5 réponses à ce sujet

[CarlSpackler]

http://www.examiner....er-david-gaider


Kind of short but still leads me back to one of my questions about the new aproval system which remains unanswered, so I'll give it another shot.

If I have an npc party member whom I sometimes gain aproval, sometimes lose aproval from can I still get to know that party member through quests and enter in "friendly" or "love" status with the NPC or do I have be extreme one direction or another?  If I do it would be good to know, but the problem of "gaming" the companions still exists.  I would think patience and persistence could pay off here as much either flattery or antagonism.

Modifié par CarlSpackler, 08 septembre 2010 - 09:03 .

[Mary Kirby]

CarlSpackler wrote...


http://www.examiner....er-david-gaider


Kind of short but still leads me back to one of my questions about the new aproval system which remains unanswered, so I'll give it another shot.

If I have an npc party member whom I sometimes gain aproval, sometimes lose aproval from can I still get to know that party member through quests and enter in "friendly" or "love" status with the NPC or do I have be extreme one direction or another?  If I do it would be good to know, but the problem of "gaming" the companions still exists.  I would think patience and persistence could pay off here as much either flattery or antagonism.

It's a bit hard to answer just now, since the balancing hasn't been done yet on approval. Also, I have the plague, and fever makes writing anything coherent really tricky.  So I'll do this in parts.

Part one: the general idea is that party member approval is tied more to the big things and less to the small things. You should get major amounts of approval from doing follower quests and handling big plot decisions, and small amounts from the sort of things you decide to say in casual conversations or decisions in sidequests.  So in theory, you should be able to gain approval with a character for how you do their plot, and lose approval for being mean to kittens or for taking goody-two-shoes quests all the time, and still come out with max friendship (or max rivalry). What you do with the follower matters more than what you say to other people or what you do with random questgiver #25; and hopefully, that reduces the feeling that you have to constantly pick dialogue responses a character likes (or hates) in order to get all their content.

Part two: You'll get to know followers just as well whether you get positive approval or negative approval. You get offered quests and you can start a romance (if a romance is an option) no matter which side of the scale you are on. You just get a different sort of flavor to the interactions depending on which side you're on.

Part three: Yeah, there's still no benefit to being neutral with a follower. You shouldn't lose out on as much dialogue and content, though. If you do their quests, you'll more than likely get to know them, even if you somehow don't hit maximum approval.

[Mary Kirby]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I remember reading that Kirkwall itself is one giant camp setting for your character and when your companions weren't on use, they'd go around living their own lives instead of sitting around acting all cool.

Basically, yeah. It's a big city. It'd be weird if everyone you knew in town moved in with you for years and years. Or you set up a camp site in the middle of a park or something. They have homes and jobs and stuff, and you can find them there when they aren't off punching giant naked poison spiders in the face with you.

Interesting.

"I HATE YOU, MEET ME IN MY BED IN 5 HOURS."

Man, it's like you read the dialogue file, or something... eerie.

Modifié par Mary Kirby, 08 septembre 2010 - 11:01 .

[David Gaider]

Dave of Canada wrote...
Interesting.

"I HATE YOU, MEET ME IN MY BED IN 5 HOURS."

I hate you! *slap*

Are you as turned on as I am?

More!

*kiss*

...oddly enough, it makes for a more interesting entry into a romance than we customarily have in these parts.

[David Gaider]

Giggles_Manically wrote...
So you find the angsty romance to be more of an interesting start to a romance than the flowers and rainbows kinda romance?
Interesting.

It's just different. Normally it's "I like you so much now I love you", so this is a nice change of pace.

It works a little differently depending on the character in question, of course, but you'll see.

[Mary Kirby]

Saibh wrote...

I'm almost seeing the approval system as an optional hate--like, rivalry doesn't necessarily mean they really dislike you. They're rivals with you. Which is very interesting, but I hope we get the chance to be complete SWEARWORDs to our party members.

The more other people elaborate on the idea, the more I'm warming up to it. At first it seemed oddly unlikely, but I was thinking that disapproval meant they hated you the way Leliana will hate you, you know?

You can still be a nug-licker to your party members, and this will sometimes cause them to leave your party forever and ever. However, this is actually different from rivalry. Rivalry means "we disagree on something fundamental." You can still be close, but that disagreement is always there, and you will have arguments about it from time to time. Possibly, you will even change their mind. Or maybe they'll change yours? It's hard to guess. But it's not hatred.  It's just conflict. And conflict, or possibly paprika, is the spice of life, as we all know.