84 réponses à ce sujet

[god dammit anders]

I prefer the new system to talking in circles once you've exhausted all initial points - as in dialogue became mundane and useless. I also like that you don't have the ability to be a horrible person and then subdue the NPC with somethig shiny. That's not realistic, relationship wise. It was a glorified cheat system. But on the other had, I miss the mundane and casual chatter that you could use. It gave you a feel for the character. I wouldn't have liked Alistair if him and my Warden hadn't spoken. It's hard to develope opinions of your companions when you are forced to be so linear in the progressions. How I feel effects the choices I make. I was friends with say, Isabella, but she didn't influence anything I did. If they are really friendly with you, there should have been more to show the relationship progression. Same with rivalry. That response was convoluted but whatever. Yay new system...I just didn't feel like my Hawke was friends or even rivals with anyone but Anders who was her love interest.

[Zulmoka531]

I think the system works pretty well. But I have some..issues with it as do many others.
It's hard to explain, but in order to say...get rivalry with Merrill, a lot of the time you have to be an outright jerk to her, which in turn makes it unusual to romance her.

I think how one gains rivalry and friendship needs to be looked at, rather than having the right person in the party at the right time and choosing the right dialogue that would either make them happy or pissy, or gives a net shift in points.

I know it sounds a little..odd but perhaps the full weight on a companions rivalry/friendship should stem from personal quests (it sort of does this already, again using Merrill as an example) rather than small gains here and there from "random go save this person quest"

[fathomless33]

I think more suspect than the system itself was the dialogue. You select an option then Hawke says something completely counter to what you picked, either that or the people that wrote the game did not have a true grasp of the English language.

I will have to wait until next play through to get exact examples, but i remember three times that i chose something to say and hawke says something in a completely different direction... i was like huh?

I wish i could bring myself to be the type to keep reloading games constantly if things do not go right, but just not me. I play through dealing with the consequences regardless.

[ReallyRue]

I prefer it to the Origins system, but it stands to be improved.
Some of the characters seemed oddly bipolar when it came to friendship and rivalry.

[Noatz]

Zulmoka531 wrote...

I think the system works pretty well. But I have some..issues with it as do many others.
It's hard to explain, but in order to say...get rivalry with Merrill, a lot of the time you have to be an outright jerk to her, which in turn makes it unusual to romance her.

[Insert witticism about the female proclivity of developing irrational romantic attachment to men who are nothing but ****s to them]

[Redflametrow]

Yeah, I disliked it as well. To be a rival constantly to someone you have to do some stupid stuff that is out of character. I particularly had problems with Fenris as I mostly sided with mages. He was moving along towards rival fairly well, and then because I show him some respect he suddenly gets 20 friendship and makes it too far away to get him to either extreme. The actions should be more versitile. If you can fall in love with a rival, then why can't you agree with them sometimes, but mostly disagree with them or go against their opinions. Maybe what the system needs is more times to raise friendship or rivalry so that a few choices don't force someone into the apathy zone.

[Tootles FTW]

I like the system but it did end up unintentionally ruining my first playthrough.  Isabella left me in Act 2 because I kept see-sawing with her friendship/rivalry points (honestly, why did they make the one companion who will leave you early in the game so difficult to curry favor with?!), and I was halfway through Act 3 before I decided to investigate why my Fenris romance hadn't started yet...only to discover you have to be at least 50% rivalry/friendship to initiate the romance. 

Here's the thing: I wasn't trying to "game" the system, I was simply playing how I wanted to play.  I kept Fenris with me the entire playthrough as I liked his character and liked his spec as a warrior.  I earned rivalry with my pro-mage decisions, but earned almost as much friendship with my anti-slavery/blood mage decisions.  I give him gifts, we have great conversations, I'm flirting with him constantly and he seems to be flattered if not necessarily responsive...but I'm still fubar'd without even realizing it, hooray.

I know the developers want me to experience every companion, and will likely shrug and say "Oh well, your own fault" for not switching my party members out more often, but I like building a core party each playthrough and tweaking their specs to suit my character.  DA:O gifts weren't perfect, but I find Dragon Age 2 has me meta-gaming to an obscene degree - in subsequent playthroughs I'm constantly re-arranging my party, saving before conversations to ensure I choose the "proper" dialogue options for the points I need, and googling questlines to remember exactly who I'll be offending or impressing by taking them along.  It's honestly exhausting. 

I love where they were going with this, but they need to introduce a gift DLC to allow for some buffer room.

[Naitaka]

Imho is that when it comes to conversation with the companions, Bioware made the mistake of tying tone indicator directly to the decision you make. If you want to disagree with Merrill on certain things, you can only choose to be a jerk about it, there's no diplomatic but disagree option. Bioware did a good enough job when it comes to the major plot-advancing decision where they take away the icon and give you the Swirly arrow icon instead, but they dropped the ball with the companions.

I think what they should have done is basically the same way they did some of the unprompted dialogue. Have a choice between agree, disagree, and make your tone matches that of your dominate personality. So if you choose to disagree but has a diplomatic personality, you can still be nice and earn Rivalry points, while you agree but has an aggressive personality you'll still earn friendship points.

Modifié par Naitaka, 24 mars 2011 - 06:10 .

[Custodire]

Yeah, for some reason my characters all ended up neutral or friendly.

I found it odd that Aveline, the City Guardsman developed rivalry with me when I insisted on taking a murderer to court for trial.

[Camenae]

Tootles FTW wrote...

I know the developers want me to experience every companion, and will likely shrug and say "Oh well, your own fault" for not switching my party members out more often, but I like building a core party each playthrough and tweaking their specs to suit my character.  DA:O gifts weren't perfect, but I find Dragon Age 2 has me meta-gaming to an obscene degree - in subsequent playthroughs I'm constantly re-arranging my party, saving before conversations to ensure I choose the "proper" dialogue options for the points I need, and googling questlines to remember exactly who I'll be offending or impressing by taking them along.  It's honestly exhausting.  

This.  

Successfully navigating the Friendship/Rivalry system downright requires metagaming. 

Most of the time I can't do what I want, I feel compelled to do what I think my companions want/don't want, which actually makes them feel more realistic to me because I'm a people-pleaser so idk what to think.  I mean, yeah, I don't HAVE to, but it's no fun seesawing in the middle with everybody throughout the whole game.