251 réponses à ce sujet

[jesuno]

Chris Priestly wrote...

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.

Oh no, Bioware locked them up for today, hopefully they get to come out tomorrow:crying:

[Iakus]

I have to say I find this new system very encouraging. It adds a far more dynamic aspect to your relationships with your companions than simply saying what they want to hear.



I still have a few concerns but this is definitely a big checkmark in the plus column.



Iakus friendship +5

[Ziggeh]

MIke_18 wrote...

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.

Yeah, see, that's 3 sets of data as opposed to 1. The actual words aren't in any way more complex.

MIke_18 wrote...
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!

So, you're guessing. Not such a solid case. The devs have stated that the combat is much the same as DA:O, so either you know that and are simply stating platitudes, or you ignore contrary arguments.....which makes typing this a little farcical.

MIke_18 wrote...
Isn't it the same lenght as ME2?

Again, what are you basing that on? Because the only statement they've made so far about length wasn't related to ME2.

MIke_18 wrote...
the isometric camera being replaced by...something undefined for now.

And that's simpler how?

MIke_18 wrote...
the big areas replaced for linear roads.

Beg pardon?

This is wildly off topic, so I should probably just leave you with this: Simpler

[MIke_18]

You're just taking words out of context. The game is being streamlined for a wider audience and many features that we loved suffer for it. Nobody can really deny this.

[Ziggeh]

MIke_18 wrote...

You're just taking words out of context. The game is being streamlined for a wider audience and many features that we loved suffer for it. Nobody can really deny this.

I really do deny it, but given you're backing up your initial premise by restating your initial premise, it probably doesn't help.

[philbo1965uk]

Maria Caliban wrote...

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.

I requested that I get a mention Mary...thanks Mary

[twincast]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

I understand that it would about quadruple the work and is therefore rather daunting a task, but it's a shame nonetheless.

[Onyx Jaguar]

EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS DIFFERENT

DRAGON AGE 2



march 2011

[Ziggeh]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS DIFFERENT

Otherwise they'd be the same thing?

[Onyx Jaguar]

Hey it worked for the first few Scorcher films

[Mallissin]

It would be nice if this evolved into a more two dimensional aspect than one dimension.



For instance, let's say you have two variables instead of one; respect and volition.



So, someone can respect you for what you've done but still personally not like you (their volition towards you). Or can personally like you but not respect your decisions.



Then you'd have four extremes the writers can work on when building characters and the player's interactions, but also give out abilities based off the system that are not necessarily penalties.



Instead, they'd have granted abilities when they're position moves into one of the four extremes that corresponds to the character's class.



So, a tank that has no respect for the player but still likes him could have a reputation granted selfish ability to protect themselves (based off the Respect score) but also has a quicky single-person help ability (based off the Volition score).



But if that same tank has respect for the player but doesn't like the player, they are granted an ability that is cooperative to the group but also has a single-person ability that takes advantage of another teammate (sort of like some of the Blood Magic spells).



That way players can mold a companion's attitude not only in the story but also combat.

[PsychoBlonde]

MIke_18 wrote...

You're just taking words out of context. The game is being streamlined for a wider audience and many features that we loved suffer for it. Nobody can really deny this.

I deny it--they haven't removed or changed a single feature I loved, and in fact, they're adding many things that I love in concept.  Although, I do remain curious about implementation on many of these things.

[Mallissin]

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.

I don't think that would be the case at all, since not every conversation would need to require both variables. For instance, if you're having a personal conversation then it would only affect the personal variable but depending on what you say in a group setting would affect the other.

You could deliniate them such that the two are only used together for important dialog areas or granted abilities like I suggested.

So, I can see how trying to make a system too conviluted could be a hinderance, but I have faith that you guys would be able to impliment something elegant that would have more pros than cons.

[Knight Templar_]

I like this, maybe when I play it I'll hate it but it sounds like a very good system.

On my first play through I missed out on one or two companion given quests and a bit of dialog, seems like that won't happen with this system.



I seem to recall one of the Bioware team (or prehaps it was "Dave of Canada"?) saying something along the lines of "You can no longer bribe Wynn with shiny objects, bits of bone and half eaten cake".

Not that I minded gifts, or at least the kind that triggered dialog (if memory serves, they are returning), but it was strange how people reacted to them. Particularly Morrigan, since she would take some shiny but not others, and claims to have never been given a gift, despite all the crap I've given her.

[Dasher1010]

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.

This must make it into the game!

[Lucy Glitter]

jesuno wrote...

Oh no, Bioware locked them up for today, hopefully they get to come out tomorrow:crying:

*watches with arms folded as Mary is dragged back to her little cage under the office desk, kicking and screaming*

Such a shame.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Not that I'm really a "gamer" myself, but years of gaming have taught me not to hold my hopes up about any upcoming new feature. This new relationship system, however, sounds highly promising. I hope we'll get rid of situations such as:

Morrigan: Love is a weakness. Do you agree?
Warden: No!
Morrigan: A pity. No +6 Magic for you, then.
Warden: Really? *tosses an ox bone Morrigan's way* What about now?
Morrigan: Yay! Now I love you forever! (Skill acquired: Massive Magic)

On the other hand, I also hope it won't lead to "let's kill a couple more bystanders and make Disciple hate us more so he can spill his beans, however idiotic that may sound" instances. Well, it probably will, to an extent, as we'll still want to push our companions to the extreme on whichever path they're going down. I just hope we won't have to go out of our way all too often in order to accomplish that.

[Super_Fr33k]

First off, thanks to Gaider and Kirby for answering so many questions. This was a rare thread in which I actually learned something about the game. And you know what? It felt good.



Friendship/Rivalry sounds awfully intuitive, come to think of it, more dynamic than plain ol' love you/hate you systems of the past. It also makes it clearer than making a character despise you could actually be going somewhere. Hatred isn't really something you win; it's not a competition. Rivalry is. BG2 had some good examples of this -- you could change some party members' alignments, but you never knew if driving them to the breaking point would pay off. Somewhat realistic, I suppose, but it's nice to let the player know if they're wasting their time.



I think this system has exciting potential, but I remain curious about some things. (I hope Priestly's comment doesn't mean they've moved on from the thread, hinty hint hint...)



1. How will this system work with persuasion skills? Will you be able to use persuasion/intimidation to amplify your returns on a given friendship/rivalry check? Will those skills be able to convert one kind of points into another? (I.e., you rationalize questionable actions in a way that makes it seem like you're on their side?)



2. While DA:O encouraged seeking approval with all party members for metagame purposes, it is logical for some main characters to be intellectually inconsistent with party members to curry favor. Ingratiating yourself may seem wimpy, but leadership does require smoothing over peoples' quirks at time. Choosing to respect Leliana's vision while not explicitly believing it, or humoring Shale's egocentric idiosyncracies, often involves white lies that improve morale. For a leader in a desperate situation, working with few and improvised tools (ahem, I mean allies), this approach seems prudent. Frankly, can you still lie your ass off to keep everyone happy?



3. Relatedly, does this system rely primarily on little events specific to each party member to measure F/R, or on big events where every party member will weigh in? Can little events outweigh key story points? Will there be big events that test F/R for multiple party members, in which you can't keep everyone happy (or pissed off, whichever)?



4. In the instance of acquiring party members after Hawke has already built a reputation of some kind, will party members join up with certain levels of F/R? I'd imagine a paragon of order and righteousness would have to immediately seem a rival to Isabela or Varric.

[StingingVelvet]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Not to blow anyone's mind but I actually really love this idea.  In DA:O I always felt like I had to either please my companions or forget about them... this new dynamic could add a lot of roleplaying to my interactions with them because I won't be so scared to ****** off the companions I use.

As long as they can still get pissed and leave under the right circumstance I am going to classify this one under awesome.

[fsjalasdf]

[Content removed.]

Modifié par Pacifien, 02 décembre 2010 - 08:54 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Help me out, here.

Is it possible, now, to make your companion less effective through your interactions with her?

From what I'm reading here, it sounds like it's possible to make the character better in one way, or better in another way, but never actually make her worse. Am I reading that correctly?

I suppose what I'm asking is, are there any negative gameplay consequences to intra-party roleplaying choices?

Now that I think about it, I suppose moving the scale back toward the middle once it had already started out toward either Friendship or Rivalry will have negative consequences, as those bonuses you've gained would be lost (I hope). I may have just answered my own question here.

In general, I find that roleplaying honestly in BioWare games does tend to leave me in the middle of their various alignment/approval/karma meters (except DAO, where the gifts tipped the balance). I guess we'll see what happens in DA2.

I'm actually looking forward to this new system.  This is an area where I think DA2 is improving on DAO.  I only hope the paraphrase system doesn't get in the way too much.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 02 décembre 2010 - 07:49 .

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Help me out, here.

Is it possible, now, to make your companion less effective through your interactions with her?

From what I'm reading here, it sounds like it's possible to make the character better in one way, or better in another way, but never actually make her worse. Am I reading that correctly?

I suppose what I'm asking is, are there any negative gameplay consequences to intra-party roleplaying choices?

Now that I think about it, I suppose moving the scale back toward the middle once it had already started out toward either Friendship or Rivalry will have negative consequences, as those bonuses you've gained would be lost (I hope). I may have just answered my own question here.

In general, I find that roleplaying honestly in BioWare games does tend to leave me in the middle of their various alignment/approval/karma meters (except DAO, where the gifts tipped the balance). I guess we'll see what happens in DA2.

I'm actually looking forward to this new system.  This is an area where I think DA2 is improving on DAO.  I only hope the paraphrase system doesn't get in the way too much.

Yup I'd say to some extent you've answered your own question, though it could be said that yes, whilst they possibly would drop their bonus if you knocked them back down again, it'd really be classed as them just not 'improving' rather than making them 'worse'.

One question I spose I have for you in this instance, why would your Hawke be looking to make followers 'worse'? I can understand the whole making people miserable, putting them down sort of thing, but would your Hawke really be bothered with having someone you treat in such a fashion as a follower?

Don't get me wrong, am all for the opportunity to stab a follower in the back once they've fulfilled their use, but it'd just seem a waste to have a follower whom most likely isn't getting 'used' or we're dragging along so they can squirm as we do something they dislike in some vein hope it makes them worse. With regards to the former, if the follower if they 'leave' can no longer be interacted with (either because they just leave the area or their 'residence' can no longer be entered) sure I guess I can understand your want for it. But I think one thing you have to consider is the type of 'character' our followers will be. We might necessarily not get anyone who is weak willed and so us making digs at them and doing things that are against their beliefs will just make them more resilient in their beliiefs rivalling us.

I think this system could allow for some great roleplay paths and am always a stickler for seeing how people react depending on how you treat them in games. Even with the old system it was interesting to see that with how the party members reacted if approved/disapproved even if it was just a slight hint/change in their voice. Alastair being a good example. This system sounds like it will offer even more.

Like potentially a "keep your friends close, but your enemies (rivals) even closer" kind of idea. Am going on the assumption of course that followers 'rating' can change even if they aren't in a party when you do some actions but they hear of what you did. Thus your friends when you speak to them could approve of something you did whilst they weren't there whilst of course your rivals possibly had something to say during the encounter or when you spoke to them after.

[Lotion Soronarr]

I for one love the idea of rivalry...But what I didn't like in DA:O (and don't like in DA2) is the bonuses. Relatiionship and character growth are rewards enough. Stat bonuses are for whimps.

[Maria Caliban]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Stat bonuses are for whimps.

This is why Lotion never enchants his weapons or armor; never wears amulets, belts, and rings; bases armor selection purely on looks; and doesn't use combat buffs.

Actually, he just skips leveling up his characters entirely save to give them new skills and abilities.