119 réponses à ce sujet

[Bigdoser]

Yay I don't have to kiss my companions ass anymore. :happy:

Modifié par Bigdoser, 09 janvier 2011 - 09:22 .

[Irkalla]

The more I read about the friendship/rivalry paths, the more I like it. It''s so good that you can finally let loose and play a character you want without taking your companions "feelings" into account. Rivalry romance actually makes much more sense than the friendship one, especially if you are romancing a woman. Try romancing a girl-friend in rl..once you are in the friend zone, it's really hard to get it on. lawl

[Pwnsaur]

I have read various things saying a companions' opinion of you depends solely on your actions and has *nothing* to do with the way you speak to them. Am I understanding/reading this correctly? If so, I can continually insult, deride and dismiss a companion and their opinion of me doesn't change? This seems a little bit odd, if not entirely moronic. I hope I am reading this incorrectly, but could someone enlighten me?

[Sordahon1]

 *stops smoking pipe*

That is a very good question. 

Sorry, I don't have an answer. But hopefully they release some stone cold info on how relationships work. Conversation has to have a role in this. Just regularly go back to camp (or wherever you go) and socialize. It takes dedication with the character. and they said you can have romantic interests outside of the main party. So some random guy/girl is accessible . And that is a clear sign of the importance of conversation since random people don't get to see your actions. Just hear of them. And all because I saved a church from burning down mean I get ****ed? I think personality has a role to play in this. Anyway, it will be way more in depth with character development and the importance of doing good to please the good guys and doing bad to please the bad guys. And conversation just eases it along. Like doing the loyalty missions in Mass Effect.

But if anything there will be a system similar to Mass Effect with Paragon and Renegade points. which make people more friendly. And conversations will be more important. Not just giving gifts until they are in love with you.

Sorry if I pissed you off somehow. I am new to the forum and I haven't read that much about the relationship Mechanics. 

[Pwnsaur]

Sordahon1 wrote...
Sorry if I pissed you off somehow. I am new to the forum and I haven't read that much about the relationship Mechanics. 

You did no such thing, and your musings were spot on. I am overtly opposed to the elitist ideal of treating the opinions of people who are 'unproven' members of their community as being invariantly inferior. You don't have to worry about that brand of prejudice from me.

But, to your point... I also hope (and expect) conversations to have impact on the opinions my companions have of me. I am probably just misunderstanding, but I hope someone can ease my concern non-the-less.


'd

Modifié par Pwnsaur, 09 janvier 2011 - 12:22 .

[drahelvete]

Pwnsaur wrote...

I have read various things saying a companions' opinion of you depends solely on your actions and has *nothing* to do with the way you speak to them. Am I understanding/reading this correctly? If so, I can continually insult, deride and dismiss a companion and their opinion of me doesn't change? This seems a little bit odd, if not entirely moronic. I hope I am reading this incorrectly, but could someone enlighten me?

Don't worry.
http://social.biowar...44&lf=8#4536871

[Bigdoser]

drahelvete wrote...

Pwnsaur wrote...

I have read various things saying a companions' opinion of you depends solely on your actions and has *nothing* to do with the way you speak to them. Am I understanding/reading this correctly? If so, I can continually insult, deride and dismiss a companion and their opinion of me doesn't change? This seems a little bit odd, if not entirely moronic. I hope I am reading this incorrectly, but could someone enlighten me?

Don't worry.
http://social.biowar...44&lf=8#4536871

The more I read about this system the more I like it this is a huge improvement imo.

[Kail Ashton]

So the friendship/rivalry system is the best system ever or the bestest system ever?

[Pwnsaur]

Awesome!! Thanks

[Dragon Effect 2]

This new system sounds amazing Mr Gaider. I cant wait to try it out.

[Wynne]

MerinTB wrote...
rivalry stuff snipped.

Think of it this way. In psychology, there are core qualities, pitfalls, challenges and allergies.

A core quality, a thing that is very characteristic of someone, might be empathy. The pitfall of empathy is going too far--becoming overly bleeding-heart sensitive to the point that you give your last dime to anyone who makes puppy eyes at you. The challenge of empathy is objectivity, level-headedness, or logic--this would be the thing that you need in order to keep your core quality from becoming a pitfall (a drawback for you rather than a benefit). The allergy of empathy is coldness or distance; the thing you don't understand or which would require an excess of control for you to achieve, which you can't stand and is likely to make you rant.

Let's say our empathic person comes up against a level-headed person. They are likely enough to fall in love if other conditions are right, because opposites attract. You tend to admire what you know you need; the challenges of your core qualities. They will likely have a very harmonious relationship, assuming Empathy is checked by enough objectivity and Logic is checked by enough caring.

On the other hand, let's say both people have no sense of balance and are in their respective pitfalls pretty deep--Empathy becomes a sensitive bleeding heart, and Logic becomes cold and distant and is never moved. Contrarily, the opposites attract thing becomes a major conflict because both sides are going way too far and neither knows it. Going too far with their core quality makes their allergy all the stronger, and each possesses an excess of the quality the other is allergic to.

But at the end of a series of frequent interactions and terrible clashes, eventually they will learn from each other, toning down their core quality to a manageable level and ease into working on their challenge qualities, developing a mutual admiration. Empathy will realize from interacting with Logic, "Hey, I'm way too permissive and it's not healthy. I should learn to ease back and think once in a while." Logic will realize from interacting with Empathy, "Hey, I'm way too harsh and it's not healthy either. I should learn to see things as they are, not assume the worst of everyone I meet." 

Once mutual respect is established, we're back to opposites attract. Make sense?

Modifié par Wynne, 09 janvier 2011 - 04:58 .

[Nighteye2]

David Gaider wrote...
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".

But wouldn't a good game be designed in such a way that there is no benefit to metagaming? That players don't feel like they miss out if they don't meta-game to, in this case, max out friendship/rivalry meter either way?

[b09boy]

I'm still questioning this system.  It's not high up in my list of worries, but there are just so many things I could see ending up as nonsensical or even wrong.

For instance, rewarding the player for having a negative relationship - especially if the reward ends up being deemed as greater, choosing options based only on tone and the rewards you know will go with that tone and not so much on your actual opinion of what's being said, the idea that you will learn the same information and get to know a character just as well in an antagonistic relationship as you would in a friendly one, and the idea that two characters who do not like each other would willingly continue speaking to one another.

The whole idea has, and continues to, sound like a lackluster idea or maybe an idea which would have served a very exact, circumstantial relationship well (for instance, one of my favorite stories is focused on two characters who were enemies for so long, focused so much time and attention on defeating one another, that they know each other top to bottom and eventually discover they have somehow grown into close friends more than fierce enemies), but doesn't really work outside of pretty strict circumstances.

But maybe I'm still just not getting it.  It'd be great if they actually showed off an example of this system, of both a positive relationship and a negative relationship with the same character.  It would go a long way to show just how we'll be able to navigate the story and interactive part of the game.

Modifié par b09boy, 09 janvier 2011 - 05:58 .

[Maria Caliban]

Nighteye2 wrote...

But wouldn't a good game be designed in such a way that there is no benefit to metagaming?

To metagame is to use player information. A player will always know more than their respective character unless the rules are unclear. Metagaming will always be to some benefit and typically to a large benefit.

I can't think of one cRPG where this is not the case.

[Schneidend]

Sounds kind of like the Slash/Chivalry system from one of the newer (but still super old) Samurai Showdown games. There's both a paladinesque and jerkass version of each character, each with different moves. Except, you know, probably different dialogue options and items/talents/spells in DA2's case.



Don't know if I'd trust Slash Varric, though. He'd sleep with your wife. And daughter. Simultaneously.

[Ortaya Alevli]

All this rivalry talk conjures an image of Sylvius and In Exile in my mind. Dunno why.

[David Gaider]

Nighteye2 wrote...
But wouldn't a good game be designed in such a way that there is no benefit to metagaming? That players don't feel like they miss out if they don't meta-game to, in this case, max out friendship/rivalry meter either way?

The only way to do that would be to take the player decisions out of it, and make your relationship grow in a pre-defined way. As soon as player decision enters the picture, so does the possibility of metagaming. That's always going to be the case in any game, and the choice is really the player's as to whether they want to roleplay or seek a specific end result.

[crimzontearz]

metagaming is fun....



hence why I'd LOVE for david to let me know if there is a way to make Isabela "exclusively hawke's woman"....and how to do it....and whether or not it involves furry handcuffs

[Zevais]

David Gaider wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...
But wouldn't a good game be designed in such a way that there is no benefit to metagaming? That players don't feel like they miss out if they don't meta-game to, in this case, max out friendship/rivalry meter either way?

The only way to do that would be to take the player decisions out of it, and make your relationship grow in a pre-defined way. As soon as player decision enters the picture, so does the possibility of metagaming. That's always going to be the case in any game, and the choice is really the player's as to whether they want to roleplay or seek a specific end result.

I know I will just try to seek out the specific end result of getting every single sidequest complete if I can, in my first playthroughs. I will definitely role play it out a bit different in later playthroughs when I am comfortable with the game and willing to forgo some experience points.

I like having the choice. I am suprised you can take all the whining about it David.

[MerinTB]

I guess I'm giving up until I see it in execution.



"Rivalry romance" remains an oxymoron to me.

[Schneidend]

Aveline: You're a loathsome scoundrel, Hawke. And your swordsmanship leaves something to be desired.



DudeHawke: I use an axe...****!



Aveline: Cur!



DHawke: Cow!



*making out ensues*

-----------



FemHawke: Varric, you are a disgusting, opportunistic lout.



Varric: Ha! Sweeter compliments have never been paid, lass. Now, drop those breeches.



*making out ensues*

[The Bard From Hell]

The Big Nothing wrote...


Thank God. Or Gaider, rather.

I was getting a bit pissed at having to be friendly to all my companions to get perks. Nobody liked Boromir, but he was still able to defend two hobbits with three arrows in his chest.

Hey, I liked Boromir! He was cool, flawed and human, and that is probably my favorite kind of character.

[ViSeiRa]

I love the idea of rivalry romances, it's pretty plausible even in real life, though I would not call them romances, more like physical attraction that can turn into something more whether you like the person you're disagreeing with or not.

[Schneidend]

Boromir is indeed awesome.

[MerinTB]

Schneidend wrote...
Boromir is indeed awesome.

This I understand and agree with.  Boromir was one of my favorite characters - not hurt by Sean Bean playing him, but still.

Boromir and Aragon were interesting, as they were human and flawed but trying to do the right thing even when they screwed up.

Legolas, on the other hand - there's a character that's hard for me to like because too perfect = too boring.

---

I guess, as an aside, I never connected with stories with a guy and a girl hate each other, fight all the time, and then end up in bed.  It makes no sense.  Just like girls loving guys who hurt them consistantly - I know that happens, I've witnessed it far too many times, but it doesn't make sense and I wouldn't build game mechanics around that, either.