251 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

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.

[upsettingshorts]

David Gaider wrote...
but perhaps change their mind about something very important.

Soon my entire party will understand the innate superiority of waffles to pancakes!

[SirOccam]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

I do too. This is easily the number one thing I am looking forward to in DA2.

I would have loved to see how the Morrigan romance played out if this Rivalry system had been in effect in Origins.

[Marionetten]

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.

I'm frightened of what Aveline would do to my Hawke.

[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.

[Wulfram]

What happens if you agree on some things and disagree on others? Can you get stuck in the middle and miss out on both?

edit: and it's already been answered.

Modifié par Wulfram, 01 décembre 2010 - 04:43 .

[TurboTwistedFire]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Huh. Well that doesn't sound too bad. Cool. But will we be able to raise their rivalry as well as their affection at the same time? For example, the romance meter be at 100 as well as their rivalry meter?

[Piecake]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

That sounds awesome.  I especially your choices opening up dialogue with your companion that deal with your conflicting views.  Thats one thing I wasnt a huge fan of in DAO.  You did something that one of your companions didnt like, and they'd lose some points and that'd be the end of it.  No chance to work out your differences or explain your position, etc.  All you could do was give them a pretty gift to get back those points.

Definitely excited about this change

[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.

[Brockololly]

David Gaider wrote...
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.

So is the friendship/rivalry point allocation exclusive to each friendship/rivalry meter? What I mean is, is it simply one big bar with rivalry on one spectrum and friendship on the other like Origins? Or is it really 2 separate bars like ME's paragon/renegade, where you can accumulate renegade points and paragon points exclusive of each other? 

Basically, does doing something which causes "rival +20" also essentially mean "friendship -20"?


Edit: Ninja'd:ph34r:

David Gaider wrote...
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.

Hmmm...yeah, this is my one concern with this new system: that it seems easier to end up getting stuck in the middle than with Origins. It seems the intent in DA2 is to reduce the gaming the system of just getting approval high and to sort of role play naturally and get content either way. But given how the rival side of things is being fleshed out, aren't the rival/friendship shifts going to need to be kind of large numerically? Otherwise, if you end up going rival to start out but then maybe start going friendly for whatever reason, it would seem you're more liable in DA2 to run out of dialogue/actions to still shift their rival/friendly status one way or the other. Cause it still seems like you're forced to game the system, just this time you can game it by going all rival.

I only ask cause in Origins for instance, with Morrigan for example, my Warden would often do the goody goody actions yet be able to persuade MOrrigan into a lower "disapproval" through a persuade or cunning option (like at the anvil of the void). Yet more often than not in conversations they'd get along fine. So it would seem like with the new system my Warden's actions would set Morrigan down the rival path, and then possibly the dialogue would simply add to friendship, leaving the Warden in limbo. Or would it be more likely to have a rival argument that way where you could change Morrigan's outlook on things?

Bah- I'm sure it will make more sense when we can see it in action....a little video of the system in action contrasting a rival vs. friendly version of one conversation would be nifty.

Modifié par Brockololly, 01 décembre 2010 - 04:58 .

[Wulfram]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Do you still need to be going down one of the paths for the romance?

If so, wouldn't that create the rather strange situation whereby you can effectively stall the romance by agreeing with them?

[Sigil_Beguiler123]

David, thanks so much for answering all these questions. It has got me looking forward even more to the friendship/rivalry system in DA2. Also, I am really glad you are adding multiple quests for each character. I always enjoyed going on companion quests so it is nice to see more of them

[Serega 1]

КУДА все рускее ушли =/

[upsettingshorts]

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.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 décembre 2010 - 04:51 .

[catabuca]

The one problem with certain dialogues being tied to the amount of friendship/rivalry (or paragon/renegade) is the way it can make you play the game, or metagame. I guess it's a difficult thing to avoid completely, once you introduce benefits for acting in certain ways.

Returning to Alpha Protocol, you would get certain perks if you consistently stuck with one type of reply, but also if you always mixed up your responses. This brings up the classic grumble about being 'penalised' for taking the neutral path in ME. I guess the ideal way to do it would be to have certain effects for friendship, for rivalry and for neutrality. I think that can help avoid metagaming to an extent.

But still, as I said, I'm looking forward to seeing this new iteration of the relationship system in DA2

[Boost31]

Wulfram wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Do you still need to be going down one of the paths for the romance?

If so, wouldn't that create the rather strange situation whereby you can effectively stall the romance by agreeing with them?

i think david said you will get low rivarly/friend point in conversation, but you will get a lot of rivarly/firend point in your decisions
so if you agree with them in conversation but they dont like your actions, you will gain more rivarly points than friendship points

[upsettingshorts]

The penalties make sense in ME2, considering there's no Intimidate/Charm skills. You're building up your credibility.  If Shepard hasn't been consistently ethical, his attempts to seize the moral high ground would come off as phony.  If Shepard doesn't kill or injure people that get in his way with regularity, he's not going to scare too many people by threatening to do it.  My problems in that case are with the inconsistency of the Paragon and Renegade choices themselves, not the gameplay system they're built around.  "Is Renegade Shepard a coldly expedient problem solver, or is he an impatient, pro-human psychopath?" is an example of one of the questions about ME1-2's writing I will raise in the ME3 forum when it goes live.  But that's off topic.

In the case of the Friend/Rivalry system, it seems more reactive than directive. If I'm reading it right. Does that mean I won't metagame the heck out of it? Heck no. I sure will, especially on subsequent playthroughs - but it also means my first and more hardcore roleplaying playthroughs will better represent the realities of my character's relationships with his or her team. That being said, "it could be metagamed" could be said about anything, really.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 décembre 2010 - 04:57 .

[Serega 1]

БЛИН ЛЮДИ ГОВОРИТЕ ПО РУСКИ Я ОДИН ТОКО РОСИЯНИН ВЫХОДИТ?=/

[Piecake]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

In the case of the Friend/Rivalry system, it seems more reactive than directive. If I'm reading it right. Does that mean I won't metagame the heck out of it? Heck no. I sure will, especially on subsequent playthroughs - but it also means my first and more hardcore roleplaying playthroughs will better represent the realities of my character's relationships with his or her team. That being said, "it could be metagamed" could be said about anything, really.

They probably look at this as a bonus as well, since it will give some players more replay value.

[tmp7704]

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.

I think the neutral "path" could fall rather neatly under "we're old friends and i trust you" -- after all it isn't exactly common for people to either fiercely disagree on lot of fundamental issues, or see almost everything the same way. And having only these two types of relationships with all your companions, it may feel pretty odd, very much like having everyone just worship the player in DAO.

[Ziggeh]

catabuca wrote...

The one problem with certain dialogues being tied to the amount of friendship/rivalry (or paragon/renegade) is the way it can make you play the game, or metagame. I guess it's a difficult thing to avoid completely, once you introduce benefits for acting in certain ways.

Surely that's a good thing, it makes you far more of a party if you're putting increased emphasis on your companions opinions. There's a certain amount of meta to it, granted, but it has a strong internal explanation.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 01 décembre 2010 - 04:57 .

[Wulfram]

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.

I don't see why "I agree with them on this but disagree on that" is less needing to be addressed than any other.
And while approval hunting may be undesirable, it's even more silly if we're going to have to start avoiding agreeing with people in order to progress the relationship.

[Ziggeh]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

"Is Renegade Shepard a coldly expedient problem solver, or is he an impatient, pro-human psychopath?" is an example of one of the questions about ME1-2's writing I will raise in the ME3 forum when it goes live.  But that's off topic.

How was brainwashing an entire civilsation "good"? Blarg.

Save it ziggeh, save it.

[Sigil_Beguiler123]

tmp7704 wrote...

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.

I think the neutral "path" could fall rather neatly under "we're old friends and i trust you" -- after all it isn't exactly common for people to either fiercely disagree on lot of fundamental issues, or see almost everything the same way. And having only these two types of relationships with all your companions, it may feel pretty odd, very much like having everyone just worship the player in DAO.

Yeah I can definitely see it that way. You have a stable relationship with the person and thus have normal dialogue, etc. and not the dialogue that comes from the more extreme relationships. This is reinforced even more by the fact as David just said we can still do the companion missions without needing high friendship/rivalry. 

[upsettingshorts]

Wulfram wrote...

I don't see why "I agree with them on this but disagree on that" is less needing to be addressed than any other.
And while approval hunting may be undesirable, it's even more silly if we're going to have to start avoiding agreeing with people in order to progress the relationship.

In principle, I agree.  In practice, I'm not sure how a "neutral" relationship of this kind would work given the limitations of the genre.  If Mr. Gaider is interested in doing so, I bet he could answer.  

Indeed most real life relationships would fall under just that label.  But then what's special about them?  

ziggehunderslash wrote...

How was brainwashing an entire civilsation "good"? Blarg.

Save it ziggeh, save it.

I love that decision in Mass Effect 2.  Best one in the game.  The player can make an easy choice there based on a few simple factors, but it really presents some difficult questions if you go deeper (cue Inception music) and I enjoyed coming up with my answer in my metagame-for-import save.  Yes, I metagame all my import saves.  That's how I do it.  Don't judge me.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 décembre 2010 - 05:02 .