204 réponses à ce sujet

[Mecher3k]

9999dmg wrote...

Do you people not have social lives? I would consider the majority of the people in my circle to be rivals in some respect. Is that healthy? Not really. Is that just something that happens with particular kinds of personalities? Definitely.

And yet you have peopel that hate you, which is what the retarded system in DA2 ignores.

Fenris should want to kill me and try to do so. Isabella should say I'm boring as **** and just leave. And on and on.

The DA:O DA2 style topic even shows how stupid the sysytem is.

[TheMadCat]

thesilverlinedviking wrote...

cpmd4 wrote...

It's way better than Origins, where I was so two-faced trying to please each individual character.

Now I can play the way I want and not fear losing important party members and losing out.

^ This ^
Origins approval system felt shallow to me.

Eh, personally I'd go with horribly executed. I loved the idea that if you spoke or acted against a specific companions morals and ethics there were actually some serious negative consequences just as you'd expect there, I mean we're not talking about rather simplistic philosophical differences but rather actions which directly contradict what the believe to be right. This does create a real divide between two individuals and not some simple differencing of opinions which BioWare usually does. The problem was the gift system made the whole thing feel incredibly gimmicky, you do everything against what they view as right, hand over a bag of goodies and they're now your BFF. That and at times the system really felt strange and out of place. So yeah, just a case of great idea with terrible execution.

[astrallite]

Well 9999dmg's circle happens to involve people he insults directly on a daily basis, so I have to admit I don't have that social life.

[Mariquis]

I prefer the DA2 system. That's how rivalries work in real life. You encounter someone who you grudgingly respect (and sometimes you work your ass off to show them up because they are your nemesis). I didn't really understand the DA:O system, how it would work in real life, I mean. Without the gifts anyone who disliked the PC it was just... "why are you still HERE then?" They weren't motivated to show me up, they didn't respect me (grudgingly) they just disliked me and everything I stood for and did. So why did they even stick around for as long as they did (it was HARD to get people to leave just on the basis of dislike). And as mentioned previously the gifts were kind of broken.

I wouldn't mind a further exploration of this system. Say if there was some way to cultivate either a rivalry or purposefully drive someone away (see: enemies, like in DA:O) on top of a friendship/romance. It could be interesting.

[Rheia]

And yet you have peopel that hate you, which is what the retarded system in DA2 ignores.

Fenris should want to kill me and try to do so. Isabella should say I'm boring as **** and just leave. And on and on.

The DA:O DA2 style topic even shows how stupid the sysytem is.

I severely dislike how everyone and their mother equates Fenris' distaste with magic with hatered for the protagonist (Hawke). Hawke HELPS him. Fenris doesn't hate Hawke. He never wants to kill him/her. Even if Hawke is a mage, he tells you right off the bat that "you are not Danarius". He tells others that Hawke is a strong mage. He refuses Sebastian's bait to turn in apostate mages in the party to the templars. Does he find pro-mage decisions difficult to swallow? Yes. He let his opinion be known too, but his distaste is -never- directed at Hawke. Their whole rival relationship can be summed up as something he once tells a rival mage in game:  "You are a strong mage, Hawke, but I rue the day you find out not all of them are like you".

I've never fully rivaled Isabella, but I am sure it isn't as simple as "OMG, you are boring, get lost." type of relationship either.

I think equating Rivalry with hatered is a big  mistake people make. Does it being designated in a red color contribute to the notion? Maybe.

Also, in regard to needing more interaction to flesh out companions and their world views and preferences... I'd definately love that. There can never be enough dialog/ineraction

That said, IF you keep a constant party without switching out members throughout the whole game you do get a much better picture of their personality. 

Modifié par Rheia, 13 avril 2011 - 05:51 .

[Mecher3k]

Rheia wrote...


I severely dislike how everyone and their mother equates Fenris' distaste with magic with hatered for the protagonist (Hawke). Hawke HELPS him. Fenris doesn't hate Hawke. He never wants to kill him/her. Even if Hawke is a mage, he tells you right off the bat that "you are not Danarius".

Yea yet if I said with the mages it still wants to kill me despite being maxed friends.

Yea, the system totally makes sense. The time he SHOULDN'T want to kill me, he still tries to kill me. When he considers me a rival and should want to kill me, he will follow me to possible death.

Your example fails.

[Rheia]

Actually, he doesn't try to kill you if you max your rivalry/friendship scale and do all of his quests and questioning belief cycles. He tells you he thinks you are making a mistake, but that he will stand by you.

And, I am not sure about exact criteria of questioning believes/personal quest completion, but if you do some (all?) but don't max the rivalry/friendship scale and he sides against you, you get a persuade option later to try and appeal to him. So you have a chance to sway him to your side again.

Modifié par Rheia, 13 avril 2011 - 05:57 .

[Mecher3k]

Rheia wrote...

Actually he doesn't try to kill you if you max your rivalry/friendship scale and do all of his quests and questioning belief cycles. He tells you he thinks you are making a mistake, but that he will stand by you.

I sense either bull****, or glitched game. My guess is glitched game which you so defend.

Still doesn't change the fact that in this system you can never get rid of a companion no matter what.

But please keep on defending it.

[Rheia]

Mecher3k wrote...

Rheia wrote...

Actually he doesn't try to kill you if you max your rivalry/friendship scale and do all of his quests and questioning belief cycles. He tells you he thinks you are making a mistake, but that he will stand by you.

I sense either bull****, or glitched game. My guess is glitched game which you so defend.

Still doesn't change the fact that in this system you can never get rid of a companion no matter what.

But please keep on defending it.

I argue my opinion, which you are quite free to disregard .
Also, you can ask a few companions to leave on rivalry path. Not all, I'll grant you that, but a few. And at least one leaves you if you failed to invoke strong emotion in them through either rivalry or friendship.

If you are interested, I could talk to you through pm about which companions can leave you and when on their rivalry paths and through which dialog . I'd do it here, but the topic is in no spoiler section.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Maybe in future titles in the franchise, there won't be heros and villains and animosity between them. There will just be rivals. And after all the fighting, with no fatalities, wardens, darkspawn, mages, templars and qunari will all stop by the local diner to share milkshakes and eat hamburgers, listening to tunes on the jukebox and afterwards go bowling together. It will all just be a big misunderstanding.

Yes, I think the new system is pretty rediculous. I'm not trying to put Baldur's Gate up on a pedestal but it was nice to get rid of annoying party member by either telling them politely you weren't interested or murdering them in interesting, unscripted ways.

[Sabariel]

To me, it doesn't. If it does to others then rock on

[Mecher3k]

Rheia wrote...

If you are interested, I could talk to you through pm about which companions can leave you and when on their rivalry paths and through which dialog . I'd do it here, but the topic is in no spoiler section.

Alright.

[San Diego Thief]

I remember my English teacher saying "show - don't tell". Why must this rival/friend meter be revealed to the player? You should be able to tell from a companion's words, body language, and tone of voice what they think of you. Also, maybe if you ****** them off so much, they will not fight for you in battle or their stats will decline. There are so many better ways to go about this....

Modifié par San Diego Thief, 13 avril 2011 - 06:22 .

[Serpieri Nei]

San Diego Thief wrote...

I remember my English teacher saying "show - don't tell". Why must this rival/friend meter be revealed to the player? You should be able to tell from a companion's words, body language, and tone of voice what they think of you. Also, maybe if you ****** them off so much, they will not fight for you in battle or their stats will decline. There are so many better ways to go about this....

Now, thats an interesting idea.

[Fieryeel]

Mecher3k wrote...

9999dmg wrote...

Do you people not have social lives? I would consider the majority of the people in my circle to be rivals in some respect. Is that healthy? Not really. Is that just something that happens with particular kinds of personalities? Definitely.

And yet you have peopel that hate you, which is what the retarded system in DA2 ignores.

Fenris should want to kill me and try to do so. Isabella should say I'm boring as **** and just leave. And on and on.

The DA:O DA2 style topic even shows how stupid the sysytem is.

To clarify, Rivalry in DA2 works like this.

From neutral to 75 Rivalry, your companion DO want to kill you, and they do outright hate you. Merrill throws me outta her house. Anders says he wanna strangle me. Heck, Aveline even outright tackles and beats my Hawke to the ground.

However, the difference comes from 76 Rivalry to 100 Rivalry. Any rivalry at this point instead turns into grudging respect. Proof of that? Go through with Merrill's romance for example. She's at 75 Rivalry, after I bed her, invite her to live with me, her friendship meter doesn't go up, instead, it's her rivalry that maxes. That means she is now at a point where she respects Hawke, even if she doesn't agree.

Granted, there are flaws in the system, but Bioware simply didn't want to put in another level of complexity in the system.

Right now its

Max Friendship - High Friendship - Neutral - High Rivalry(Companions will kill/leave you) - Max Rivalry(Companions stay with you no matter what)

What it really should be is

Max Friendship - High Friendship - Neutral - High Rivalry(Companions will kill/leave you) - Respect(Companions stay with you no matter what)

[Rheia]

Maybe in future titles in the franchise, there won't be heros and
villains and animosity between them. There will just be rivals. And
after all the fighting, with no fatalities, wardens, darkspawn, mages,
templars and qunari will all stop by the local diner to share milkshakes
and eat hamburgers, listening to tunes on the jukebox and afterwards go
bowling together. It will all just be a big misunderstanding.

Yes,
I think the new system is pretty rediculous. I'm not trying to put
Baldur's Gate up on a pedestal but it was nice to get rid of annoying
party member by either telling them politely you weren't interested or
murdering them in interesting, unscripted ways.

As much as I can appreciate sarcasm, I don't think  the current rivalry/friendship system deserves it. Why should one want villians within your party, anyway? The protagonist will have their hands full dealing with plenty of other individuals and factions outside of his/her inner circle who'll happily put a knife to their back, or slit their throat.

That said, there is plenty of tension between rivals in DA II, in my experience. That opposition can be either turned to begrudging respect towards the end of the game (after nearly a decade) OR Hawke can let it run its course, in which case some companions can leave Hawke or loose their respect for him/her. (And in some cases strike against Hawke).

I do understand the sentiment of wanting to be rid of the party members you don't like. In Origins, you could, and it made sense, since you were always on the move and parting ways with companions would put some distance between them and you. In DA II, however, you live in the city where your companions make their home as well. Aveline is with the guard, Merril has no other place to go other than the Alianage, Fenris is a mercenary, etc, etc. Telling them to leave would accomplish... what exactly? They'd still be where they are.  You can simply ignore them/don't talk to them/don't do their quests and don't add them to your active party .

Modifié par Rheia, 13 avril 2011 - 07:53 .

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Rheia wrote...

Maybe in future titles in the franchise, there won't be heros and
villains and animosity between them. There will just be rivals.

As much as appreciate sarcasm, I don't think  the current rivalry/friendship system deserves it. Why should one want villians within your party, anyway? The protagonist will have their hands full dealing with plenty of other individuals and factions outside of his/her inner circle who'll happily put a knife to their back, or slit their throat.

That said, there is plenty of tension between rivals in DA II, in my experience. That opposition can be either turned to begrudging respect towards the end of the game (after nearly a decade) OR Hawke can let it run its course, in which case some companions can leave Hawke or loose their respect for him/her. (And in some cases strike against Hawke).

Why have villians in your party?

Maybe your character is evil. Edwin was useful to have around in Baldur's Gate. Sarevok made one heck of an interesting villian/party member in Baldur's Gate Throne of Bhaal. Canderous Ordo and HK-47 were somewhat amusing, both were villians with their own purposes to keep about in KotOR. Heck, Revan might not of even escaped Taris in time if not for Canderous. Loghain was arguably a villian, at least to the Warden and Cailan in DA:O, but does make for an interesting party option. In quite an opposite twist there is no reason whatsoever to keep Zevran around after interrogation, that doesn't make any kind of sense.

I understand what they tried to do with the rivalry system, I do wish more was done with it I guess. I wouldn't mind seeing more intrigue, possible competition as the player's power grows other than a few lines of dialogue here and there. It's an odd statistic overall, since it can represent many things between competition and outright animosity so in that respect I don't find it making alot of sense as a nebulous meter.

[Rheia]

Ah, I am just going to agree to disagree on your use of 'villian' in relation to the inter-party relationships. I won't argue that Edwin, Sarevok, Canderous or HK-47 were extremely interesting characters. I just don't view them as protagonist's villians. Wouldn't 'enemy of my enemy' or 'convenient ally' apply more? Loghain after a certain event at Denerim certainly looses the mantle of a villian if he lives though the day.  I'd actually view them almost exactly as I view DA II rivals: companions with conflicting world-views/ideologies (and I am not saying that just to spite you )

A villian to me is a mastermind behind the conflict which the protagonist endures. Irenicus is a villian, for example. And Irenicus sure as hell isn't a companion material.

I suppose it muddies the matter that I can't really classify DA II protagnost as a hero or a villian either. They are just someone who ended up in a wrong place at a wrong time and kinda ceased the opportunity to make something of themselves through occasionally questionable means.

I do agree that more character interaction would greatly help. When wouldn't it?
Out of all recent companion systems in Bioware games, however, I find that friendship/rivalry is more fleshed out than approval/disaproval of Da:O or "do a mission/win loyalty" system of Me2. I, personally, prefer it.

I'll never object to devs improving on it/adding to it, though .

Modifié par Rheia, 13 avril 2011 - 08:31 .

[9999dmg]

astrallite wrote...

Well 9999dmg's circle happens to involve people he insults directly on a daily basis, so I have to admit I don't have that social life.

...Have we met?

Modifié par 9999dmg, 13 avril 2011 - 08:51 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Niniva wrote...

I agree in a way.

When you look at it, implicitly alot of people are going to take the thought of "Rivalry" in a negative fashion. Something to be avoided unless 'negative' is exactly what they're shooting for. Despite how the devs have been vocal on how it isn't a punishment, its just naturally taken that way. Especially considering its associated color is red. Which we also will naturally associate with something 'bad'.

Call it something else and change the color, and do absolutely nothing else, and that might just help.

QFT.

The color coding and labeling is terrible. Rivalry? Tehy couldn't come up with a naem that better describes it?

They could have just change the name of the bar to "agreement/disagreement" or soemthing... ANYTHING. The way it is is just misleading..as evident by many player trying to avoid Rivalary, thinking it's a bad thing.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Well it could be worse than "Rivalry" Lotion...it could be refered to as the Paradoxical Potential Grumpiness Detecto-Matic Indicator.

[Dannybare]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Niniva wrote...

I agree in a way.

When you look at it, implicitly alot of people are going to take the thought of "Rivalry" in a negative fashion. Something to be avoided unless 'negative' is exactly what they're shooting for. Despite how the devs have been vocal on how it isn't a punishment, its just naturally taken that way. Especially considering its associated color is red. Which we also will naturally associate with something 'bad'.

Call it something else and change the color, and do absolutely nothing else, and that might just help.

QFT.

The color coding and labeling is terrible. Rivalry? Tehy couldn't come up with a naem that better describes it?

They could have just change the name of the bar to "agreement/disagreement" or soemthing... ANYTHING. The way it is is just misleading..as evident by many player trying to avoid Rivalary, thinking it's a bad thing.

Rivalry sounds good to me
Definition of Rival: A person or thing competing with another for the same objective or for superiority in the same field of activity.

Nothing about hatred or wanting to kill someone, just wanting to be better than them.

[randName]

Works well for me, its not perfect - but few of these things are.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Dannybare wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Niniva wrote...

I agree in a way.

When you look at it, implicitly alot of people are going to take the thought of "Rivalry" in a negative fashion. Something to be avoided unless 'negative' is exactly what they're shooting for. Despite how the devs have been vocal on how it isn't a punishment, its just naturally taken that way. Especially considering its associated color is red. Which we also will naturally associate with something 'bad'.

Call it something else and change the color, and do absolutely nothing else, and that might just help.

QFT.

The color coding and labeling is terrible. Rivalry? Tehy couldn't come up with a naem that better describes it?

They could have just change the name of the bar to "agreement/disagreement" or soemthing... ANYTHING. The way it is is just misleading..as evident by many player trying to avoid Rivalary, thinking it's a bad thing.

Rivalry sounds good to me
Definition of Rival: A person or thing competing with another for the same objective or for superiority in the same field of activity.

Nothing about hatred or wanting to kill someone, just wanting to be better than them.

and what "competition" is htere between Hawke and his copmpanions?
There's no "same objective" they'rew competing to compelte first.

Rivalry is most often "friendship where you have to be a bit harsher to your friends to save them from themselves" (Merril, Anders).
I say most often, because rivalry with Aveline or Verric is Hawke being a dickasaurus.

[BakaHaiku]

It's a bit silly imo.

I'd like it better if there are two measurements, like/dislike, agree/disagree. One thing I don't like about the current rivalry system is that if I want to max rivalry I have to be both disagreeable (fine) and obnoxious, and if I want to be friends I have to be both nice and always agree on stuffs.