28 réponses à ce sujet

[nijnij]

Sorry in advance if this is a bit long.

Okay, so I was enjoying my second playthrough of the game, playing as a rogue this time instead of a mage. I don't really enjoy making douchy our righteous characters just for the sake of it, because I want to be able to roleplay my PC, so I always play as myself more or less as far as the game allows it.

Yet I reckoned that I might have somewhat metagamed my first playthrough when it comes to unexpected rivalry points : I would reload a save and choose the most character-relevant dialogue option that would keep the friendship stable, because the idea of a rivalry "I hate you but I love you" romance didn't sound realistic or cool to me.

Because of the different chronology of the quests in my 2nd playthrough (and probably also because I knew from my 1st playthrough that Merrill's obsession could lead her to her downfall), I decided to stop metagaming, follow my instincts, and refuse to give her that stupid artefact she needed for the Eluvian (after seeing that even her friend Pol seemed to be scared of her magic, enough to face the Varteral). Her reaction, something like 105 rivalry, had me go "okaaaay", but she started to be so ****y and mean that I thought, "there's no way I'm taking that back now that I know what she's like, let's not reload and just enjoy the rivalry path". And I was surprised to fnd out that her rivalry romance is, IMO, 10 times better than her friendship romance : it starts with an apology, then she breaks her stupid mirror while the affection side is still pretty much the same... I like that, much better than the love you/hate you relationship I somewhat expected ; to me, that was the REAL Merrill romance, the one where you're you and she's her, instead of having to kiss her feet like you do with Morrigan in Origins to get those precious approval points.

So far, it sounds like I'm in favor of the friendship/rivalry system. However, later in the game, fairly late in the game actually (beginning of act 3), something happened that just made me stop playing, and makes me consider the absurd side of this system...

In my first playthrough, I kissed Isabela's feet because I sure as hell wanted to romance her and still had the "Origins" reflex. In the 2nd one, instead of metagaming again, I just chose whatever option I deemed appropriate for my PC. The love scene did happen. However, at the end of act 2, I was surprised not to see Isabela come back with the relic, although I had chosen the appropriate option. I figured "well, maybe I wasn"t friendly enough with her this time". I checked the wiki and to my surprise, it said you have to be either on the friendship side or on the rivalry side for that to happen. That's where I went... "wait, there's something wrong !"

Why would Isabela feel guily enough to go back if she considers herself your rival, yet would feel no guilt and keep the relic if the friendship meter somehow stayed in the center ? Because I mean, when you look at it, what does real friendship come down to, isn't it made of agreements and disagreements ? Why would a rival Isabela consider me a worthier companion than if we had a bittersweet friendship ?  Having to go either full friendship or full rivalry to see some of those plot developments seems quite artificial to me.

I mentioned the Merrill rivalry romance that I loved, but is it the rivalry points that made me love it ? No, it's the fact that she hated me for something specific I did in the game, then apologized for that specific outburst she had, resulting in a romance, then smashed her mirror because of that specific disagreement we had had. So what I liked was that specific decisions would trigger specific events, which has little to do with the friendship meter.

However, in Isabela's case, for a heated relationship to be more valuable to her eyes than an honest "I like this about you, not this" kind of friendship, sounds pretty weird to me. Which finally leads to my question :
do we need the meter at all ? Why not simply have specific conversation choices or plot choices trigger specific conversations or events ? Wouldn't that be more realistic and actually easier to implement (and more logical for the player to understand) ?

Modifié par nijnij, 30 mars 2011 - 08:44 .

[The Baconer]

Building up rivalry isn't just making them hate you, it's also about gaining their respect despite having differing opinions.

[Icy Magebane]

People don't generally do anything to help those they feel no strong emotions towards. That's what the middle of the bar represents: neutrality. Also, you only need 50% of friendship or rivalry for her to return... so it's more like she's either feeling guilty about betraying a friend, or feeling guilty about proving a rival to be right about her. You also need to keep in mind that Isabela isn't very open to criticism... so the whole "I like this, not that" isn't going to impress her. It varies depending on the companion...

I find the whole idea of friendship/rivalry or approval/disapproval to be annoying. If we have only a few party members to take on missions, I don't want to have to worry about them complaining whenever I do something they don't like. It gets annoying. ME1 was perfect... everybody does what you say because you're in charge. ME2 was great as well... you do a loyalty mission the right way, and they'll follow you through the gates of Hell. If not... well, they still won't constantly whine and talk back. I guess I like playing as a commander more than a friend to these characters...

Or something... the system is fine. I have mixed feelings about it, so whatever criticisms I make, just take with a grain of salt.

[nijnij]

The Baconer wrote...

Building up rivalry isn't just making them hate you, it's also about gaining their respect despite having differing opinions.

But shouldn't someone respect you even more if you're like them in some ways and different in others ? Bioware's decision was smart on the one hand, because they wanted you to stop having to kiss a character's feet to get them to do things. However, it seems you have to either kiss their feet or bash them now, which sounds just as artificial : you end up metagaming in both cases.

The game makes it sound as if my Hawke's relationship with Isabela was bland and inexistant, while it was everything but neutral : it was a succession of rivalry / friendship / rivalry / friendship / rivalry / friendship etc. To me, such a relationship is just as memorable and worthy as an I-kiss-your-ass one or a you'll-never-understand-me one.

So why a meter at all and not just specific choices with their consequences ? That would make companion interaction even better I think.

[byzantine horse]

For a future game I think it would be cool with a Positive-Negative influence value, i.e how your acts affect the personality of the character, along with the usual Like-Dislike value. This would make us end up with a square with 4 corners, each representing a combination of the values.

As an example, Sebastian could be influenced "positively" by making sure that he stays away from his ambitions to retake Starkhaven, or influence him "negatively" by persuading him to do so. At the same time you can ****** him of by say doing bad things to the Chantry or increase approval by being kind to people in general.

Also, a character whom you fall out with is more likely to do the opposite of what you are doing, i.e. if you are evil and want to rule the world he'd head the opposite direction and be good and stay with the Chantry. If he dislikes you and you like the Chantry and are a kind person he will wish to go to Starkhaven and become a tyrant. Or something like that.

Just thought that it would be cool with very visible consequences from your actions in a future game on a personal level for your companions. So far it is has mostly been about event A happening instead of event B, or neither of them happening if you cba to do the companion quests.

[Rheia]

I always understood rivalry to be as strong of an emotion as friendship. I don't think it is as much about like or dislike, rather than it's about challanging viewpoints versus being on same wavelength. In case of Isabella, I like to think that if she returns on rivalry path it is because she isn't willing to give you the satisfaction of being right in your judgment of her.

I think rivalry/friendship system as a whole is awesome. It has some flaws, sure... sometimes you rivalry/friendship gains cancel each other significantly, but overall... you can afford a few hits back and forth and still remain on the course. You also get to see a different side to the friend/rival companions. I think the differences are significan enough to warrant an additional run-through the game and get a drastically different feel for it.

Modifié par Rheia, 30 mars 2011 - 09:00 .

[Icy Magebane]

byzantine horse has a good idea... it's like "hardening" Alistair or Leliana, but in a more intricate way perhaps. Hawke's influence on the companion could be better represented... after all, you pretty much have to bend over backwards for these people (if you care about the bonuses at all) but they never alter their views. No matter how many times I tried to convince Fenris that not all mages are evil, the most I could get is him acknowledging that MAYBE Hawke isn't the same as the Magisters.

[hoorayforicecream]

nijnij wrote...

The Baconer wrote...

Building up rivalry isn't just making them hate you, it's also about gaining their respect despite having differing opinions.

But shouldn't someone respect you even more if you're like them in some ways and different in others ? Bioware's decision was smart on the one hand, because they wanted you to stop having to kiss a character's feet to get them to do things. However, it seems you have to either kiss their feet or bash them now, which sounds just as artificial : you end up metagaming in both cases.

The game makes it sound as if my Hawke's relationship with Isabela was bland and inexistant, while it was everything but neutral : it was a succession of rivalry / friendship / rivalry / friendship / rivalry / friendship etc. To me, such a relationship is just as memorable and worthy as an I-kiss-your-ass one or a you'll-never-understand-me one.

So why a meter at all and not just specific choices with their consequences ? That would make companion interaction even better I think.

Because the main issue is that you need to provide her a basis for why she'd want to do it. If Hawke is a rival, she understands that Hawke expect better from her, and that she realizes that she values Hawke's faith in her more than she values the relic so she comes back. If Hawke is a friend, she cares about Hawke, and thus comes back because she doesn't want something bad to happen to him/her.

If you've got a seemingly endless stream of things you sort of agree on, and others you don't, you don't have much emotional attachment.  You're not friends. You're not rivals. You're just acquaintances. At that point to Isabela, Hawke is a co-worker. The neutral relationship with Hawke isn't really meaningful, because there's no real clear-cut sense of how Isabela feels about him/her. Sometimes Hawke will act one way, other times other ways. Since there are no strong feelings binding her to Hawke, Isabela doesn't care enough about Hawke to come back. So she doesn't.

It's not a perfect system, but the meter is essentially how you measure the strength of emotional ties. By bouncing back and forth, you confuse the companion and thus they decide not to care.

[PPR223]

Rivalry is more to do with you disagreeing with that person, and eventually changing their opinions. I don't know whether this happens with everyone, but I know Merrill and Sebastian change their opinions if you make them a Rival. I just think they might have used the wrong word, but I can't think of anything more suiting to it.

[Rheia]

No matter how many times I tried to convince Fenris that not all mages are evil, the most I could get is him acknowledging that MAYBE Hawke isn't the same as the Magisters.

To be fair, Kirkwall mages aren't very helpful in lending their aid to that argument, heh No matter how much of an idealist you play, nearly every mage you stumble upon proves Fenris right, not wrong

[Maria Caliban]

Merrill certainly changes her views. Isabela does to a lesser extent. Anders will join you in murdering all the mages at the end of Act 3 if you have full rivalry with him.

That said, while I see flaws in the system, the Isabela one wasn't a problem. Your Hawke flip-flops. You're not good enough to inspire her. You're not similar enough for her to feel affection.

[Lithuasil]

The one problem with friendship and rivalry as it is in the game, is that they're on the same slider. You disagree with Fenris' view on mages, but kill slavers where you find them, and he respects you less, then if you're a bloodmage, and keep slaves for personal sacrifice. :|

[Asdara]

This game, it seems to me, is designed to reward consistency in who Hawke is for you.

I have had far better dialog / interaction with my two characters who were firm in their beliefs and stood by them whatever a companion or npc might do than I did with my "I do this in front of you, and that in front of him, and this other thing by her" character.

I think it's a good idea - but there should be a neutral ground that also has it's own "reaction" - like everyone knows Hawke's out to please everybody and they either respond understandingly to that or spurn him/her for a waffler.

You can love the person you don't agree with, and hate the people who share your views in life pretty easily actually, if you think about it.

[Wulfram]

I can't say the rivalry mechanic has ever really worked for me.  Looking at each NPC in turn

Varric/Aveline - I can't see myself ever ending up on the rivalry path with them, so it's basically the same as the old approval rating for me.
Sebastian - The rivalry path annoys me, because it seems to be mostly about ambition versus the chantry and is working OK, but then I get clobbered with a whole bunch of friendship because I don't want an exalted march called against Kirkwall and end up right in the middle again
Isabela - It seems you can't really be a rival with her unless you're a humourless prig.
Fenris - Is the obvious person for a Mage to have a rivalry with.  But there's a whole bunch of friendship points which turn up for being opposed to slavery, which can totally screw your relationship up.  Friendship caused by opposition to Blood magic can be a problem too.
Anders - The only time I really tried out his rivalry path I told him to go away too early to judge.  It wasn't working too badly, though the fact that an anti-mage player will get hit by friendship points for opposing blood magic and demons is an oddity.
Merrill - Her rivalry actually works.  But it works by effectively making the normal mechanic entirely irrelevant and forcing you down the rivalry path based on one single choice in one of her quests.  Really, you could do away with the whole system and just have two dialogue paths branching off from that one point and I don't think it would change a thing.

When trying to pursue a rivalry, the disconnect that comes from it being bad that you've just done something your companion approves off is very off-putting.

Modifié par Wulfram, 30 mars 2011 - 11:08 .

[Camenae]

I agree that it should not be on the same slider, and it should be like the Paragon/Renegade meter for Shepard in ME2. Two separate meters would allow for a lot more flexibility and doesn't FORCE you to be 100% consistent until you've maxed it either way.

[Invalidcode]

Rivalry is a good thing in many ways and a welcome change/addition in RPG system.

Some flaws though:

Even I treating some companions like crap they still value my PC because of high rivalry. They should be hostile against the PC, not respecting my PC as a good rival.

Still only a 2-end system: Friend or Rival, in the middle you are missing out.

Locked at max: Hmm not a bad thing actually but it is just weird.

Modifié par Invalidcode, 30 mars 2011 - 11:18 .

[Deztyn]

Camenae wrote...

I agree that it should not be on the same slider, and it should be like the Paragon/Renegade meter for Shepard in ME2. Two separate meters would allow for a lot more flexibility and doesn't FORCE you to be 100% consistent until you've maxed it either way.

Agree with this so much.

The main issue I had with Origins was that as long as you managed to avoid a characters beserk button (Ashes, Loghain) you could do absolutely anything and buy back their affection with trinkets. The problem isn't solved with the rivalry system it's made worse. Power hungry blood mage who keeps her own slave? Fenris agrees to disagree. Templar lover who goes out of her way to screw over every mage she comes across? Anders agrees to disagree.

In Origins you were united by common goals. Big evil that threatens everyone. Since DA2 has no Big Bad everyone can hate more than you it makes little sense that they'll stick by you through the years if you don't give them a reason to do so. For some people who were crushed by losing Leliana, Wynne and Zevran this is a plus. I prefer my choices have an impact on the world and the companions. Devout Andrastians are going to get violent when you desecrate the remains of their saviour. An assassin will turn against you if he doesn't like you even a little.

And an ex-slave who loathes power hungry blood mages, shouldn't hang around a power hungry blood mage who keeps slaves without a good reason for it. 

Modifié par Deztyn, 30 mars 2011 - 11:15 .

[nijnij]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
If you've got a seemingly endless stream of things you sort of agree on, and others you don't, you don't have much emotional attachment.  You're not friends. You're not rivals. You're just acquaintances. At that point to Isabela, Hawke is a co-worker. The neutral relationship with Hawke isn't really meaningful, because there's no real clear-cut sense of how Isabela feels about him/her.

I disagree. If I had never included Isabela in my party, or never had a conversation with her, then we'd have what you may call a neutral co-worker relationship. If, however, we go through each quest together, have every possible conversation, begin a romance, etc, it is a perfectly meaningful relationship, just because it's not black or white doesn't mean it's inexistant.

If you can have respect for someone who's different from you in every way, why not have respect for someone with whom you're relationship is just as powerful, but less black or white ?

If Isabela came back with the relic ONLY for her soulmate/BFF, I'd say it's coherent. However, if she comes back even for someone who's a pain in the back just because somehow she cares about their respect, I don't see why she wouldn't care for the respect of another friend whose friendship happens to be more stable and less caricatural.

To me, that's just psychologically absurd.

[nijnij]

Wulfram wrote...
Merrill - Her rivalry actually works.  But it works by effectively making the normal mechanic entirely irrelevant and forcing you down the rivalry path based on one single choice in one of her quests.  Really, you could do away with the whole system and just have two dialogue paths branching off from that one point and I don't think it would change a thing.

I agree 100%. That's why I'm saying instead of a meter, specific events should be based on specific choices. Because really, what it comes down to is that Merrill tells you she never wants to see you again because you didn't help her with the Eluvian, not because of however many rivalry points you've got.

Regarding the Isabela situation, she should indeed not come back if you have a non-existant relationship. The problem is that there are 2 sorts of neutral : you can be neutral with her because you've never talked, or neutral because you have a complicated friendship. So the way they should have calculated this, IMO, is by adding up all the points you got from her, be them rivalry or friendship points. For example, if you've got 50 friendship, she comes back. If you've got 50 rivalry, she comes back. If you got 50 points in both categories based on a succession of rivalry-heavy choices and friendship-heavy choices, resulting in a neutral meter, she should come back too. However, if you're neutral but never talked enough/took her in your party enough to get 50 points in anything, then she shouldn't care about coming back.

[noxsachi]

About the main thing I don't like about the rivalry system is that sometimes you have to be an ass to get the rivalry points. Case in point Fenris. In any of his conversations to earn rivalry points you have just pick the aggressive option, even as a mage picking the caring or witty option nets you friendship points. It should be like, "Oh why would a mage/mage lover care about me ****** off" kinda response from him rather, and then earning rivalry points instead of just having to be "Quit whining." Other than that I really prefer the system to just the straight up approval/disapproval thing in DA:O.

[Alelsa]

My main problem with this, the system from DA:O, and the system in ME2 is that they're transparent to the player. They all encourage metagaming over roleplaying. If the NPCs want to "keep score" to decide how they'll react to me thats fine, but I'd rather see their responses *in* their responses than in numbers flashing up the screen.

[hoorayforicecream]

nijnij wrote...

I disagree. If I had never included Isabela in my party, or never had a conversation with her, then we'd have what you may call a neutral co-worker relationship. If, however, we go through each quest together, have every possible conversation, begin a romance, etc, it is a perfectly meaningful relationship, just because it's not black or white doesn't mean it's inexistant.

If you can have respect for someone who's different from you in every way, why not have respect for someone with whom you're relationship is just as powerful, but less black or white ?

If Isabela came back with the relic ONLY for her soulmate/BFF, I'd say it's coherent. However, if she comes back even for someone who's a pain in the back just because somehow she cares about their respect, I don't see why she wouldn't care for the respect of another friend whose friendship happens to be more stable and less caricatural.

To me, that's just psychologically absurd.

You're assuming that your relationship is powerful simply because you spent a lot of time with her. I've had coworkers I've spent years with on a daily/weekly basis, but not felt particularly strong about either way. I'd chat with them about life, pop culture, or current events. I'd help them out when they asked for it, and go to them for help when I needed it. I wouldn't call them friends, I certainly wouldn't call them rivals, I'd call them acquaintances or coworkers.

Similarly, when I went through high school, there were several people who shared classes with me for four years. Sometimes I'd work with them on projects. I might have gone out with one of them a few times. We had a shared relationship with the school in common, but I certainly wouldn't say that they are friends or rivals. They're just classmates. That doesn't necessarily entail a meaningful relationship either. 

In order for a relationship to really be powerful or meaningful, you need a stronger bond with the person. I did make friends in high school, and they remain friends with me today. I've also transitioned from "coworker" to "friend" with some folks too over the years. These are folks I'd go to bat for. Not the coworkers or classmates. That stronger bond is what the friendship or rivalry meter represents.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 31 mars 2011 - 09:53 .

[Foolsfolly]

I love the Friendship/Rivalry bar.

Love it.

I can be the Hawke I want to be and whatever they think, who cares, I'm Hawke.

It worked great, outside of a few known bugs like some gifts always giving Friendship. I liked this system a lot better than Origins. And in fact, if we need a like/dislike meter in a game I want this one.

[Foolsfolly]

Alelsa wrote...

My main problem with this, the system from DA:O, and the system in ME2 is that they're transparent to the player. They all encourage metagaming over roleplaying. If the NPCs want to "keep score" to decide how they'll react to me thats fine, but I'd rather see their responses *in* their responses than in numbers flashing up the screen.

Oh no.

Oh no, no, no.

I want numbers and I want a bar so I can check on these things. You know how people are finding it hard to keep Isabela now? That's with numbers and a bar, and all you need is 50 points in either direction to keep her. Now imagine people complaining when they can't keep track of where their relationship is.

No, no, no. More information is always better than too litte. It's like saying we should get rid of health meters on enemies so it's more realistic, well I like to know how long this fight is going to go.

[Crossroads_Wanderer]

I found the system a little difficult to deal with. As has been pointed out, you get lots of rivalry points with Fenris for being in favor of mages, but then you get friendship points for being opposed to slavery. I think those two stances would tend to fall together, as people tend to be opposed to slavery and the mages are essentially enslaved. The friendship points I got late in the game screwed up the rivalry I had going and he ended up not rejoining me at the end, so I had to kill him.

I had all kinds of flip-flopping with Merrill because my character didn't approve of her, but I had to do her quests in order to advance certain parts of the story (which is an annoying example of railroading, in my mind). I thought it was wrong for my character to keep the Dalish artifact because it belongs to the Dalish people, but the stupid Keeper decided that this is all somehow my responsibility just because she can't do anything to stop Merrill, even if it meant that my character would have to be a thief to stop Merrill. While I played a rogue, I was playing an honorable rogue, and she wasn't down with that. So I got a friendship boost with Merrill towards the end. But apparently the friendship/rivalry thing doesn't matter to Merrill if you side with the mages in the end, because she stuck with me even though she was pretty neutral toward my character. She didn't really seem to have much of a personality at the end. She just kinda went along with me because I like mages.

Isabella was difficult for me to max a relationship with, but that was probably something more to do with the fact that I was playing a dual-wield rogue, so she was redundant and seldom-used. I didn't get access to the Questioning Beliefs quest until the last conversation I had with her, right before she left. If I play a dual-wield rogue again in the future, I know I'll have to suck it up and deal with it because she's so important to the story.

Anders, Varric, and Aveline were pretty darn easy to earn max friendship with. I was playing a pro-mage character who didn't deal with demons, not to mention the fact that I romanced Anders, so he was really easy to max out. I was playing a character who was sometimes witty and sometimes diplomatic, and, once in a blue moon, aggressive, so I was able to apply the right style of conversation to Aveline and Varric to make them like me. Plus, if you do their quests, it's really easy to get friendship points with them anyway.

So I had a jumble of different results from the friendship/rivalry system. I realize that it's supposed to be somewhat challenging to get all of your party to have a great enough friendship/rivalry to keep them, but I think it was unnecessarily complicated with certain party members, even if I do understand the characterization that leads to those complications.