84 réponses à ce sujet

[Vicious]

It's not perfect, but it's way better than Origins.

Why? Because Unlike Origins, you can stick to your guns as a character and relationships will progress.

The idea is that you don't HAVE to min/max all the time. The problem is, DA2 still fails [slightly] in trying to make the system better - because you HAVE to be at friendship or rivalry for things to progress. You can't be in between [agree on some stuff, disagree on others] or you'll get stopped cold.

Still, the system is better. The idea that you can do everything Morrigan hates, then smooth things over by giving her teh shinies is a joke and an insult to the character. But that's an issue with DA:O's gifts, which were really stupid.

Modifié par Vicious, 22 mars 2011 - 09:53 .

[Foolsfolly]

Wulfram wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

That's how gifts work with any character. That's why the gifts aren't like Alistair's Amulet where it can only be good to give him this. They're reminders of Isabella's home or a reminder that she's very likely barren.

It can be taken either way and the deciding factor is their relationship with you.

Though I think one of Anders' gifts is bugged.

Tell me about it. There's not a single subject about the game that doesn't have at least one annoying bug in it.

[Wulfram]

What I don't get is why they had to make it a zero sum game. If gaining friendship didn't subtract from rivalry, it would be a lot better.

[Foolsfolly]

Why? Because Unlike Origins, you can stick to your guns as a character and relationships will progress.

Solid truth.

Hawke can be whatever Hawke I want Hawke to be and these people will still be around...they'll still react to how my Hawke acts but they'll still be there.

I don't have to do the Evil Warden Morality Dance where I defile Ashes but only before getting Wynne and then lying to Lil and then supporting and nurturing every companion I have to get them all to like me.

I can say, "I'm Hawke. This is what I'm doing," and they can agree or disagree but they're always there and there's no bonus for just one way of them liking you.

It's superior to DA:O's system. If there must be an approval meter this is the system I want.

[ColaQueen]

I like the new system, it's not perfect but it does allow Hawke to be more herself and is truer to how relationships work in the sense you can't always buy people's affections when they truly disagree with you and you can still have an attraction to someone you hate.

[payroo]

Wulfram wrote...

What I don't get is why they had to make it a zero sum game. If gaining friendship didn't subtract from rivalry, it would be a lot better.

Agreed. I think it would be neat if they could make a dual meter system, similar to the paragon/renegade meters in Mass Effect.
But then that would beg for even more complex interactions! Maxed both would be a friendly rival? The possibilites are endless.

[Dean_the_Young]

Overall, the Friendship/Rivalry system is about as good as it could ever be: it doesn't punish NOT agreeing with the person in question, which is what the previous system pretty much did. While the system requires you to max out in either direction to get the full benefit, that's a gratifying change from a one-direction only.

Fortunately, it isn't even as if one side is friendship, and the other side is being detested: the Rivalry path is simply another avenue, and type, of friendship in general.

From a 'perfectionist' stance, not keeping every single party member at the very end might be aggravating, that presumes keeping everyone until the end is the natural course of things when it really shouldn't be. There really shouldn't be a reason to believe you could get everyone for every choice: convincing Fenris to join the Mages, after all, should be an exceptional accomplishment. Not an easy choice selection.

In a sense, it's one reason why I appreciate the Sebastion DLC, which forces an either-or choice in regards to Anders or Sebastion, and also why I appreciate how you can't make Anders join the Templars. Once you've already passed the 'perfection is impossible' mark, losing (or killing) another on the basis of politics is no longer abhorrent, but rather satisfying in how the character stays true to their nature throughout.

[Dark Specie]

Wulfram wrote...
Though I think one of Anders' gifts is bugged.

The Tevinter Chantry amulety seems to be bugged, yes.

Personally, I like the friendship/rivality system. In Origins, you almost had to be a total yes-man to the companions to gain their full approval. Sure, there were gifts to help along, but if you disagreed with a character a lot/did lots of stuff they didn't like... The Friendship/Rivalry system allows you to actively disagree with your companions while still being pals/buddies/whatever with them. True, Jade Empire for example had something similar, but there it was about convincing the characters around you that your beliefs were the correct ones, whereas DA2  doesn't have you convincing the characters that your views are the right ones, merely that "you have your own opinions/views and I have mine, but we can still be pals". Which is more realistic IMO - I have two friends IRL, who learns in different ways politically speaking, with one leaning right and the other left and despite that they're still very good friends, only occasionally engaging in friendly banter as far as their political views goes.

So, all in all, the system is good and if you don't agree, then let's simply agree to disagree

Because, really, what's the better alternative? Maybe for the next game you want Bioware to do a meter/system that goes three ways instead? ""Friendship", "Rivalry" and outright "Dislike"?

Modifié par Dark Specie, 22 mars 2011 - 11:53 .

[Lithuasil]

^ I think leaving it with friendship and rivalry is completely sufficient, just either make decisions have bigger impact, or give us two sliders, one for friendship and one for rivalry.

[Wulfram]

Dark Specie wrote...
 Which is more realistic IMO - I have two friends IRL, who learns in different ways politically speaking, with one leaning right and the other left and despite that they're still very good friends, only occasionally engaging in friendly banter as far as their political views goes.

But if those two friends found something they agreed on, would they become less friendly?  Because that's effectively what happens in the current system if you're on rivalry path.

Modifié par Wulfram, 22 mars 2011 - 11:56 .

[Gabey5]

are you high? i hated the origins system.. this one is far better

[Foolsfolly]

Lithuasil wrote...

^ I think leaving it with friendship and rivalry is completely sufficient, just either make decisions have bigger impact, or give us two sliders, one for friendship and one for rivalry.

Two slides complicates things. Can you imagine the bugs where the game can't decide where you stand? Plus, if they ever do slider based dialogue flags like in Origins then it would be possible to hit two opposite flags and trigger two contradictory conversations in the course of one game.

One slide is simple. And simple is a key hallmark of a well-designed system. Complication gives too many possibilities for errors, glitchs, and bugs.

Wulfram wrote...

Dark Specie wrote...
 Which is
more realistic IMO - I have two friends IRL, who learns in different
ways politically speaking, with one leaning right and the other left and
despite that they're still very good friends, only occasionally
engaging in friendly banter as far as their political views goes.

But
if those two friends found something they agreed on, would they become less
friendly?  Because that's effectively what happens in the current
system if you're on rivalry path.

In my experience this hasn't happened yet. I know Anders has a bugged gift and a few people have complained about a Fenris...something. But with Merrill and Aveline, the two I've had as rival so far, doing nice things like the romance with Merrill added rivalry points instead of friendship points.

The goal, if there's a goal, is to max out the slide on either side. And as I got closer to one more actions seemed to make it easier to maxing that side out.

However, it did make Fenris a beast. I wanted to be friends with the guy but so many things I did, including giving gifts to him, added rivalry points. Ended the game with him still not having either Friendship or Rivalry passives unlocked because I wanted to be friends with him but my pro-mage actions with him in the party and other things kept ruining that.

So he was netural leaning more rival than friend. But that's not a 'problem' I've been full friends with him before and since. It's just consquences for my actions and choices of words.

I really like this system.

[Alelsa]

p95h wrote...

Personally, I don't think there should be any feedback on how companions react to your choices, until it sets them off, one way or the other. Unless of course, you're playing a blood mage with mind reading/control ability. That should give you feedback, but otherwise nothing until the companion decides if you are a friend or a rival.

This. Very much this.  Reducing social interaction to a bunch of numbers on the screen kinda ruins the whole roleplay element.  Let me gauge their responses from their - you know - responses, not a scrolly tickertape!

[ms_sunlight]

Icy Magebane wrote...

Same goes with Aveline hating when you do anything "dirty," even simple assassinations.

Nah, I did that deliberately because I was roleplaying a sarcastic ne'er-do-well and found the rivalry relationship with Aveline surprisingly satisfying, taken all the way.

[Foolsfolly]

ms_sunlight wrote...

Icy Magebane wrote...

Same goes with Aveline hating when you do anything "dirty," even simple assassinations.

Nah, I did that deliberately because I was roleplaying a sarcastic ne'er-do-well and found the rivalry relationship with Aveline surprisingly satisfying, taken all the way.

Me too. Playing a sarcastic rogue is really satisfying in DA2.

[BHRamsay]

Maybe if we're really nice BW will give us feastday gifts again, it made dealing with some of your more prickly DA:O companions easier. coughShalecough

[Foolsfolly]

BHRamsay wrote...

Maybe if we're really nice BW will give us feastday gifts again, it made dealing with some of your more prickly DA:O companions easier. coughShalecough

No.

Oh, no. There were friendship meter flags that you'd hit to activate certain events in conversation, such as Lili admitting she's a bard. Giving them those gifts broke those flags and caused to unforseen problems.

It was like a cheat code the reduced the whole system to a joke.

I never used them outside of that first time.

[Tezzajh]

Foolsfolly wrote...

BHRamsay wrote...

Maybe if we're really nice BW will give us feastday gifts again, it made dealing with some of your more prickly DA:O companions easier. coughShalecough

No.

Oh, no. There were friendship meter flags that you'd hit to activate certain events in conversation, such as Lili admitting she's a bard. Giving them those gifts broke those flags and caused to unforseen problems.

It was like a cheat code the reduced the whole system to a joke.

I never used them outside of that first time.

thats y u had rotten onions, so they hate u then u could find out she was a bard, i did this all the time

[sevalaricgirl]

I hate the rivalry friendship in the game. I can never get anyone but Aveline, Varrick, Anders and Merril to friendship. Isabela runs off before I even get her personal quest (I always thought finding the relic was her personal quest) and Fenris and Sebastian I always get to full rivalry. I'm forced to take Isabela with me everywhere and leave someone I like more because she wavers at neutral any other way.

[Naitaka]

The new system basically forces us to meta-game while the old system in DAO let you say whatever you want since everything can be fixed by giving a few gifts. While Friendship vs. Rivalry is an interesting concept, it felt like it isn't fully fleshed out. Merrill's companion quest is completely broken if you choose not to give her the tool, yet has maxed out friendship in Act 2 or vice versa.

[dreman9999]

Wulfram wrote...

Rm80 wrote...

well the system is not perfect, but nothing never is.

Still a big improvment from Orgins "If you don't agree with everything I say then you can't speak with me system"

In Origins you could say want and then give them a few gifts and they'd love you pretty much.  Which also isn't ideal, obviously. 

But it's better than having to try to avoid saying something which they might agree with, which is what happens in DA2 rivalries.

Ya, the face less bribe system.......
The problem is not the friend /rival system...Its you. Don't try to friend everyone, this system eas made so you can disagree with someone and still have them on your team. Fenirs will still come on you side if rival him and Isabela will come back if yourival her,too. You lose nothing if you rival your character, so stop being so scared to get on the characters bad side. Your ment to.

[dreman9999]

sevalaricgirl wrote...

I hate the rivalry friendship in the game. I can never get anyone but Aveline, Varrick, Anders and Merril to friendship. Isabela runs off before I even get her personal quest (I always thought finding the relic was her personal quest) and Fenris and Sebastian I always get to full rivalry. I'm forced to take Isabela with me everywhere and leave someone I like more because she wavers at neutral any other way.

You friend Merril...SO you would hepl a friend do something harmful to themselves?

[Spartansfan8888]

The system definitely needs some work. The first playthrough I must've been in Origins mode trying to agree with everyone because pretty much every character was in friendship with me. The second playthrough I had to quit pretty far in; I tried to mix things up and get rivalries but everyone stayed stuck in the middle. If progression depends on getting to one side of the bar then it should be easy to do so, or else there should be a third progression of the relationship that takes place if there isn't a friendship or rivalry

[MKDAWUSS]

It was just a repackaged approval system. You just had to sucky up to each one. I don't think I ever got called out for "inconsistency" like was advertised.

[dreman9999]

MKDAWUSS wrote...

It was just a repackaged approval system. You just had to sucky up to each one. I don't think I ever got called out for "inconsistency" like was advertised.

So.....
Anders: So Hawke, you want freedom for Mages right?
Hawke:Oh yes to do.
Fenirs:Hawke, you want all mages to die in a fire?
Hawke:Ofcouse.
Anders:What? But your a mage! What about our right?
Hawke:I completly agree.
Fenirs:You dirty lier, Hawke.
Anders:You don't agree Fenirs.
Fenirs:Hawke agrees with me.
Anders:No me. Hawke?
*Hawke looks at them both and his head explodes.