22 réponses à ce sujet

[Pugnate]

http://www.pcgamer.c...ero-of-kirwall/

Another complexity stripped away. So sad.

I am not saying that DA2 will not be a good game. I just don't think it should be called DA2. As someone from the PCG comments section says, this is better described as a spin-off...

In other news, I hear EA is changing its mantra to: EA, we do bad things to good developers.

Edit: Changing the title so it is not so misleading or incorrect.

edit:

To be fair, my original thread title was a direct quotation from the article.

edit:

I read the explanation Bioware gave, and I have to agree that it
actually does sound better than what they had. In this case, it seems to
be an improvement.

I am willing to concede that my original information was a misinterpretation of the actual facts.

Modifié par Pugnate, 07 décembre 2010 - 06:12 .

[David Gaider]

Pugnate wrote...
http://www.pcgamer.c...ero-of-kirwall/

Another complexity stripped away. So sad.

I always think it's lovely when people make declarative thread titles that are misleading, considering so many people won't read beyond that.

Anyhow... as has been mentioned already in this thread the approval system is indeed not removed. We've changed it to a friendship/rivalry system.

In essence, our issue was that negative approval was a "dead end"-- if a companion's approval lowered you got nothing for it in return. No gameplay bonuses, no dialogue and thus no relationship with the companion. That meant that trying to please your companion was the only "win" condition possible, and that wasn't really what we intended.

Thus "negative approval" now equals rivalry-- and has its own gameplay effects and dialogue. You still have a relationship with the follower, but its character is very different (and will vary according to the individual companion).

And that's fundamentally the only thing that's different about it.

[David Gaider]

Sigil_Beguiler123 wrote...
David I am guessing you can't divulge much information on it but... Well with this bing essentially a different relationship and not just a dead end does this mean things like companion quests, companion specific gifts, etc. That there could be perhaps rivalry versions of those? I am not sure exactly how well it would work narratively but I am sure some stuff could be thought up.

What's generally going to happen when it comes to companion dialogue/quests is there's either going to be variations within them based on your friendship/rivalry status or they will have unique dialogues for each.

A gift, for instance, could be taken very differently depending on whether a companion is a friend or rival. You give a warrior a sword, for instance, and a friend might react by being grateful. A rival might react by saying, "What? Why do you think I need this? Keep it." There might be different rewards depending on which path you're on, but the idea is that they're both legitimate paths with the potential to reach an end destination (ie. a strong relationship with that companion).

[David Gaider]

jesuno wrote...
So, characters will no longer get mad and storm off or attack you, but undermine your efforts from within? Does this extend to combat, ie less responsive when issued a command.

Rivalry can indeed get to a point where you and the companion have it out once and for all-- and then they either leave or you both come to an understanding.

As far as combat goes, no-- a rival will attempt to out-do you, and thus work harder at combat than they normally would. Rivalry gameplay bonuses generally make the companion themselves better in combat... whereas friendship gameplay bonuses generally help the entire party or the PC in particular.

Modifié par David Gaider, 01 décembre 2010 - 04:10 .

[David Gaider]

Xewaka wrote...
Is there a category for "friendly rivalry"? That is, despite filosophical disagreement, keep in good graces?

Rivalry is generally assumed to be "I respect you, but we have our differences". If they didn't feel they were still your friend, or at least owed you, why would they be helping you? This isn't, after all, the situation with the Warden where there's an overriding mission to save the world.

That said, the exact character of a rivalry relationship depends both on the individual companion and the way you interact with them.

[David Gaider]

tmp7704 wrote...
Incidentally this is probably why the reviewer calls it "ditching" the system -- at least that's what their wording would imply. Could be argued from certain standpoint this is right conclusion, given you're now being rewarded in some way no matter what you do.

Well, we did indeed "ditch" the old system-- it would be wrong to imply that we didn't replace it with anything, however. I suppose some might look upon friendship/rivalry as lacking the "win" scenario I mentioned... no matter what, if you have a companion with you long enough you're bound to develop some kind of relationship with them.

Me, I don't think that's a bad thing. I want the player to develop relationships, and I consider it bad design that a character like Morrigan could have been left behind in DAO by so many simply because she disapproved of their actions. An antagonistic friendship is a facet of many inter-character relationships in fiction, and we wanted to see how it might work out.

I don't think it's perfect in every way-- us writers have already discussed things we'd like to modify with it in the future-- but I think it's definitely a step in the right direction.

[David Gaider]

Brockololly wrote...
So is there still a visible numerical approval shift to either friendly or rival that you can see? Like having the "Morrigan Disapproves -10" type thing or some sort of tangible metric to clearly see where you stand with the companion? I like the numerical aspect of the approval system in Origins as opposed to something more nebulous like the paragon/renegade bars in Mass Effect.

There's still a numerical shift, yes, as well as a meter on each follower that shows you how far you've shifted into either the friendship or rivalry part of the spectrum.

Insofar as feedback goes, you still see "Morrigan Friendship +10"... but the opposite is "Morrigan Rivalry +10" instead of "Morrigan Friendship -10" or "Morrigan Disapproves -10". We didn't want the rivalry feedback to show negative numbers as it was felt that would indicate a bad thing or a loss... whereas it's intended as just a different facet of the progression.

[David Gaider]

RedRoo wrote...
If I can pose a question as a bit of an example:
My Warden disagreed with a lot of Sten's ideology, and often found him occupying the lower strata of the approval meter. But when it came time for his personal quest, he leaped and bounded through the meter and they eventually became good friends. How would this kind of situation work with the new system? If I began to climb the rivalry path with Sten (as seems would be appropriate), would completing the personal quest solidify him in the rivalry path further? Or would it flip over to friendship at that point, despite me still disagreeing with his philosophy?

It would really depend on how you completed their personal quests. Each follower has multiple quests... and it is indeed possible to complete their quests and get major bonuses for rivalry instead of friendship. The fundamental thing to remember here is that friendship/rivalry is not based on how much the companion likes you. It's based on how aligned you are on the issues that are important to that follower.

Let's say you have a rivalry with Sten. You recover his sword, but choose to spare the man who stole it. Sten hates that, and after giving him back his sword the two of you have a huge argument about the value of life vs. the dictates of the Qun-- perhaps you make some excellent points which make him back off and think, leading to more dialogue later, but that's still a progression along the rivalry path.

It's also possible, however, that despite having edged along rivalry earlier that you agree with Sten and let him execute the thief. He thanks you for understanding, and while he didn't like you much before he's beginning to see you in a new light. You gain friendship points and possibly enough to shift you over onto the friendship path.

You'll note something important there-- "rivalry" may indeed be "we disagree, but for really good reasons". As I've mentioned elsewhere, rivalry is the only path where you can lead a follower to eventually change... not completely, that would be unrealistic, but perhaps change their mind about something very important.

[David Gaider]

RyuAzai wrote...
Example if I raised Isabela +10 friendship, but then gained +5 Rivalry, would I really just have +5 Friendship?

Correct. If you walk the line too carefully, it's possible for your relationship to ultimately go nowhere.

Or I shouldn't say nowhere... we haven't tied the companion quests to approval, as we did before. You'll still get to know the companion much better, but you won't hit the dialogues that are specific to the major stages along friendship/rivalry. That's no different than in DAO, of course, and I'm fine with that.

[David Gaider]

tmp7704 wrote...

Marionetten wrote...

Are rivalry romances possible or are they strictly tied to friendships?

If i remember right it's said you can indeed have a "slap slap kiss kiss" type of romance through rivalry path. Well, not using these exact words, but still.

Correct. Rivalry-born romances have a different character to friendship-born romances, but romance is still possible either way. It's not quite slap-slap-kiss but it is far different from the "I like you so much and feel so close to you right now" sort of vibe.

[David Gaider]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I don't think there should be a "reward" for a neutral relationship, personally.

The rivalry path seems to be, "We disagree on a lot of fundamental issues."
The friendship path seems to be, "We're kindred spirits."

If you agree on some stuff, disagree on other stuff - I'm not sure that needs to be addressed in terms of personality. And as long as their personal quests aren't tied to approval and David Gaider says they aren't - we're not missing out on anything. The system simply supports both extremes.

Correct. The idea, really, is just that you get extra dialogue for progressing to the extremes-- as opposed to implying that this is where your relationship must end up. Hovering in the middle would be of no more benefit here than it was in DAO, though here you'd probably need to be fairly schizophrenic as to your approach regarding certain issues.

I don't doubt, however, that there might be some disconnect for some players who are determined to follow one path or the other but finding it difficult to judge which is which when it comes to making decisions. We don't key those to dialogue icons (which are intent, not effect), so we'll see how that works out.

[David Gaider]

Utoryo wrote...
In the example with Sten, if you were on the rivalry path and you told him that you genuinely changed your mind and he's right about it, would we gain a lot of friendship points so that you're not stuck at neutral even if your character has genuinely changed his mind? It's one thing to be schizophrenic, it's quite another to actually change your mind, something which should logically be valued greatly in any friendship. Is this possible?

Not all friendship/rivalry changes are equal-- just as not all approval changes in DAO were equal. Some things are going to cause big shifts, and just as in DAO sometimes you will have the opportunity to explain your reasoning further and either intensify or ameliorate those shifts somewhat.

[David Gaider]

Nighteye2 wrote...
Why have them on the same scale at all? Wouldn't it be better to have seperate indicators for friendship and rivalry? One for how much they like you and one for how much they seek to compete or cooperate with you. You can do much more with 2 indicators.

Because as soon as you have more than one axis you start ending up with much more complicated dialogue. We looked at this, but the truth of the matter is doing that would have meant much less relevance for each axis as we simply wouldn't have been able to use it in as many situations.

[Sheryl Chee]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

+5 Salty. 

This amuses me more than it should.

"Morrigan gains +5 to Saltiness."

[David Gaider]

Giggles_Manically wrote...
Will companions still have points where they cant accept why you decide to do?
Like Wynne at the ashes or Alistair if you spare Loghain?

Possibly, yes.

[David Gaider]

Qset wrote...
If I understand your above correctly, then we need to pursue the rivalry path to be able to change a companions mind on something, I guess to use a DAO example, something like hardening Alistar during his personal quest or persuading him on the DR or kingship. Is this correct? We cannot influence our companions from a friendship side? Even if it is on a different subject?

I guess I am struggling to se why we can only influence from a rivalry standpoint, can you explain the reasoning here for me a bit more please - maybe I am being a bit thick

Friendship means you already agree with your companion on the subject. Why would you change their mind on something you agree with?

We're not talking about "change" being something new that comes up out of the blue, or being able to change their mind about anything. Here we're talking about possibly changing their mind on something fundamental which is central to the character's plot throughout the game. If you are on the friendship path they might still come to you for advice/help and such... but you're not going to be changing their mind on anything.

Modifié par David Gaider, 01 décembre 2010 - 05:53 .

[David Gaider]

jesuno wrote...
After a rivalry hits the climax (fight, sex, whatever) does it switch to friendship, or does it stay as a rivalry? (ie, does the one upmanship end and everything is cool, or do we still butt heads, just there is a level of respect now)

If you reach the climax of either path (ho ho ho) then it stays there permanently and doesn't change any longer. "Max rivalry" and "max friendship" are essentially their own states.

[Mary Kirby]

Wulfram wrote...

What if you agree about most things, but disagree about this?  Or does it only track views on one issue per character?

Here, I'll attempt to explain with one of my Totally Improbable Examples ™:

One of your companions is Phil the Dairy Farmer. He feels that cheese is the single most important thing in Thedas.

When he tends to bring this up, you can say things like, "Phil, there are things in life more important than cheese." or, "Gouda saved my life once! I am totally with you on the cheese issue!"

Picking the first one increases rivalry a small amount. Picking the second increases friendship.

Then, you get to Phil's follower plot, in which you have to choose between saving a dairy that is on fire before it burns to the ground, or saving a puppy, or maybe just going out for a beer. Saving the dairy gets you a large friendship increase. Letting it burn gets you a large rivalry increase.

Eventually, as you do and say things that are anti-cheese, Phil blows up at you. There's a big argument where he accuses you of hating all that is good in the world and having no priorities. But then one of Phil's loved ones is killed by a Gorgonzola, and now he realizes that he's been wrong all along.

Or...

Eventually, as you do and say things that are pro-cheese, Phil decides you are long lost soulmates. Then one of Phil's loved ones is attacked by a Gorgonzola, but you successfully fend it off, and Phil decides to become the Cheese Avenger, Champion of Dairy Goodness everywhere.

[David Gaider]

Mary Kirby wrote...
Here, I'll attempt to explain with one of my Totally Improbable Examples ™:

One of your companions is Phil the Dairy Farmer. He feels that cheese is the single most important thing in Thedas.

When he tends to bring this up, you can say things like, "Phil, there are things in life more important than cheese." or, "Gouda saved my life once! I am totally with you on the cheese issue!"

Picking the first one increases rivalry a small amount. Picking the second increases friendship.

Then, you get to Phil's follower plot, in which you have to choose between saving a dairy that is on fire before it burns to the ground, or saving a puppy, or maybe just going out for a beer. Saving the dairy gets you a large friendship increase. Letting it burn gets you a large rivalry increase.

Eventually, as you do and say things that are anti-cheese, Phil blows up at you. There's a big argument where he accuses you of hating all that is good in the world and having no priorities. But then one of Phil's loved ones is killed by a Gorgonzola, and now he realizes that he's been wrong all along.

Or...

Eventually, as you do and say things that are pro-cheese, Phil decides you are long lost soulmates. Then one of Phil's loved ones is attacked by a Gorgonzola, but you successfully fend it off, and Phil decides to become the Cheese Avenger, Champion of Dairy Goodness everywhere.

In short, we don't have you making small changes to a companion. That would be difficult to track, and really that's just part of interacting with them normally-- it's plot. Remember that the relationship is an abstraction... we can't actually simulate the nuances of human interaction, but we can make it look like we are and at the same time provide some gameplay & story relevance for the decisions you're making.

Where we actually come to some kind of significant divergence relates to one big issue. And that's it.

[Mary Kirby]

Wulfram wrote...

So there wouldn't be anything like the little conversation between Leliana and an Elf warden? Where she says some insensitive things, the warden goes "WTH?" and she goes "whoops, you're right"

That can happen, but that's not a friendship/rivalry issue. That was one conversation. If elves had come up in multiple conversations with her, and you could alter how she'd talk about them by saying "WTH, Leliana?" then it might be tracked by friendship/rivalry.

[David Gaider]

Nighteye2 wrote...
I can understand that argument, although going from 1 to 2 axis is not a tremendous change while it does add a lot of depth - the diminishing returns, in my opinion, start only when you try to do more than 2 axis.

I know you think that, and it sounds good in theory, but try plotting it out. You've just doubled the number of points we'd need to track... either that or halved the number of points along each axis where we can establish a difference for how far you've progressed along it.

Or doubled the number of variations we would need in dialogues to cover those points, not to mention doubled the points of failure where we would need to test to make sure that we're not presenting one effect where we would need to present another.

More realistic? Perhaps-- but once again this is an abstraction. We can theorize on the best way to numerically present a relationship like this, but unless it's something we can practically implement in a meaningful way it's completely useless.

Modifié par David Gaider, 01 décembre 2010 - 07:15 .

[David Gaider]

Pugnate wrote...
I forgot to reply back to this thread.

I read the explanation Bioware gave, and I have to agree that it actually does sound better than what they had. In this case, it seems to be an improvement.

I am willing to concede that my original information was a misinterpretation of the actual facts.

I must have taken a wrong turn and left the internet for a minute...

Don't see this sort of thing very often. Mighty big of you to admit it, and I'm glad you approve.

[David Gaider]

rab****annel wrote...
Will your decisions, philosophies, and stances be known across all companions? I mean, could you tell one companion one thing and another companion the complete opposite? I could tell Morrigan that I don't believe in love and at the same time tell Alistair that it's incredibly important to me. What happens is that you are able to change your positions and beliefs to suit whichever companion you are trying to woo even though if they were to actually speak to each other, they would find that you are largely contradicting yourself. In effect, you manipulate them and never really take a firm stand when it comes to your beliefs and no one is the wiser.

It's no different than in Origins. Party members react to the actions/dialogue they're present for, unless it's something really big that they're going to eventually hear about no matter what.