251 réponses à ce sujet

[Fadook]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

I really like this. It actually makes a lot of RP sense. Can't help but think how cool it would be if a rival could be so determined to outdo you in a fight that he puts the rest of the party at risk by charging in or something, but that has some obvious gameplay drawbacks.

[Vaegrin]

David, thank you for patiently walking us through this explanation. For the record, I think the new system sounds like a great idea, and a significant improvement over the old one.



Could you give us an idea of how forgiving the system will be?



In Dragon Age, I found myself obsessively saving before every conversation with a companion, and often loading my game to try different dialogue paths to make sure I got the most approval possible. Very few conversations did I complete only once, or even twice. I'll freely admit that my behavior was silly, and may be indicative of a personality disorder. But in my defense, it was behavior the game system rewarded. With certain companions in particular, it would have been very easy to never reach maximum approval without prior knowledge of what dialogue choices achieved what results.



It sounds like the new system by its very nature will alleviate a large portion of that problem. I love the way it sounds like you're building the relationships to be structured around logical friendship/rivalry paths so that there's more clarity to what the relationship is all about and less guessing as to which dialogue option is actually going to make this character happy rather than ****** her off.



But as you've already more or less acknowledged, I'm sure there are going to be times when the "right" dialogue option (the one that gives me the most points possible for the relationship path I want to follow) isn't perfectly clear. I'm going to make some mistakes along the way, major or minor.



To what extent are those mistakes going to hinder my ability to develop the kind of relationship I'm trying to develop with a character? In practical terms, to what extent will the game reward me for obsessively repeating each dialogue to find the most effective path, and to what extent will I be punished for simply doing my best and letting the chips fall where they may? In your estimation, how likely will it be that a player could unintentionally end up in the "neutral zone"?

[Nighteye2]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

It doesn't have to be that way, though - depending on how you implement it. You don't need to divide the scale into specific zones, with different dialogue options for each zone on the scale. You can also decided per dialogue option what the required scores ranges on each scale must be for it to appear.

Those ranges may need to be a bit broader than with a single scale, but you could still cover bother scales completely even without doubling the dialogue points. This way also allows you to just design good and logical dialogue, and worry about fitting it in the approvement system later.

[Bryy_Miller]

mokponobi wrote...

This system sounds excellent. The clarity of explanations from David and Mary must be applauded.

Not enough Batman in their explanation. 

[Wyndham711]

Some great new info here. I really appreciate it. But I was left wondering, can Hawke hate a potential party member, or completely disrespect them? Or do you have to accept every potential party member, and then just ignore them if your character can't muster any respect for them? (since both rivalry and friendship require an amount of respect)

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

Apologies if this has been brought up earlier in the topic, not managed to read all the pages, but if I recall correctly there was talk of how 'romances' can still occur with 'rivals' is this correct?



To me for some characters it might make sense, some would say it cliche/done to death in movies, but then it could be easily argued about friendly romances being even more done to death (not saying anything wrong with the latter).



Also the whole 'friend/rival' thing I guess could allow for more 'replayability' in seeing what it is like to make each follower either 'friend' or 'rival'?



I really do like the idea of this new system, sounds far more 'rewarding' character/story wise than the old one did.

[Master Shiori]

Are romances still dependent on the amount of aproval, or are the separate from it?



Will we need to reach a certain level of rivalry/friendship in order to advance the romance or is the progress in that are independent from aproval?

[Maria Caliban]

Mary Kirby wrote...

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.

... that was so cool.

[Itkovian]

Excellent thread, thank you Devs for the clarifications.

That said, I can't help but be disappointed with the preview. Very cursory and biased as well. That bit about the Chantry is a good example (he justly criticizes the Chantry for its treatment of mages, but makes no mention of why this is done or the consequences of abobinations and the likes).

Then again, I've lost faith in gaming journalism long ago. Why else would that article spawn so much criticism: another case of a gaming journalist giving incomplete or poorly worded info.

But anyway, thank you for the dev posts, very enlightening. Too bad it was necessary.

Itkovian

[PsychoBlonde]

Vaegrin wrote...

To what extent are those mistakes going to hinder my ability to develop the kind of relationship I'm trying to develop with a character? In practical terms, to what extent will the game reward me for obsessively repeating each dialogue to find the most effective path, and to what extent will I be punished for simply doing my best and letting the chips fall where they may? In your estimation, how likely will it be that a player could unintentionally end up in the "neutral zone"?

Yeah, this could be problematic if you have a character that you really like, and you agree with on 90% of their stuff, but on just that one thing you disagree.  Are you going to have to consistantly be a dick to them and force them down the rivalry path just so you can have a shot at changing their mind on that one thing?  Or is it going to be central enough to their personality that you won't have to mess around like this?

For instance, suppose you really like Isabela's free spirit and attitude, but you disagree with her that slavery is acceptable?  Are you going to have to go around and say things like "you should be responsible and not a free spirit!" in order to get to the "you should oppose slavery!" option?

One of the things I disliked in Origins was that you couldn't disagree with some people on some things without ALSO championing something else.  For instance, you couldn't disagree with Sten on the Qunari perspective in some cases without actually championing the Chantry.  There was no option to say, yeah, I disagree with you, but that doesn't mean I agree with the Chantry, either.  Just because I'm not an orange, that doesn't mean I'm a banana.  

[Vaegrin]

Master Shiori wrote...

Are romances still dependent on the amount of aproval, or are the separate from it?

Will we need to reach a certain level of rivalry/friendship in order to advance the romance or is the progress in that are independent from aproval?

Good question! I would love an answer to this one.

[freddfx]

I'm actually glad they changed the approval system... basically if you wanted high approval and subsequently the benefits that came with it, such as the personal side quests and stats boost... then you had to follow a specific dialogue tree... the SAME tree every playthrough.



i prefer to save connor by going into the fade so Sten disapproves of me? (i believe its -10 at that) perhaps me might like meet every problem head on but why can't he simply respect my decision?



So i would prefer a system to where i'm free to make decisions and people will respect you for your stance, but dont have to necessarily like you... and yet you still inspire loyalty, basically rewarding consistency of character.

[PsychoBlonde]

freddfx wrote...

i prefer to save connor by going into the fade so Sten disapproves of me? (i believe its -10 at that) perhaps me might like meet every problem head on but why can't he simply respect my decision?

Well, it also made it a little weird that he's disapproving of me using magic to do THIS--but I'm a mage and he doesn't generally disapprove of me blowing up every damn darkspawn we've encountered thus far?  WTF.  Of course, his comment was a little hard to interpret since it was ONE WORD plus a GRUNT.  Maybe he disapproved because Connor has shown himself to be vulnerable to possession but you're still trying to save the kid.  YOU DON'T KNOW.

So I just left Sten back at camp for that one.  If he's going to be inscrutable and hand out approval penalties, he gets to sit in the corner.

[Noiko]

Khayness wrote...

Warrior from Orlais, and a dwarven king, should I read any further?

I honestly stopped at the Dwarven King.

[Atakuma]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

mokponobi wrote...

This system sounds excellent. The clarity of explanations from David and Mary must be applauded.

Not enough Batman in their explanation. 

But is there ever truly enough Batman in anything?

Modifié par Atakuma, 01 décembre 2010 - 11:09 .

[MIke_18]

More features are being removed ?



Wonder what's left...

[upsettingshorts]

MIke_18 wrote...

More features are being removed ?

No.

[MIke_18]

Yes. They're being removed and replaced with a simpler version.

Like the dialogue being replaced by a wheel.

and

The tactics being replaced by AWESOMENESS


And 50 hours replaced with 20 hours

Modifié par MIke_18, 01 décembre 2010 - 11:24 .

[Ziggeh]

MIke_18 wrote...

Yes. They're being removed and replaced with a simpler version.

Like the dialogue being replaced by a wheel.

How is it simpler?

MIke_18 wrote...
The tactics being replaced by AWESOMENESS

'cept they're not.

MIke_18 wrote...
And 50 hours replaced with 20 hours

And you base this on?

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 01 décembre 2010 - 11:26 .

[Chris Priestly]

There will be more discussion on the party approval system before launch. Keep asking your questions, but David and Mary have already answered plenty. More info will be coming, but you will have to be patient.

[Atakuma]

MIke_18 wrote...

Yes. They're being removed and replaced with a simpler version.

Like the dialogue being replaced by a wheel.

and

The tactics being replaced by AWESOMENESS


And 50 hours replaced with 20 hours

You have a very strange definition of simple.
Edit: Also I would be all for replacing tactics with AWESOMENESS

Modifié par Atakuma, 01 décembre 2010 - 11:28 .

[fchopin]

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 far this one of the few changes that i like in DA2, the gift system in DAO was not very good as you could say anything you liked and then give them a gift and it's as if nothing bad happened.
 
One problem i have with the new system is the meter.
 
Is there no way we can tell if the approval is for friendship, romance or agro by just looking at the meter? Could the colour of the meter change depending on the relationship of the NPC's so we can tell which direction the approval or disapproval is progressing? for example the meter could change to colour blue when a romance was blossoming.


Edit: Or would this idea spoil the romance surprise on which NPC's could be romanced?

Modifié par fchopin, 01 décembre 2010 - 11:41 .

[MIke_18]

The wheel is more simple. You only see the paraphrase. And as I've been told there will be little symbols like  <3 or  telling you what the response will be. It's for people who don't the meaning of words, the only explanation.

About the tactics, well every video I've seen and every interview I've read is that they are replacing the booring old dated CRPG system that nobody likes for awesomeness and fury!

Isn't it the same lenght as ME2?

More!

the isometric camera being replaced by...something undefined for now.

the big areas replaced for linear roads.

Modifié par MIke_18, 01 décembre 2010 - 11:33 .

[upsettingshorts]

MIke_18 wrote...

The wheel is more simple. You only see the paraphrase. And as I've been told there will be little icons like telling you what the response will be. It's for people who don't the meaning of words, the only explanation.

About the tactics, well every video I've seen and every interview I've read is that they are replacing the booring old dated CRPG system that nobody likes for awesomeness and fury!

Isn't it the same lenght as ME2?

More!

the isometric camera being replaced by...something undefined for now.

the big areas replaced for linear roads.

No.

[MIke_18]

Well ok then, that was my conclusion from everything I've read on this game.



Maybe you see things in a different light..