119 réponses à ce sujet

[Hoest]

Thank you for all the clarifications Mr. Gaider. I'm very much looking forward to trying this new system out.

[Schneidend]

MerinTB wrote...
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.

Why does fiction have to make sense when real life rarely does?

Building game mechanics to somewhat accurately depict things is half the fun of building game mechanics.

[EnforcerGREG]

So say we change their view points with the rivalry path once thats complete do they then become what would be considered hawkes friend.



once their viewpoint is changed they would have no poblem seeing your side of the argument

[Eclipse_9990]

MerinTB wrote...

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.

How does that not make sense? It happens all the time, and frankly I don't think domestic abuse is a fair comparison.. Because of my personality(apparently..) I've had some relationships, and almost relationships that had the whole "Rivalry romance" thing going on, but that doesnt mean I didn't treat them right..

I spent time with them, complimented them(begrudgingly..), respected them, and was there for them, and believe me I've never EVER wanted to hurt a girl I've been with. I think guys(and girls mind you) who do that to the person they are with are disgusting creatures that are at most borderline subhuman..

Its very possible for two people who have different views, and have a "rivalry" of sorts to love each other alot.. Its not that strange a concept.. 

I think the best example is the one that was already mentioned.. Han Solo and Princess Leia, frankly theres no better comparison I can think of.. 

Modifié par Eclipse_9990, 09 janvier 2011 - 07:56 .

[highcastle]

MerinTB wrote...

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.

Wow, there's a big difference between domestic abuse and a rivalry that leads to romance. Have you never dated anyone with ideas different from your own? How about political leanings? Maybe I just like to debate, but I find most of my relationships have been with people I find interesting to talk to, even when we don't agree. If someone just nods along with everything I say, it's not very interesting or involving.

I think the key to this is the concept of respect. You can still respect someone even if you disagree with them, no matter what Jersey Shore and the Real Housewives series would tell you. It sounds like the rivalry and its romance path are still built on respect, but there's also an element of discord there. It's not abusive and it's not negative. Say, character X believes in the death penalty and Hawke doesn't. So they spend their time talking about it, and eventually other things. And while they might not agree about the death penalty, they find other things they have in common. And perhaps eventually, someone changes the other one's mind.

[Eclipse_9990]

highcastle wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

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.

Wow, there's a big difference between domestic abuse and a rivalry that leads to romance. Have you never dated anyone with ideas different from your own? How about political leanings? Maybe I just like to debate, but I find most of my relationships have been with people I find interesting to talk to, even when we don't agree. If someone just nods along with everything I say, it's not very interesting or involving.

I think the key to this is the concept of respect. You can still respect someone even if you disagree with them, no matter what Jersey Shore and the Real Housewives series would tell you. It sounds like the rivalry and its romance path are still built on respect, but there's also an element of discord there. It's not abusive and it's not negative. Say, character X believes in the death penalty and Hawke doesn't. So they spend their time talking about it, and eventually other things. And while they might not agree about the death penalty, they find other things they have in common. And perhaps eventually, someone changes the other one's mind.

Real Housewives? Um is it strange that I have never heard of this show until now?

[Nighteye2]

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 disagree. I didn't say metagaming should be impossible, just that there should be no benefit to it. So when there is player choice, the choices should lead to equivalent rewards. That way players can roleplay without paying the price for it in terms of lesser rewards.

[Schneidend]

If the rewards aren't different, there may as well not be a choice, from a mechanical standpoint. If the rewards are different, there's a 99% chance the community will decide that one is better than the other.



It's up to the player to decide how much meta-gaming they want to do.

[Nighteye2]

Schneidend wrote...
If the rewards aren't different, there may as well not be a choice, from a mechanical standpoint. If the rewards are different, there's a 99% chance the community will decide that one is better than the other.

If done well, there would be much disagreement in the community about which is better - and so people decide for themselves based on their personal preferences, instead of following the consensus on what is best.

[MerinTB]

Wow, okay everyone jumped to physically beating and I just meant girls who are into bad boys with no responsibility, don't share, keep secrets, cheat on them, don't do any housework...

the inconsiderate and selfish ones.



but whatever - I understand that I clearly am not of the same mindset as people here. This thread is not helping me at all, so have at it with loving this strange concept.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Mr. and Mrs. Smith?

[Schneidend]

Nighteye2 wrote...

If done well, there would be much disagreement in the community about which is better - and so people decide for themselves based on their personal preferences, instead of following the consensus on what is best.

The community deciding what is optimal will occur no matter how good any given option is. It's just a fact of the sub-culture.

[_Aine_]

David Gaider wrote...

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

blah blah blah
edited to remove talky blah blah blah

All of this prattle to say:  Wow, cool!  I am looking forward to trying this. Which, in retrospect, would have taken less thinking.   

Modifié par shantisands, 10 janvier 2011 - 04:37 .

[Nighteye2]

Schneidend wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...
If done well, there would be much disagreement in the community about which is better - and so people decide for themselves based on their personal preferences, instead of following the consensus on what is best.

The community deciding what is optimal will occur no matter how good any given option is. It's just a fact of the sub-culture.

Yes, but there is a large difference between the community being divided 51%-49% on which is better, or the community being divided 99%-1%.

[Shepard Lives]

I think some people don't quite realize that rivalry doesn't mean that the companion hates you.

It means that while you strongly disagree on some very important point of his/her philosophy, they still respect you. If they didn't like you at all, they'd have no reason to stick with you. In DAII there's no greater goal forcing people who dislike each other to work together (none that we know of anyway), unlike in DAO.

[PrinceOfFallout13]

shantisands wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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

So very true.  

Someone mentioned Boromir.   For varying reasons, he was my favorite character.  So was Hans Solo but I digress...

Characters that are easy... who always tow the line ( even their own) in the end are so cookie cutter as to become caricatures of themselves.  I have rarely seen a human who can fully say that they are good or evil, we all share the common ground that we all breathe and we all are escaping something that is inside us or wanting to achieve something we don't have, be that memories, station in life, family, appearance.  The aspiration to be more or be burdened by less..... drives us.  Even those who have given up are driven by the failure to that same cause.  

Sometimes, conflict is the easiest emotion to show an emotional involvement between characters. Love without great explanation looks hollow and preconceived on paper.  (unless written as a passionate tryst, which always has a place somewhere lol ) Unhealthy relationships based on conflict do not always mean abuse. Conflict is passion ( not simply romantic, I mean strength of feeling) with differing points of view.  It is an easy jump to sexuality if the characters swing that way.  

Eg.   My personal best "romance" was a super-charged offlimits relationship with my boss.  We fought bitterly.  One night we fought more than ever at a party.  "Verbal foreplay" was the accusation from those around us on either of our sides.  Not unlike an assassin who uses the tools at his disposal to create an advantage: words are both gifts and weapons.  Even tools.  It ended well.   Or poorly, depending on your point of view.  Was it romantic???  EXTREMELY, well if you don't think of romance as simply flowers and giggles.  Was it healthy? Hell NO. lol  Still, it is one of those memories that never leave because there was some FEELING behind it.    Think of emotion as an *amplifier* instead of the emotion itself.  Much of the time, it can be like that.   *normal* relationships are secure and safe (if such a thing as a normal relationship exists, they too have their problems) - people tend to get all /swoon and /squee over stuff that is outside our norms because they elicit a stronger than normal reaction.  

We all crave our emotional drug of choice I suppose.  Depending on the person, it is the drug that differs rather than the high.  

All of this prattle to say:  Wow, cool!  I am looking forward to trying this. Which, in retrospect, would have taken less thinking.   

i hate sharing my personal life on forums but i went trough this 6 times with 6 different serious relationships all i gotta say it aint healthy it helps you grow as a person but at the end the relationship wasnt worth it since the only person with any emotion behind this was me

[_Aine_]

shepard_lives wrote...

I think some people don't quite realize that rivalry doesn't mean that the companion hates you.
It means that while you strongly disagree on some very important point of his/her philosophy, they still respect you. If they didn't like you at all, they'd have no reason to stick with you. In DAII there's no greater goal forcing people who dislike each other to work together (none that we know of anyway), unlike in DAO.

I'm hoping this means they can also turn on you.  
My husband got so offended when Zevran turned on him. lol 
It is that emotional response to a game, that while perhaps not unique to Bioware, IS part of the fun of Bioware. The characters have personalities, and they know how to use them!  

[Shepard Lives]

shantisands wrote...

shepard_lives wrote...

I think some people don't quite realize that rivalry doesn't mean that the companion hates you.
It means that while you strongly disagree on some very important point of his/her philosophy, they still respect you. If they didn't like you at all, they'd have no reason to stick with you. In DAII there's no greater goal forcing people who dislike each other to work together (none that we know of anyway), unlike in DAO.

I'm hoping this means they can also turn on you.  
My husband got so offended when Zevran turned on him. lol 
It is that emotional response to a game, that while perhaps not unique to Bioware, IS part of the fun of Bioware. The characters have personalities, and they know how to use them!  

Gaider already confirmed that yes, we can still have mutinies a la Shale/Leliana/Zevran.

[-Rue-]

I love the sound of this friendship/rivalry thing, because it opens up more options. Besides, I never liked having to say to Morrigan 'yes I totally believe that love is irrelevant and selfishnes is all that matters' or have her hate me forever. At least until I found a shiny necklace. Or have Wynne tell me off for picking up assassination quests. I like this approach.

Rivalry romance sounds interesting too. It reminds me a little of the paragon/renegade approach to romance with Jack in ME2. The paragon route would have Jack open up about her feelings and then have Shepard comfort her. Meanwhile the renegade route is aggressive sex. I like the idea of different approaches to it, because my truly ruthless female character never romanced anyone. It just seemed soppy and out of character for her.

[draken-heart]

 this whole system seems interesting. though the romance part i barely understand.

i think a rival romance is more based around sexual tension: they like each other that way, but publicly cant stand each other.

friendship romance more of a mutual attraction to each other.

that is how i see it unless it was changed so romance is rival only

and about dialog do we still have origins styled where we can just talk to them and influence the Friendship/Rivalry meter?

Modifié par draken-heart, 11 janvier 2011 - 02:59 .