639 réponses à ce sujet

[abat223]

i'm excited to see different models of "sword-staff" weapons as well as poleaxes..



i also hope we can wear armor as cool as the qunari helmets

[Jakeul200493]

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D



Can I have a time machine so I can go forward to March please?

[Brockololly]

David Gaider wrote...
If you never go down the rivalry or friendship paths you will never get those interactions. You will still get plenty of interaction with the companion by way of their personal quests, which is where a lot of their development comes into play, but you won't end up being a close friend or rival if you play the middle ground-- which is appropriate, I think.

I'm just wondering though, if you unintentionally can end up getting stuck in the middle, even if you're trying to get someone maxed out friendly or rival? Since there aren't as many gifts to sort of "correct" the approval, how will it work exactly, if say you're headed down the rival path with a companion, but the next couple conversations net you "friendly" approval?So you end up more towards the middle. But eventually run out of dialogue chances or whatever to get them maxed out to one end or the other?

It just seems like it may punish people by not having them game the system to max out  friendly or max out rival. And say you do get into an argument with a rival companion and you convince them to change their ways- do they still stay rival or do they switch to friendly?

It just seems that given the limited dialogue opportunities in the game and with fewer gifts, its much easier to end up getting stuck in the middle even if you wanted to go one way or the other if you're actually roleplaying and not just gaming the system.

[errant_knight]

Apollo Starflare wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

shepard_lives wrote...
You can be a complete **** to your companions and get bonuses and new dialogue for it.

So it's like the romance/friendship thing except in reverse? That sound AWESOME!!

Essentially what it boils down to is this: in Origins if you didn't get along with a companion you got nothing. No dialogue, no interaction and no gameplay benefits. So what we've done is added a "rivalry path" which is the friendship path in reverse. As approval goes down you get interactions where you argue with the companion, and this is the path where you could ultimately convince them they need to change.

Thus taking a stance with a companion that is argumentative is a legitimate way to develop your relationship with them, and there's no need to hunt for the approval bonuses in every instance.

This sounds immense. Personally I like what I've seen of Isabella, but there is always one or two companions in a Bioware game that I don't get on with (a good thing!) so to have extra content just for disagreeing with/hating them is awesome. Plus it adds more replayability, which should help lessen the blow of not having Origins to draw in replays. Exciting!

Yep, that's all true. I doubt my PC will get along all that well with either Isabella--or Varric, for that matter. Unless Varric is a whole lot less...Varric-y as a companion than when telling tales. Not a big fan of smug, cocky types. But that's all good. It will be interesting, and I'm sure there will be other characters that I will find more appealing. They set the bar for that pretty high with Alistair, though. Tough job to top him.

[shai-hulud-lama]

David Gaider wrote...

Essentially what it boils down to is this: in Origins if you didn't get along with a companion you got nothing. No dialogue, no interaction and no gameplay benefits. So what we've done is added a "rivalry path" which is the friendship path in reverse. As approval goes down you get interactions where you argue with the companion, and this is the path where you could ultimately convince them they need to change.

Thus taking a stance with a companion that is argumentative is a legitimate way to develop your relationship with them, and there's no need to hunt for the approval bonuses in every instance.

this sounds very good. Normally i ignore companions which i don't like. Now i have a motivation to interact with them. thanks

[Wyndham711]

Great trailer! Very well chosen music track, really got me excited. The graphics looked really good in movement and I can easily see the animations have vastly improved from Origins. And even though the art style has changed I still felt I was watching a Dragon Age trailer. I love Varric's voice! But the new Cassandra look didn't really work for me, she seemed old. Still, a very well paced, overall effective trailer that really lifted my anticipation to another level!

[n2nw]

ankuu wrote...

n2nw wrote...

I would love to see a lady Hawke used in a big trailer. Do we get a smeksy gypsy guy running for us? And I want to see how the girls use the little flame-throwing fist and ninja jumps.

Don't worry, i am sure we'll get our slice of pie :wizard:Afterall, in the IGN preview they said it's better to be a girl xD

Yeah, because she's beautiful.  As I said in the other thread, I thought I was superficial in my games.  haha!  Seriously, I hope there's more reason to be a lady than her looks.

And I'd like to see for myself.

[David Gaider]

Brockololly wrote...
I'm just wondering though, if you unintentionally can end up getting stuck in the middle, even if you're trying to get someone maxed out friendly or rival? Since there aren't as many gifts to sort of "correct" the approval, how will it work exactly, if say you're headed down the rival path with a companion, but the next couple conversations net you "friendly" approval?So you end up more towards the middle. But eventually run out of dialogue chances or whatever to get them maxed out to one end or the other?

I'd say that'd be pretty hard, unless you were being deliberately schizophrenic. Even so, if it did happen it's no different than doing the same in Origins. Here, however, you have the extra option of dialogue should approval go down. We can't guarantee that you'll end up developing a relationship with a follower, there are simply more options for doing so.

 

And say you do get into an argument with a rival companion and you convince them to change their ways- do they still stay rival or do they switch to friendly?

Should you get to the "end stage" of the friendship or rivalry path it stays there afterwards. And it's probably worth pointing out that rivalry is still based on respect-- so having someone at full rivalry, one who you've argued with and ultimately changed, still means you have a fully-developed relationship... just one of a slightly different character than if you'd taken the friendship path.

[errant_knight]

I'm surprised at the number of people who play the default. That's just not something I'd ever do.

[ralph2190]

 I have a very bad feeling about Mama Hawke  
Something tells me we have to choose between family members...

[DarthCaine]

David Gaider wrote...

Should you get to the "end stage" of the friendship or rivalry path it stays there afterwards. And it's probably worth pointing out that rivalry is still based on respect-- so having someone at full rivalry, one who you've argued with and ultimately changed, still means you have a fully-developed relationship... just one of a slightly different character than if you'd taken the friendship path.

Hmm... it was my impression that once you changed their minds, you get to have a friendship relationship with them...

[tmp7704]

Anarya wrote...

What's up with Cassandra's hair??

I can see Varric have this effect on people. They go grey and tear their hair out.

Turning Isabela into a white girl for the wallpaper, rather iffy. In the sense they're opening up themselves to racial discussion/controversy that could well be avoided if things were just kept consistent.

Cassandra's voice is nice.

Interesting, one of the qunari seems to be wielding a polearm and i thought they said there isn't going to be any such weapons in DA2. Though maybe it's just "appearance skin" and the thing is used just like 2h axe or smth.

[tmp7704]

David Gaider wrote...

I'd say that'd be pretty hard, unless you were being deliberately schizophrenic.

Speaking purely theoretically*, this can be rather easy actually and not schizophrenic at all -- all it takes is for the player's character to have fundamentally different view on things than NPC while at the same time staying calm and polite about this difference, rather than take the route of childish douchebag at every turn. Then you get the disapproval from actions you take, but generally even that out with approval from discussions. To make it even more muddy, the player and NPC can have different views on some things but agree on other, resulting in similar effect.

*) ok maybe not "purely" since to a degree this is based on DAO as well.

Modifié par tmp7704, 26 octobre 2010 - 06:44 .

[MoneyDeluxe]

DarthCaine wrote...
Hmm... it was my impression that once you changed their minds, you get to have a friendship relationship with them...

Why would you? If that were the case it would undermine the whole principle of rivalry that they stick to the side of your Hawke despite the heavy opposition that  they have to your behaviour.

[tmp7704]

MoneyDeluxe wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...
Hmm... it was my impression that once you changed their minds, you get to have a friendship relationship with them...

Why would you? If that were the case it would undermine the whole principle of rivalry that they stick to the side of your Hawke despite the heavy opposition that  they have to your behaviour.

Well, if rivalry is based on difference of views, then if you actually manage to change their mind on this matter and see things your way... then this base for rivalry gets very much removed.

Modifié par tmp7704, 26 octobre 2010 - 06:46 .

[upsettingshorts]

On the question of a bonus for having a neutral relationship, I ask how that would - had it been implemented - play out?



"Hawke you make me so ambivalent some times."

"I really wish I could figure out what makes you tick."

"I don't have a strong feeling either way."



Anyway, I'm very happy there is a rivalry path for obvious reasons. Giving companions a piece of my mind and having that conflict develop is much better than just going out there trying to please everyone. It makes Hawke more of an independent person and less of a vessel through which his or her companions can have their worldview validated.

[Shepard Lives]

tmp7704 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

I'd say that'd be pretty hard, unless you were being deliberately schizophrenic.

Speaking purely theoretically*, this can be rather easy actually and not schizophrenic at all -- all it takes is for the player's character to have fundamentally different view on things than NPC while at the same time staying calm and polite about this difference, rather than take the route of childish douchebag at every turn. Then you get the disapproval from actions you take, but generally even that out with approval from discussions. To make it even more muddy, the player and NPC can have different views on some things but agree on other, resulting in similar effect.

*) ok maybe not "purely" since to a degree this is based on DAO as well.

Or, you will have the possibility of disagreeing with your companions without having to be a childish douchebag about it. Also, what makes you think that being nice to them will always increase their approval? One word: Sten.

[Xewaka]

This has been asked but not answered (I think), so I'll ask again. Is the companion's armor and weaponry eligible? I understand the use of deafult skins, but I'd rather be able to tell visually which equipment an ally carries.

[Brockololly]

David Gaider wrote...
I'd say that'd be pretty hard, unless you were being deliberately schizophrenic. Even so, if it did happen it's no different than doing the same in Origins. Here, however, you have the extra option of dialogue should approval go down. We can't guarantee that you'll end up developing a relationship with a follower, there are simply more options for doing so.

Ok, so is the approval system still -100 to +100 then? I'm just thinking for example, in Origins, my Warden got a bunch of negative approval from Morrigan at the start, but as the game progressed, it was more often than not positive approval. What I'm wondering is that if say, getting to -10 or -20 hits some trigger that starts a rivalry, at which point it would be impossible, given the limited number of dialogue opportunities or gifts, to be able to turn that relationship into a friendship through the natural course of conversation and so on? 

 

David Gaider wrote...
Should you get to the "end stage" of the friendship or rivalry path it stays there afterwards.

So, if you max out someone's rival/friendship it won't matter what you do, they'll still be friendly/rival? So if Leliana was maxed out friendly in the new system, it wouldn't matter if you defiled the Ashes, she'd still be friends with you?

tmp7704 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
I'd say that'd be pretty hard, unless you were being deliberately schizophrenic.

Speaking purely theoretically*, this can be rather easy actually and not  schizophrenic at all -- all it takes is for the player's character to  have fundamentally different view on things than NPC while at the same  time staying calm and polite about this difference, rather than take the route of childish douchebag at every turn. Then you get the disapproval from actions you take, but generally even that out with approval from  discussions. To make it even more muddy, the player and NPC can have  different views on some things but agree on other, resulting in similar effect.

*) ok maybe not "purely" since to a degree this is based on DAO as well.

Right- using Morrigan as an example again, my Warden wasn't a dick to her but would still get disapproval at times and disagreed on certain things. Yet as the game progressed, was able to get her approval up and with plot gifts it was fine.I'm just wondering if you don't sort of dig yourself into a whole in this new system that its impossible to ever develop a friendship once you start a rivalry. Or you do start digging yourself out of a rivalry or conversely lose a friendship but can't get down to rivalry.

Modifié par Brockololly, 26 octobre 2010 - 06:55 .

[Shepard Lives]

Xewaka wrote...

This has been asked but not answered (I think), so I'll ask again. Is the companion's armor and weaponry eligible? I understand the use of deafult skins, but I'd rather be able to tell visually which equipment an ally carries.

We don't have any official intel on this, but it has already been confirmed that inventory is in, so I would assume that we still get to change gear on Hawke and companions.

[McCreath]

What IS that weird "cowcatcher" thing on Hawke's chest? What is its purpose? Armour?

[MoneyDeluxe]

tmp7704 wrote...

Well, if rivalry is based on difference
of views, then if you actually manage to change their mind on this
matter and see things your way... then this base for rivalry gets very
much removed.

A companion coming to respect the point of view of your Hawke and abiding by that does not have to mean that they particularly like you for it.So you probaly won't have friendly evening chatter over a beer or two I reckon;)

[graavigala85]

McCreath wrote...

What IS that weird "cowcatcher" thing on Hawke's chest? What is its purpose? Armour?

neck/throat guard + to make him look cool

[upsettingshorts]

McCreath wrote...

What IS that weird "cowcatcher" thing on Hawke's chest? What is its purpose? Armour?

It strikes me as a form of - or replacement for a - gorget. 

[Addai]

shepard_lives wrote...

Or, you will have the possibility of disagreeing with your companions without having to be a childish douchebag about it. Also, what makes you think that being nice to them will always increase their approval? One word: Sten.

My question is, with the dialogue wheel, are you going to know the difference?  For instance, is there going to be a "disagree- snarky/ childish" or "disagree politely" indicator?