251 réponses à ce sujet

[nightcobra]

Wulfram 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 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.

that would be true if all agreement/disagreement decisions all had the same numerial value/weight, however i think most of them have largely different degrees of importance to each character.

[Marionetten]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Well, I'm sold. If you aren't paid for marketing in addition to writing you really ought to be. This is solid stuff. Now to hold my thumbs for that Aveline romance...

Modifié par Marionetten, 01 décembre 2010 - 05:01 .

[Ziggeh]

Wulfram wrote...
it's even more silly if we're going to have to start avoiding agreeing with people in order to progress the relationship.

That would be you seeing them as a rival and disagreeing to mess with them.

[Piecake]

Wulfram 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 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.

Then you'll gain rivalry points with your other companions that you were on friendly terms with.  I'd imagine that if you tried to have a rivalry/friendship with everyone youll be stuck in the middle with quite a number of them.  Least I hope that's the case.

[catabuca]

I think the crux of the problem I am trying to express is that a system like this (or the one in ME) sees relationships, opinions and personalities expressed as black or white, not shades of grey. If you imagine it as a line, and interesting things only happen when you are at extreme ends of that line, I suppose I see it as a wasted opportunity to explore the wealth of possibilities the shading in the rest of that line contains.

I recognise that this, to a large extent, is simply down to the way games can be engineered: you need to create a relatively simple system that can be easily understood and easily implemented. Adding in consequences and effects for those shades of grey would be quite an undertaking.

Again, I think the DA2 system, as I understand it, is an improvement on DAO's. I suppose I just look forward to the day when games have the capability to be more nuanced in their representations of relationship realism.

[Gegenlicht]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

So just to clarify, it's not like ME where you can progress on both paths, but it's a bar with maxed Rivalry and Friendship at either end, and a shift towards one will take you away from the other? I'm asking because historically, I try to go with actions that fit in with my idea of the personality of the character I chose to play rather than trying to max a stat. In ME I could earn points towards both ends if I so wanted, but it seems that in DA2, generally pursuing one kind of relationship and then acting in a different way will actually 'hurt' my progress in the original direction.

Is that about right?

(If it isn't clear, I much prefer the 'progress towards both' version, even if it leaves you with two half-filled bars and little achieved in the end. For the stat-maxers it won't make a difference what it looks like. Maybe something to keep in mind for DA3.)

[tmp7704]

Gegenlicht wrote...

Is that about right?

Yes.

[upsettingshorts]

Given what the Friend/Rivalry paths represent, I don't think a "progress towards both" system would actually make any sense. It's a measure of relative friction over important issues. But not having actually seen the it in action - or indeed written it - I can't say that for certain, it's just my interpretation of what David Gaider is saying.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 décembre 2010 - 05:09 .

[Sigil_Beguiler123]

I don't think one would necessarily lose much by not going to the extreme. You figure you really have three paths at least for dialogue, etc. More neutral/base dialogue, friendship dialogue and rivalry dialogue. David said companion missions aren't tied to friendship/rivalry so you should still be able to have a interesting relationship with a companion but simply not one that is extreme.

[Serega 1]

КТО МЕНЯ ПОНИМАЕТ СКАЖИТЕ ДА

[tmp7704]

Aye, that thing about being able to do quests for companions no matter the state of relationship bar makes it sound like the neutral path should have decent amount of experience with the characters, just not the "i really, really like/hate you" moments.

[Wulfram]

Sigil_Beguiler123 wrote...

I don't think one would necessarily lose much by not going to the extreme. You figure you really have three paths at least for dialogue, etc. More neutral/base dialogue, friendship dialogue and rivalry dialogue. David said companion missions aren't tied to friendship/rivalry so you should still be able to have a interesting relationship with a companion but simply not one that is extreme.

Well, I'm getting the impression that the romances are tied to them for one thing.

[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.

[Piecake]

rivals-respected companion-best buds



neutral dialogue seems to have some negative connotation(having mostly to do with progress, which I dont think should be thought of in terms of companion relationships)



Personally, i dont want to be rivals or best buds with all my companions. You'd have your 1-2 rivals, your 1-2 best buds, and the rest your trusted companions. That just feels more 'organic' to me.

[Serega 1]

hello you igraesh in Dragon Age?

[upsettingshorts]

Piecake wrote...

Personally, i dont want to be rivals or best buds with all my companions. You'd have your 1-2 rivals, your 1-2 best buds, and the rest your trusted companions. That just feels more 'organic' to me.

I wouldn't be shocked at all if that is precisely how it turns out for me on any non-metagamed playthrough.  I don't think that's a bad thing, though.

That the game supports and recognizes best buds and rivals is a definite improvement over DA:O, though.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 décembre 2010 - 05:16 .

[Utoryo]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Thanks for all the info David, this sounds like a really cool system. I do have one concern however:

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?

Modifié par Utoryo, 01 décembre 2010 - 05:17 .

[Serega 1]

????????????????????????????????????????????

[Gegenlicht]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Given what the Friend/Rivalry paths represent, I don't think a "progress towards both" system would actually make any sense. It's a measure of relative friction over important issues. But not having actually seen the it in action - or indeed written it - I can't say that for certain, it's just my interpretation of what David Gaider is saying.

To me an even measure of friendship and rivalry would probably represent 'tough love'. You can't always agree or be supportive of people. Sometimes they need to be forced into being helped or seeing they're wrong, and sometimes they need to do the same to you. But I don't think that necessarily detracts from the actual friendship. It doesn't change it into another kind of friendship, it simply adds another layer to a complex relationship.

And more importantly, from a gaming standpoint, progress towards both would prevent people from being stuck on neutral ground. As I understand it, an even mix of friendly and rival actions/conversations would leave you at zero and you'd get no indication at all of having a meaningful friendship. Just because you didn't just always click the top right (or bottom right if you swing that way) answer on the wheel (I know it's no an exact copy of the ME wheel but you know what I mean).

I simply feel that I'd be 'punished' for not taking a single-minded approach to a relationship when I have options how I go about it and that leaves me around the zero point. The 'points towards both' system would allow you to alternate your approach or not. It wouldn't take away from people who solely want to pursue friendships or rivalries. But, assuming degrees of the relationship are staggered like they were in DA:O, it would give more to people who aren't satisfied with always kowtowing to the weird old lady when she's speaking out of turn, or who love Morrigan but really feel it warranted to slap her once or twice.

[Wulfram]

To me it seems like the ideal system would combine this system with the approval system of DA:O. So it could track friendship as well as whether you agree or disagree.

[Gegenlicht]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

That the game supports and recognizes best buds and rivals is a definite improvement over DA:O, though.

I think we can all agree on that.

I just wish the game recognized middle ground as a meaningful type of relationship as well. What I mean is, if there are no dialogue changes when you remain at neutral, then it's the same whether you simply never bothered to pursue a relationship with a companion, or whether you did but didn't progress too far in one of the two cardinal reactions. Call me a sap, but even minor stuff like Morrigan's 'what comes, my friend?' when I click on her is dear to me.

[Nighteye2]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

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.

[Milana_Saros]

Showering people with shinies, booze and odd ends to make them like you wasn't very realistic to begin with...

[upsettingshorts]

Gegenlicht wrote...

To me an even measure of friendship and rivalry would probably represent 'tough love'. You can't always agree or be supportive of people. Sometimes they need to be forced into being helped or seeing they're wrong, and sometimes they need to do the same to you. But I don't think that necessarily detracts from the actual friendship. It doesn't change it into another kind of friendship, it simply adds another layer to a complex relationship.

I'm not sure "disagreement" and "support" are necessarily in conflict.  Given David Gaider's example of the Warden finding Sten's sword (supportive) but not letting him kill the thief (disagreement) this would seem to cover you concerns would it not?

Gegenlicht wrote...

And more importantly, from a gaming standpoint, progress towards both would prevent people from being stuck on neutral ground. As I understand it, an even mix of friendly and rival actions/conversations would leave you at zero and you'd get no indication at all of having a meaningful friendship.

The way I understand it, the relationship is still meaningful, it just isn't extreme in one way or another.  Given that you can still do personal quests and as far as I understand still undertake romances, what is lost? 

That's what I mean when I say the system sounds reactive, not directive. 

Gegenlicht wrote...

I simply feel that I'd be 'punished' for not taking a single-minded approach to a relationship when I have options how I go about it and that leaves me around the zero point. The 'points towards both' system would allow you to alternate your approach or not. It wouldn't take away from people who solely want to pursue friendships or rivalries. But, assuming degrees of the relationship are staggered like they were in DA:O, it would give more to people who aren't satisfied with always kowtowing to the weird old lady when she's speaking out of turn, or who love Morrigan but really feel it warranted to slap her once or twice.

Without knowing specific examples, or how each opportunity to gain Friend or Rivalry points - we can't actually predict with any accuracy if this is genuinely going to be an issue.  Right now Mr. Gaider is saying that we'd basically have to be schizophrenic for this to happen.  The way I read that is we're not going to be gaining points one way or the other wily nily, or at least not as often and as easily as we would in DA:O.  If the points of contention are made more significant, we're less likely to flip flop on our interpretation of the situation as either we (as players) or our characters (in roleplaying) won't be having a minor disagreement that is the result of some nuanced interpretation.  As long as the big decisions result in big swings one way or the other, I don't see how it couldn't work that way.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 01 décembre 2010 - 05:35 .

[MerinTB]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

and

David Gaider wrote...
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.

I keep scrambling for stuff that I'd consider good news...
and then devs bring up stuff like this and I'm like "Yay, I like that change!"

And I do.  I would have been worried that party members stuck with you no matter what and/or that the "helper icons for dialog choices" meant simply "press this for this result" , but these clarifications make me support these changes 100%

Modifié par MerinTB, 01 décembre 2010 - 05:36 .