119 réponses à ce sujet

[MerinTB]

David Gaider wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
The rivalry meter for DA2 goes the OPPOSITE way.  You start neutral (probably), become more antagonistic or competitive or whatever, and at the "height" of it suddenly you THEN want to be in a romance?  I cannot think of a single fictional nor real "romance" that works from neutral to negative but the further negative the more attracted two people in question are to each other.

If your rivalry meter hits a point, you have your rivalry romance, does the meter than shift towards friendship?

Or is it where normally a rivalry hitting a certain point needs an explosion of violence, for DA2 the "violence" will be hateful or competitive or masochistic sex?

I think you might be getting caught up on the word "rivalry". It could just as easily be expressed by "conflict".

Two people that have conflicting views may fight over it. This does not mean they hate each other. It may, however, mean they get into some very heated arguments. That kind of conflict also does not necessarily exclude the fact that you may be attracted to someone.

Rivalry does not mean a companion hates or disrespects you-- if that was the case, they wouldn't be traveling with you.

There is a point at the "end" of the Rivalry path which mimics the end of the Frienship path: the companion is loyal and whatever conflict lay between you has been resolved. That's how the path works.

I probably am hung up on the word rivalry.  Or friendship.  Or in believing that these meters are connected.

But even by what you've just explained... you can't have opposing views and still be "friends"?

I understand, and applaud, the desire to have party members disagree with decisions and yet still work with you... for them to not be friends and yet not desert your group.  But still, unless these two meters are separate from each other (are they?) then becoming friends is by agreeing, and becoming rivals is by disagreeing?

I think I must still be missing or misunderstanding something, because this still seems very odd.

Specifically on romance - having very heated arguments doesn't really lead to or aid romance.  You can have romance IN SPITE OF arguing all the time, but for relationships to be built on that is impossible.

Unless - rivalry romance is not a romance tied to how far on the rivalry meter you are with the L.I.

DA:O had your romance tied to how much the companion "liked" you.  Makes sense.

Does romance no longer tie into the meters?  You could be friendly, neutral, or rival with a potential L.I. and it doesn't prevent a romance?  And if so, then rivalry or friendship only colors the kind and success of the romance?

---

I guess that's what I don't understand.  I was thinking that to get the "friendship" romance you needed to be high enough on the "friend" meter, but to get the "rivalry" romance you had to be high enough on the "rivarly" meter.

Is that the case?

[drahelvete]

Brockololly wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
I think you might be getting caught up on the word "rivalry". It could just as easily be expressed by "conflict".

Two people that have conflicting views may fight over it. This does not mean they hate each other. It may, however, mean they get into some very heated arguments. That kind of conflict also does not necessarily exclude the fact that you may be attracted to someone.

Rivalry does not mean a companion hates or disrespects you-- if that was the case, they wouldn't be traveling with you.

There is a point at the "end" of the Rivalry path which mimics the end of the Frienship path: the companion is loyal and whatever conflict lay between you has been resolved. That's how the path works.

So as compared to Origins, DA2's system isn't so much overall personal  "Approval" in the sense of liking/disliking but more like liking/disliking in the context of one's actions and beliefs? So like the rivalry path might be if my Warden was a ultra left Democrat and Morrigan a right wing Republican, its sort of assumed they're "friendly" overall despite getting in regular arguments over politics? And that possibly towards the end of the rivalry pathway you could still develop a romance but also have the chance to change Morrigan's view on things as well?

Whereas a "friendship" path would be more like if say both Morrigan and the Warden shared the same philosophical views already and simply went from there, nodding in agreement as they let kittens stay forever stuck in trees?

No more metagaming to avoid offending overly altruistic companions for me!

[The Big Nothing]

David Gaider wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
The rivalry meter for DA2 goes the OPPOSITE way.  You start neutral (probably), become more antagonistic or competitive or whatever, and at the "height" of it suddenly you THEN want to be in a romance?  I cannot think of a single fictional nor real "romance" that works from neutral to negative but the further negative the more attracted two people in question are to each other.

If your rivalry meter hits a point, you have your rivalry romance, does the meter than shift towards friendship?

Or is it where normally a rivalry hitting a certain point needs an explosion of violence, for DA2 the "violence" will be hateful or competitive or masochistic sex?

I think you might be getting caught up on the word "rivalry". It could just as easily be expressed by "conflict".

Two people that have conflicting views may fight over it. This does not mean they hate each other. It may, however, mean they get into some very heated arguments. That kind of conflict also does not necessarily exclude the fact that you may be attracted to someone.

Rivalry does not mean a companion hates or disrespects you-- if that was the case, they wouldn't be traveling with you.

There is a point at the "end" of the Rivalry path which mimics the end of the Frienship path: the companion is loyal and whatever conflict lay between you has been resolved. That's how the path works.

In any case, it has more depth than the the, "Best Friend or Dead" system of old. I can't see the rivalry system being a disappointment.

[The Big Nothing]

David Gaider wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
The rivalry meter for DA2 goes the OPPOSITE way.  You start neutral (probably), become more antagonistic or competitive or whatever, and at the "height" of it suddenly you THEN want to be in a romance?  I cannot think of a single fictional nor real "romance" that works from neutral to negative but the further negative the more attracted two people in question are to each other.

If your rivalry meter hits a point, you have your rivalry romance, does the meter than shift towards friendship?

Or is it where normally a rivalry hitting a certain point needs an explosion of violence, for DA2 the "violence" will be hateful or competitive or masochistic sex?

I think you might be getting caught up on the word "rivalry". It could just as easily be expressed by "conflict".

Two people that have conflicting views may fight over it. This does not mean they hate each other. It may, however, mean they get into some very heated arguments. That kind of conflict also does not necessarily exclude the fact that you may be attracted to someone.

Rivalry does not mean a companion hates or disrespects you-- if that was the case, they wouldn't be traveling with you.

There is a point at the "end" of the Rivalry path which mimics the end of the Frienship path: the companion is loyal and whatever conflict lay between you has been resolved. That's how the path works.

Another thing, Captain Gaider--do the friendship and rivalry meters work simultaneously? Could I have +10 Friendship and +15 Rivalry? And if so, does it lead to two separate outcomes if I max out my rivalry and then my friendship?
Or is it a single meter with Friendship at the top and Rivalry at the bottom, where I have to commit to one side or the other?
Also, can you romance a rival? I know my most romantic relationships have involved scathing animosity.

[David Gaider]

Brockololly wrote...
So the rivalry path might be if my Warden was an ultra left Democrat and Morrigan a right wing Republican, its sort of assumed they're "friendly" overall despite getting in regular arguments over politics? ANd that any friendship/rivalry shift is mostly attributable to your actions and conversations with respect to political philosophy, not necessarily personal like/dislike? And  possibly towards the end of the rivalry pathway you could still develop a genuine romance but also have the chance to change Morrigan's view on things as well?

That is exactly the case. In fact, the rivalry path is the only way you can alter their philosophy-- as the rivalry path is, at its core, based on the fact that your philosophy is different. Successfully getting to the "end" of the rivalry path is, in essence, successfully convincing them that they're wrong.

Whereas a "friendship" path would be more like if say both Morrigan and the Warden shared the same philosophical views already and simply went from there, nodding in agreement as they let kittens stay forever stuck in trees?

Again correct. And very apt.

Modifié par David Gaider, 09 janvier 2011 - 06:02 .

[David Gaider]

The Big Nothing wrote...
Or is it a single meter with Friendship at the top and Rivalry at the bottom, where I have to commit to one side or the other?

This is the case. It's not Paragon/Renegade as in two seperate meters with their own values but Friendship and Rivalry as opposite ends of the same spectrum.

Also, can you romance a rival? I know my most romantic relationships have involved scathing animosity.

Yes, as has been discussed in this thread. Some of the best romances, in my opinion, spring from conflict.

[_Cheveyo]

The new rivalry systems sound more true to live. People are attracted to different this say power or just something the other can provide to the relationship. Great conversation because I saw Morrigan as the easy, in that she saw power that attracted her. The other relationship looking for the more like what I like ,or I have same belief. Waiting to see what DA2 will have in store.

[David Gaider]

filaminstrel wrote...
So what happens if you end up in the middle of the meter, will you miss the opportunity to build their loyalty or whatever? It sounds like you can disagree with them on everything and then build their respect, or agree with them on everything and build their respect, but can you agree with them half the time and still get respect? Or will you be doomed to be Rodney Dangerfield?

If you hover in the middle it's no different than doing the same in Origins-- with the difference that you'll still be able to complete their missions, if you choose. It'll just mean you haven't developed a significant friendship or rivalry with them. They still respect you and travel with you.

[The Big Nothing]

This rivalry thing is a bucketful of a possibilities, methinks. It may be the vanguard of a virtual relationship movement.

Modifié par The Big Nothing, 09 janvier 2011 - 06:09 .

[The Big Nothing]

One last thing, Captain Gaider: Is it still possible to have mutineers, a la Shale, Leliana, and Wynne, if the right options are chosen?

[David Gaider]

The Big Nothing wrote...
One last thing, Captain Gaider: Is it still possible to have mutineers, a la Shale, Leliana, and Wynne, if the right options are chosen?

Yes, depending on the character and the situation.

[Brockololly]

filaminstrel wrote...

So what happens if you end up in the middle of the meter, will you miss the opportunity to build their loyalty or whatever? It sounds like you can disagree with them on everything and then build their respect, or agree with them on everything and build their respect, but can you agree with them half the time and still get respect? Or will you be doomed to be Rodney Dangerfield?

Thats my concern, especially since you lack gifts now (outside of big ones). If your character maybe agrees with Morrigan for example, on ditching the kitten in the tree and sacrificing Isolde but not on killing the elven slaves or using the Anvil of the Void, does that leave you stuck in the middle?

 I understand the idea is to make it such that you don't need to metagame your way to positive approval with everyone for bonuses, but I still feel like it will force you to metagame for extreme rivalry or extreme friendship. And without smaller gifts to smooth over things, you're forced to game your PC's dialogue options to one extreme or the other in the interest of getting maxed out rivalry or friendship, not necessarily what your PC might want to say or do.

[David Gaider]

Brockololly wrote...
Thats my concern, especially since you lack gifts now (outside of big ones). If your character maybe agrees with Morrigan for example, on ditching the kitten in the tree and sacrificing Isolde but not on killing the elven slaves or using the Anvil of the Void, does that leave you stuck in the middle?

 I understand the idea is to make it such that you don't need to metagame your way to positive approval with everyone for bonuses, but I still feel like it will force you to metagame for extreme rivalry or extreme friendship. And without smaller gifts to smooth over things, you're forced to game your PC's dialogue options to one extreme or the other in the interest of getting maxed out rivalry or friendship, not necessarily what your PC might want to say or do.

We can't really stop someone from metagaming if they're trying to reverse-engineer a specific end result-- whether that's by giving a character gifts in Origins or picking responses that they think will have the desired effect. If you're consistent with your views, chances are you will organically end up on one side of the spectrum or the other... but there is indeed no way to be sure. This is supposed to be about roleplaying, remember, and not "press button for friendship".

[Dave of Canada]

If you don't remain consistent in personality towards a companion, they get scared and don't want to talk with you.

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...
I think you might be getting caught up on the word "rivalry". It could just as easily be expressed by "conflict".

Or you could go "belief congruent" and "belief incongruent" and probably encompass what is actually going on better.

I probably am hung up on the word rivalry.  Or friendship.  Or in believing that these meters are connected.

But even by what you've just explained... you can't have opposing views and still be "friends"?

I understand, and applaud, the desire to have party members disagree with decisions and yet still work with you... for them to not be friends and yet not desert your group.  But still, unless these two meters are separate from each other (are they?) then becoming friends is by agreeing, and becoming rivals is by disagreeing?

I think I must still be missing or misunderstanding something, because this still seems very odd.

In a literal sense, you can. But Bioware chooses to use some not particularly exact terminology for the system.

Specifically on romance - having very heated arguments doesn't really lead to or aid romance.  You can have romance IN SPITE OF arguing all the time, but for relationships to be built on that is impossible.

Do you follow some of the debates on this forum? Think of me and Sylvius. We turn any thread we comment in into a four page debate. We disagree on pretty much everything.

But I respect him tremendously. And I respect him precisely because of the stuff underlying the disagreement. 

There are different ways and reasons you can disagree with someone. Disliking them and arguing with them =! not the same thing.

Modifié par In Exile, 09 janvier 2011 - 06:23 .

[drahelvete]

So there's no middle-of-the road romances?

[In Exile]

You can't really get the nuance of a real relantionship in a video-game yet. In DA:O, you basically had to either suck up to a companion or unrealistically give them shiny baubles until they liked you enough. In DA2, you might be forced into a particular kind of view. It's different shades of unrealistic. What the advantage in DA2 is that you can call out people, I think. Certainly would have been nice to call out Alistair back at camp after the Connor issue, for instance.

[The Big Nothing]

Dave of Canada wrote...

If you don't remain consistent in personality towards a companion, they get scared and don't want to talk with you.

They prescribe the Dragon Age equivalent of anti-depressants--darkspawn blood enema.

[drahelvete]

As long as there are nuanced ways of agreeing/disagreeing with companions, getting stuck in the middle should never really be a problem.



1. Agree wholeheartedly +10 friendship

2. Agree reluctantly +1 friendship

3. Undecided

4. Disagree reluctantly +1 rivalry

5. Call other person a moron +10 rivalry

6. Stab self in eye -100 hp

[The Big Nothing]

drahelvete wrote...

As long as there are nuanced ways of agreeing/disagreeing with companions, getting stuck in the middle should never really be a problem.

1. Agree wholeheartedly +10 friendship
2. Agree reluctantly +1 friendship
3. Undecided
4. Disagree reluctantly +1 rivalry
5. Call other person a moron +10 rivalry
6. Stab self in eye -100 hp

Number six made me laugh.

[smallNightmare]

David Gaider wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
So the rivalry path might be if my Warden was an ultra left Democrat and Morrigan a right wing Republican, its sort of assumed they're "friendly" overall despite getting in regular arguments over politics? ANd that any friendship/rivalry shift is mostly attributable to your actions and conversations with respect to political philosophy, not necessarily personal like/dislike? And  possibly towards the end of the rivalry pathway you could still develop a genuine romance but also have the chance to change Morrigan's view on things as well?

That is exactly the case. In fact, the rivalry path is the only way you can alter their philosophy-- as the rivalry path is, at its core, based on the fact that your philosophy is different. Successfully getting to the "end" of the rivalry path is, in essence, successfully convincing them that they're wrong.

Whereas a "friendship" path would be more like if say both Morrigan and the Warden shared the same philosophical views already and simply went from there, nodding in agreement as they let kittens stay forever stuck in trees?

Again correct. And very apt.

OK, I was a bit worries about the whole Friendship/Ricalry deal, but now I'm looking forward to it. just to make one thing clear, does that mean that you are generally friends (as opposed to hating each other's guts) with each other regardless of the path you take? because I have "friends" like that with very confilicting views such than we start long arguments that many outsiders will mistake for fights every time we meet, but we are still friends since I care for them and help them in a way that I only care for and help a friend.

also about staying natural, does "not developing a significant Friendship/Ricalry" means you are like strangers (for example like a relationship you have with the owner of that store you always shop from, you work togather but not care for eachother one way or the other)?

[Ryzaki]

Also...can I still be an absolute douchebag to party members? Like not friendship or rivarly but they want to strangle me? That was the best part of Origins. Ah Alistair's rant was priceless.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 09 janvier 2011 - 07:29 .