stefanocrpg_rev91 wrote...

The thought of having someone who really hates me and still stay with me, obeying my orders and following me for even ten years just sounds bad.

That really depends on why they're following you to begin with. For example, if it's a soldier who's been ordered to guard and serve you by his own superior then it really matters little if they personally like you or not, they don't have much choice in the matter.

[Stefanocrpg_rev91]

tmp7704 wrote...

Stefanocrpg_rev91 wrote...

The thought of having someone who really hates me and still stay with me, obeying my orders and following me for even ten years just sounds bad.

That really depends on why they're following you to begin with. For example, if it's a soldier who's been ordered to guard and serve you by his own superior then it really matters little if they personally like you or not, they don't have much choice in the matter.

Of course there could be some particular reasons for a character to stay with you even if they really hate yourself, because maybe you're the only possibility they have to reach their goal or something.
But that may work for one or two companions, not for all of them. For the others, staying for even ten years with someone they really hate would just have no sense.

[Mecha Tengu]

no there will be no party approval system



each party member will have a specific mission, and once you have completed that mission, you will earn their loyalty, which automatically = they likes you more. These missions will make up 80% of the game and -



oh wait...............

[tmp7704]

Stefanocrpg_rev91 wrote...

Of course there could be some particular reasons for a character to stay with you even if they really hate yourself, because maybe you're the only possibility they have to reach their goal or something.
But that may work for one or two companions, not for all of them. For the others, staying for even ten years with someone they really hate would just have no sense.

Without knowing anything at all about both the companions (both in general and individual examples) it's probably too early to discuss. Personally, i don't find it really making any less sense than the system from DAO, where the companion would still stick with you even if they spent whole game at -99, because only reaching -100 would trigger the tantrum. Only practical difference seems to be in the new game being pissed at the player can work as incentive for them to get better.

[dan107]

Artemis_Entrari wrote...

dan107 wrote...

Artemis_Entrari wrote...
A quick way to fix that gift giving thing is they could just make you lose approval if you give someone the "wrong" gift.  For instance, giving Oghren a pair of Antivan velvet shoes would result in a -15 approval and Oghren threatening to shove the shoes somewhere.

Which could potentially be the final straw and result in a stout brother in arms leaving you because you gave him shoes?

Don't give him shoes?

I mean, that's the whole point of roleplaying, isn't it?  If you make a choice, the game world reacts to that choice.  If you ****** off a companion to the point where the final straw is he leaves your party because of a gift you gave him, then that's exactly what's happening; the game is reacting to your choice(s).

It's almost like you want them (BioWare) to remove any features that you think provides a difficult decision for the PC to make.  "Oh no, a party member might leave my group if I give him something he doesn't like.  Remove the feature!  We can't have my decisions actually affecting how my party sees me!"

No it's not almost like I want that at all. Not even close. You missed my point completely. It has nothing to do with difficult decisions. If you chose to do something that a companion disagrees strongly with, i.e. the decision with the Urn, their getting extremely upset makes perfect sense, and there should be more moments like that.

What I'm pointing out is the absurdity of a system which can lead to someone you've faced death with leaving you because you gave him shoes. That's simply ridiculous.

Modifié par dan107, 19 juillet 2010 - 01:11 .

[Thibbledorf26]

Mary Kirby wrote...

Giltspur wrote...

Party members still react to your decision. But approval won't be handled the same way. They mentioned in the GI article that the approval ratings led to metagaming. Basically people do whatever results in the highest number rather than doing what their character actually wants to do. So getting rid of that number, assuming that's what the GI article is suggesting, seems like a good move. How they'll handle party conflict and rapport...who knows.

There's still approval. But now instead of only getting content and combat bonuses based on positive approval, you can either build a rapport or an antagonistic relationship with your companions. Negative approval means they want to show you up, or see you fall on your sorry behind, but they still stick around.

There are way fewer gifts, and the gifts are follower-specific. (No more giving dog bones to everyone to boost approval.)

And followers can still turn on you or abandon you, regardless of how much they like you, based on your actions. (Like Leliana and Wynne at the Urn.)

This is great news, and will expand role-playing. Having to constantly adapt to followers personality and be completly nice in order to gain influence limited roleplaying, it took away from your own characters personality. People with different opinions can still be diehard friends. Many movies and books rely on an odd couple set of friends or protagonists. Maybe, though you could have three attitudes:

positive

antagonistic

hate

positive and antagonistic would both be valid paths which both give bonuses, but would differ in terms of whether your relationship was full of friction or not. hate would be a situation where you plain chose the wrong options and were completely unresonable to the character. So it is possible to disagree with a character in a positive way, but if you are way too harsh you can still stuff up and miss out on content.

[druplesnubb]

dan107 wrote...

Artemis_Entrari wrote...

dan107 wrote...

Artemis_Entrari wrote...
A quick way to fix that gift giving thing is they could just make you lose approval if you give someone the "wrong" gift.  For instance, giving Oghren a pair of Antivan velvet shoes would result in a -15 approval and Oghren threatening to shove the shoes somewhere.

Which could potentially be the final straw and result in a stout brother in arms leaving you because you gave him shoes?

Don't give him shoes?

I mean, that's the whole point of roleplaying, isn't it?  If you make a choice, the game world reacts to that choice.  If you ****** off a companion to the point where the final straw is he leaves your party because of a gift you gave him, then that's exactly what's happening; the game is reacting to your choice(s).

It's almost like you want them (BioWare) to remove any features that you think provides a difficult decision for the PC to make.  "Oh no, a party member might leave my group if I give him something he doesn't like.  Remove the feature!  We can't have my decisions actually affecting how my party sees me!"

No it's not almost like I want that at all. Not even close. You missed my point completely. It has nothing to do with difficult decisions. If you chose to do something that a companion disagrees strongly with, i.e. the decision with the Urn, their getting extremely upset makes perfect sense, and there should be more moments like that.

What I'm pointing out is the absurdity of a system which can lead to someone you've faced death with leaving you because you gave him shoes. That's simply ridiculous.

But if your approval is so low then you have probably been arguing, fighting, harassing and disagreeing with that party member for a long time. The shoes (for example) is just the final thing you do to him/her until he/she gets enough and leaves you. They leave you because of how you have behaved towards them throughout the game, not because of a single thing you did. The best thing with the approval system in my opinion is that it allows every little thing you do to contribute a little to their overall opinion of you.

[Anarya]

Sounds great to me. On my first DAO playthrough, the first gift I gave Alistair was the pair of dirty pantaloons, and I got the "For me? Really? Wow!..." dialog and approval gain. Not knowing that this happens with anything you give a companion the first time, I'm afraid I thought poor Alistair was a total lech for awhile. And then I proceeded to distribute gifts based on who I *thought* would appreciate them which was oftentimes totally wrong, resulting in generally lowish approval overall and led to Zevran betraying me (the jerk!). On subsequent playthroughs I metagamed and used a gift guide to keep my party happy. So this is all good news for the gift-impaired. *sigh*

[dan107]

druplesnubb wrote...

dan107 wrote...

Artemis_Entrari wrote...

dan107 wrote...

Artemis_Entrari wrote...
A quick way to fix that gift giving thing is they could just make you lose approval if you give someone the "wrong" gift.  For instance, giving Oghren a pair of Antivan velvet shoes would result in a -15 approval and Oghren threatening to shove the shoes somewhere.

Which could potentially be the final straw and result in a stout brother in arms leaving you because you gave him shoes?

Don't give him shoes?

I mean, that's the whole point of roleplaying, isn't it?  If you make a choice, the game world reacts to that choice.  If you ****** off a companion to the point where the final straw is he leaves your party because of a gift you gave him, then that's exactly what's happening; the game is reacting to your choice(s).

It's almost like you want them (BioWare) to remove any features that you think provides a difficult decision for the PC to make.  "Oh no, a party member might leave my group if I give him something he doesn't like.  Remove the feature!  We can't have my decisions actually affecting how my party sees me!"

No it's not almost like I want that at all. Not even close. You missed my point completely. It has nothing to do with difficult decisions. If you chose to do something that a companion disagrees strongly with, i.e. the decision with the Urn, their getting extremely upset makes perfect sense, and there should be more moments like that.

What I'm pointing out is the absurdity of a system which can lead to someone you've faced death with leaving you because you gave him shoes. That's simply ridiculous.

But if your approval is so low then you have probably been arguing, fighting, harassing and disagreeing with that party member for a long time. The shoes (for example) is just the final thing you do to him/her until he/she gets enough and leaves you. They leave you because of how you have behaved towards them throughout the game, not because of a single thing you did. The best thing with the approval system in my opinion is that it allows every little thing you do to contribute a little to their overall opinion of you.

So he leaves because you gave him 10 pairs of shoes. My point still stands. Petty differences and disagreements are not enough to cause serious discord between brothers in arms fighting and bleeding side by side. Nor are repeated gifts of trinkets enough to make strangers into trusted friends.

[Tirigon]

Mary Kirby wrote...

Giltspur wrote...

Party members still react to your decision. But approval won't be handled the same way. They mentioned in the GI article that the approval ratings led to metagaming. Basically people do whatever results in the highest number rather than doing what their character actually wants to do. So getting rid of that number, assuming that's what the GI article is suggesting, seems like a good move. How they'll handle party conflict and rapport...who knows.

There's still approval. But now instead of only getting content and combat bonuses based on positive approval, you can either build a rapport or an antagonistic relationship with your companions. Negative approval means they want to show you up, or see you fall on your sorry behind, but they still stick around.

There are way fewer gifts, and the gifts are follower-specific. (No more giving dog bones to everyone to boost approval.)

And followers can still turn on you or abandon you, regardless of how much they like you, based on your actions. (Like Leliana and Wynne at the Urn.)

This is one of the few things about DA2 that give me hope for a good game instead of worries. But WHY will followers still abandon you? That sucked so much in Origins it should be removed.

[Aradace]

Mary Kirby wrote...

Giltspur wrote...

Party members still react to your decision. But approval won't be handled the same way. They mentioned in the GI article that the approval ratings led to metagaming. Basically people do whatever results in the highest number rather than doing what their character actually wants to do. So getting rid of that number, assuming that's what the GI article is suggesting, seems like a good move. How they'll handle party conflict and rapport...who knows.

There's still approval. But now instead of only getting content and combat bonuses based on positive approval, you can either build a rapport or an antagonistic relationship with your companions. Negative approval means they want to show you up, or see you fall on your sorry behind, but they still stick around.

There are way fewer gifts, and the gifts are follower-specific. (No more giving dog bones to everyone to boost approval.)

And followers can still turn on you or abandon you, regardless of how much they like you, based on your actions. (Like Leliana and Wynne at the Urn.)

1.) To the dog bone comment....Dammit, you discovered my evil plot muhahahahahaaaaaa lol

2.) I never knew Wynne would try to kill you too at the urn...Guess it was a good thing I always did the Tower quest last

3.) You forgot Alistair....No matter how much he approves of you, if you choose to spare Loghain he walks out on you (The ending where he's found years later in a pub drunk off his arse if he leaves is hilarious).  Although, this may be considered a different scenario *shrugs* I dont know....Gimme New Game Plus this time for DA2

[Aradace]

Tirigon wrote...

Mary Kirby wrote...

Giltspur wrote...

Party members still react to your decision. But approval won't be handled the same way. They mentioned in the GI article that the approval ratings led to metagaming. Basically people do whatever results in the highest number rather than doing what their character actually wants to do. So getting rid of that number, assuming that's what the GI article is suggesting, seems like a good move. How they'll handle party conflict and rapport...who knows.

There's still approval. But now instead of only getting content and combat bonuses based on positive approval, you can either build a rapport or an antagonistic relationship with your companions. Negative approval means they want to show you up, or see you fall on your sorry behind, but they still stick around.

There are way fewer gifts, and the gifts are follower-specific. (No more giving dog bones to everyone to boost approval.)

And followers can still turn on you or abandon you, regardless of how much they like you, based on your actions. (Like Leliana and Wynne at the Urn.)

This is one of the few things about DA2 that give me hope for a good game instead of worries. But WHY will followers still abandon you? That sucked so much in Origins it should be removed.

Really, so you're going to tell me that if you were following around some "hero" or whatever and they decided to kill a whole town of women and children even though it was agaisnt your OWN personal code, you'd still stick around?

[druplesnubb]

dan107 wrote...

druplesnubb wrote...

dan107 wrote...

Artemis_Entrari wrote...

dan107 wrote...

Artemis_Entrari wrote...
A quick way to fix that gift giving thing is they could just make you lose approval if you give someone the "wrong" gift.  For instance, giving Oghren a pair of Antivan velvet shoes would result in a -15 approval and Oghren threatening to shove the shoes somewhere.

Which could potentially be the final straw and result in a stout brother in arms leaving you because you gave him shoes?

Don't give him shoes?

I mean, that's the whole point of roleplaying, isn't it?  If you make a choice, the game world reacts to that choice.  If you ****** off a companion to the point where the final straw is he leaves your party because of a gift you gave him, then that's exactly what's happening; the game is reacting to your choice(s).

It's almost like you want them (BioWare) to remove any features that you think provides a difficult decision for the PC to make.  "Oh no, a party member might leave my group if I give him something he doesn't like.  Remove the feature!  We can't have my decisions actually affecting how my party sees me!"

No it's not almost like I want that at all. Not even close. You missed my point completely. It has nothing to do with difficult decisions. If you chose to do something that a companion disagrees strongly with, i.e. the decision with the Urn, their getting extremely upset makes perfect sense, and there should be more moments like that.

What I'm pointing out is the absurdity of a system which can lead to someone you've faced death with leaving you because you gave him shoes. That's simply ridiculous.

But if your approval is so low then you have probably been arguing, fighting, harassing and disagreeing with that party member for a long time. The shoes (for example) is just the final thing you do to him/her until he/she gets enough and leaves you. They leave you because of how you have behaved towards them throughout the game, not because of a single thing you did. The best thing with the approval system in my opinion is that it allows every little thing you do to contribute a little to their overall opinion of you.

So he leaves because you gave him 10 pairs of shoes. My point still stands. Petty differences and disagreements are not enough to cause serious discord between brothers in arms fighting and bleeding side by side. Nor are repeated gifts of trinkets enough to make strangers into trusted friends.

So if I say, give someone the worst sleeping place, the least food, appoint them to all the worst tasks, shout at them, humiliate them, beat them and favourize everyone else they should still like me just as much as someone I'm nice to? But you are right that the gift system as it was implemented in origins was unrealistic. But you still couldn't actually get someone to leave you just by giving them shoes, because that would be stupid.

Modifié par druplesnubb, 19 juillet 2010 - 02:35 .

[Estelindis]

David Gaider wrote...
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.

Personally, in the NWN module I'm working on, I like to use a combination of all three.  Various events will increment or decrement the companion's attitude variable, but each one will also set a variable for how it was resolved.  Ditto significant conversations.  Then, when it comes to the crux of the relationship later on (the point where we see the relationship possibly advancing further or taking a sharp turn in a different direction), the conversation tree will check for all these variables, prioritising those that are most significant / deal-making-or-breaking for the companion in question.  In other words, the highest-priority branch (the one at the top of the response list, in the conversation editor) will check if the variable for the event/conversation that most matters to the companion is set to a certain value; if not, it goes down to the next most significant, etc.  Each branch will have a different response, so you really feel like your character's choices have made a difference.  At other, less complex points, one may wish to simply check for a certain general relationship rating, with less variance in response (and that option is there too, because each event changed the general variable too).

Of course, in a well-developed relationship, this will lead to a rather large hierarchy of events/conversations towards the very end, with many possibilities for the companion's response.  But, in NWN, all these responses don't have to be voiced and cutscened.  In DA, they are by default.  To my mind, this improvement in the overall quality of the game's sound and appearance ends up increasing the development cost of each variable, so you can only have a limited number of factors at play at any given moment.

Just my two eurocents.

On the general topic of "playing" the approval system, I guess one can choose to do that if one wishes...  But it is just that - a choice.  One can also stick with one's convictions and take the negative approval like a man (or, um, like a woman).  What I would like to see is a separate tracker for like/dislike and respect/disrespect.  Some companions will like and/or respect one who always agrees with them...  Others will not.  I think that would allow for better roleplaying of a DA:O-like approval system, without too high a development cost.

Modifié par Estelindis, 19 juillet 2010 - 02:57 .

[Gill Kaiser]

iTomes wrote...

Slidell505 wrote...

Helena Tylena wrote...
Wait...
Leliana's in the game?

Makes sense, she did live in lothering.

well propably even talk to sten

It depends. I expect canonically the Warden took both Leliana and Sten away from Lothering before it was destroyed. If Hawke's story starts when he's escaping Lothering, as I suspect it will, then Leliana and Sten will already be gone.

[Tirigon]

Aradace wrote...


Really, so you're going to tell me that if you were following around some "hero" or whatever and they decided to kill a whole town of women and children even though it was agaisnt your OWN personal code, you'd still stick around?

Of course not.

BUT if I was this hero, I would make sure noone of the useless idiots following me around dares to leave without my permission.

[Dick Delaware]

Great info. These changes will improve things a lot.



However, if it's not too much trouble, I'd like some more information:



Will there be benefits to having a particular companion being antagonistic towards you? Are there moments where you will be able to use someone's hatred for you to your own advantage? One thing that I don't like in many RPG's, even great ones, that when you talk to party members, you're reduced to a sycophant telling people what they want to hear because you are always better off having people like you. Will there be situations where you might be better off having someone disapprove of you?

[Rixxencaxx]

Mary Kirby wrote...

Giltspur wrote...

Party members still react to your decision. But approval won't be handled the same way. They mentioned in the GI article that the approval ratings led to metagaming. Basically people do whatever results in the highest number rather than doing what their character actually wants to do. So getting rid of that number, assuming that's what the GI article is suggesting, seems like a good move. How they'll handle party conflict and rapport...who knows.

There's still approval. But now instead of only getting content and combat bonuses based on positive approval, you can either build a rapport or an antagonistic relationship with your companions. Negative approval means they want to show you up, or see you fall on your sorry behind, but they still stick around.

There are way fewer gifts, and the gifts are follower-specific. (No more giving dog bones to everyone to boost approval.)

And followers can still turn on you or abandon you, regardless of how much they like you, based on your actions. (Like Leliana and Wynne at the Urn.)

Tis sounds good
The gift thing was ridicuolus cause you were able to buy party loyalty even after doing something they disapproved very hard
I hope that party gifts will be very rare....

[Estelindis]

Dick Delaware wrote...
 Will there be benefits to having a particular companion being antagonistic towards you? Are there moments where you will be able to use someone's hatred for you to your own advantage?

This is an excellent question.

In Alpha Protocol, one gets a different set of benefits from building up antagonism with various characters than one does from building up admiration.  I'd love to see this in other RPGs, particularly ones as complex and involving as Dragon Age.

[dan107]

druplesnubb wrote...
So if I say, give someone the worst sleeping place, the least food, appoint them to all the worst tasks, shout at them, humiliate them, beat them and favourize everyone else they should still like me just as much as someone I'm nice to? But you are right that the gift system as it was implemented in origins was unrealistic. But you still couldn't actually get someone to leave you just by giving them shoes, because that would be stupid.

I was talking about getting disapproval points for bad gifts or minor disagreements that add up to cancel out the camaraderie that develops from fighting side by side, not  persistent mental and physical abuse.

And as much as I would like to see a "companion abuse" system implemented (hell I can even live with approval if the game lets me beat companions on a whim ) I don't think that it's worth the resources to implement. You can reasonably assume that if a player brings a companion along in the first place then in most cases he likes him and will not want to shout at, humiliate, or beat him.