I'm not a great fan. The rivalry path creates a distinctly jarring sort of metagaming where you're looking for ways to ****** them off and avoiding doing things they might agree with.
I really don't understand why they didn't make it more like Mass Effect where you can accumulate both. As it stands currently, helping Fenris against slavers will make him respect you less if you're his rival.
Does DA2 Rivalry make sense?
Débuté par
Caralampio
, avril 12 2011 11:55
Retour en haut
#52
Posté 13 avril 2011 - 10:25
AlexMBrennan
-
- Members
- 7 002 messages
I think that Rivalry is basically about respecting a character without necessarily going along with their insane schemes (e.g. destroying the evil tomes and not handing Merril the tool as per the keeper's request); it's hardly perfect - you'd really need a distinction between good rivalry (disagreeing on a given topic) and bad rivalry (insulting and patronising people). It's still better than the DA:O style system where one had to agree with some quite silly (from the Warden's POV) beliefs in order to get the romance.
Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 13 avril 2011 - 10:26 .
#53
Posté 13 avril 2011 - 10:30
Teredan
-
- Members
- 552 messages
It's quite a step forward regarding friendship meters. Although in some cases it struck me as little odd.
I'd really like to see how bioware can further improve upon it.
I'd really like to see how bioware can further improve upon it.
#54
Posté 13 avril 2011 - 10:40
JabbaDaHutt30
-
- Members
- 1 008 messages
Caralampio wrote...
Sure you can stretch your mind to find an explanation, something in the "opposites attract each other" dept. But frankly. In any dictionary you can find, a rival is an enemy. An enemy hates you. But in DA2 rivals don't hate you. They don't leave you, they don't backstab you.
source? what dictionary did you use?
Modifié par JabbaDaHutt30, 13 avril 2011 - 10:40 .
#55
Posté 13 avril 2011 - 10:49
smooshmonster
-
- Members
- 51 messages
I agree that it's not a terrible idea altogether, but I do think it's badly implemented. I want to disagree with Merrill's choices but I don't think there's a reason for me to be an obnoxious douche about it, yet the game treats those things the same.
As it is now, I prefer the way it worked in Origins because it was more consistent. The Approval system at least made sense. I knew I needed to be a good leader and I knew I couldn't please everyone. but if I could convince them of my actions they would still stand by me. I have to wonder if gifts were just an afterthought when playtesters complained that their companions were leaving them, because I agree that it does make it too easy to max out approval with them.
From some of the responses here defending it I am wondering if the friend/rivalry system was just another way to make the game easier for non-RPGers?
Once again, I am not really against it, I just think it needs a lot of polish and rethinking to work.
As it is now, I prefer the way it worked in Origins because it was more consistent. The Approval system at least made sense. I knew I needed to be a good leader and I knew I couldn't please everyone. but if I could convince them of my actions they would still stand by me. I have to wonder if gifts were just an afterthought when playtesters complained that their companions were leaving them, because I agree that it does make it too easy to max out approval with them.
From some of the responses here defending it I am wondering if the friend/rivalry system was just another way to make the game easier for non-RPGers?
Once again, I am not really against it, I just think it needs a lot of polish and rethinking to work.
Modifié par smooshmonster, 13 avril 2011 - 10:50 .
#56
Posté 13 avril 2011 - 10:54
mecat
-
- Members
- 3 messages
As stated previously...
Definition of Rival: A person or thing competing with another for the same objective or for superiority in the same field of activity.
Rivalary has absolutely nothing to do with friendship or dislike of another. To borrow from a previous example, a husband and wife may each apply for the same high paying job, they become direct rivals but may well remain married and in love. Two people with an intense dislike for each other may likewise apply for the same job, this does not necessitate that they become best friends, indeed, their dislike may grow.
So, rivalry is not the best word Bio could have used.
Choice and consequence is a corner stone of RPGs and to have any impact the consequences must have meaning ie they must affect some change that is unique, irreversible and important.
DA:O only managed to get this half right (well, 66.6% for all the pedants out there). Approval lead to bonuses, disapproval removed the bonuses and could lead to to a party member leaving, unique and fairly important consequences, but of course all the positives could be regained with a few simple gifts. Still, in the grand scheme of things the final result was left in the hands of the player and the implementation was not so far removed from a reality: as a leader one may sugar coat certain opinions or tend towards the sycophantic in order to maintain the team, accomplish the goal, or as a leader one may decide a certain team member is no longer worth the effort and be happy to see them leave. Good choices, player choices, good RPG.
It is worth pointing out at this point that the game in no way forced the player to act in any specific fashion (1). Those who felt compelled to maximise the team or shag everything in sight were free to do so, their choice, and if they then felt that they had compromised their character and ideals then that is the consequence of their action.
The rivalry system in DA2 appears to remove the consequences: maximise rivalry or friendship and the outcome is much the same, and when the outcomes are the same there is no point left in having the choice apart from adding some superficial veneer. Sadly, this superficiality appears endemic in the current generation of games, as if members of the target market are incapable of accepting responsibility for their actions or facing, and enjoying and making the best of, the consequences of their various choices, it leaves me with the impression of a marketing department white board phrase 'toddler tantrums'.
(1) Those who feel the game did force their hand should ask themselves if their interest lay in 'playing the game' or in 'winning the game'. To my mind, I win a game if I enjoy playing the game, I do not necessarily have to max out at every opportunity, or in some cases even finish the game. Perhaps this is just me.
Definition of Rival: A person or thing competing with another for the same objective or for superiority in the same field of activity.
Rivalary has absolutely nothing to do with friendship or dislike of another. To borrow from a previous example, a husband and wife may each apply for the same high paying job, they become direct rivals but may well remain married and in love. Two people with an intense dislike for each other may likewise apply for the same job, this does not necessitate that they become best friends, indeed, their dislike may grow.
So, rivalry is not the best word Bio could have used.
Choice and consequence is a corner stone of RPGs and to have any impact the consequences must have meaning ie they must affect some change that is unique, irreversible and important.
DA:O only managed to get this half right (well, 66.6% for all the pedants out there). Approval lead to bonuses, disapproval removed the bonuses and could lead to to a party member leaving, unique and fairly important consequences, but of course all the positives could be regained with a few simple gifts. Still, in the grand scheme of things the final result was left in the hands of the player and the implementation was not so far removed from a reality: as a leader one may sugar coat certain opinions or tend towards the sycophantic in order to maintain the team, accomplish the goal, or as a leader one may decide a certain team member is no longer worth the effort and be happy to see them leave. Good choices, player choices, good RPG.
It is worth pointing out at this point that the game in no way forced the player to act in any specific fashion (1). Those who felt compelled to maximise the team or shag everything in sight were free to do so, their choice, and if they then felt that they had compromised their character and ideals then that is the consequence of their action.
The rivalry system in DA2 appears to remove the consequences: maximise rivalry or friendship and the outcome is much the same, and when the outcomes are the same there is no point left in having the choice apart from adding some superficial veneer. Sadly, this superficiality appears endemic in the current generation of games, as if members of the target market are incapable of accepting responsibility for their actions or facing, and enjoying and making the best of, the consequences of their various choices, it leaves me with the impression of a marketing department white board phrase 'toddler tantrums'.
(1) Those who feel the game did force their hand should ask themselves if their interest lay in 'playing the game' or in 'winning the game'. To my mind, I win a game if I enjoy playing the game, I do not necessarily have to max out at every opportunity, or in some cases even finish the game. Perhaps this is just me.
#57
Posté 13 avril 2011 - 10:56
xkg
-
- Members
- 3 744 messages
JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...
Caralampio wrote...
Sure you can stretch your mind to find an explanation, something in the "opposites attract each other" dept. But frankly. In any dictionary you can find, a rival is an enemy. An enemy hates you. But in DA2 rivals don't hate you. They don't leave you, they don't backstab you.
source? what dictionary did you use?
Maybe not ENEMY but RIVAL is opposite of an ALLY - so it is up for your interpretation
here is link:
http://dictionary.re...om/browse/rival
scroll down:
rival
...
—Antonyms
1. ally.
Edit:
And yes it is not about "i Like/Hate him".
You can hate someone but you can be forced to ally somoene you hate (for example: in Stargate SG1 they have allied themselfs with Ba'al to defeat Anubis but they still hate each other)
You can be rival with someone but still you two can like (even love) each other.
Modifié par xkg, 13 avril 2011 - 11:06 .
#58
Posté 13 avril 2011 - 10:56
DraCZeQQ
-
- Members
- 1 075 messages
Why dont we agree that Origins system is dumb with its flaws and that DA2 rivalty system is plain retarded without a drop of common sense ...
Hawke: Yo Fenris, I just got this cute slave and Im gonna fck her, while she is bend down cleaning the floor, and btw. Im evil blood mage and I love it ...
Fenris: I HATE YOU HAWKE! Oh wait, max rivalty ... so I wanna thank you, You are right, I was wrong, thank you for looking out for me. Sex?
yup make sense ... make sense ...
Hawke: Yo Fenris, I just got this cute slave and Im gonna fck her, while she is bend down cleaning the floor, and btw. Im evil blood mage and I love it ...
Fenris: I HATE YOU HAWKE! Oh wait, max rivalty ... so I wanna thank you, You are right, I was wrong, thank you for looking out for me. Sex?
yup make sense ... make sense ...
#59
Posté 13 avril 2011 - 11:07
MDT1
-
- Members
- 646 messages
Though the DAO system wasn't perfect either I think it did a far better job.
My whole playthrough as mage I just cept wondering why Fenris doesn't just leave me?
Also rivalry doesn't mean hate but in reality it tends to ruin friendships/marriages.
My whole playthrough as mage I just cept wondering why Fenris doesn't just leave me?
Also rivalry doesn't mean hate but in reality it tends to ruin friendships/marriages.
#60
Posté 13 avril 2011 - 11:12
astreqwerty
-
- Members
- 491 messages
i was such a **** at aveline and all i got was rival points..completely unrealistic.gimme back the old system
#61
Posté 13 avril 2011 - 11:20
AlexMBrennan
-
- Members
- 7 002 messages
What about DA2 with some common sense house rules ("Hawke cannot initiate or reciprocate romance if he was mean/insulting/etc") then?Why dont we agree that Origins system is dumb with its flaws and that DA2 rivalty system is plain retarded without a drop of common sense ...
Edit: How, exactly is DA better? You either have to go along with the person's hypocrisy (Alistair), kick every dog you come across to make up for mandatory quests (Morrigan) or share outlandishly unrealistic beliefs about a supernatural power and love (Leliana)
Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 13 avril 2011 - 11:27 .
#62
Posté 13 avril 2011 - 11:27
Sabriana
-
- Members
- 4 381 messages
While I do appreciate the out-look of some of the people to whom the friend/rival system makes sense, and I even agree on some points of it, it still is not quite right.
Take Merrill. No, Hawke was never outright mean to her, but she did deny her many things, especially the one thing Merrill was very passionate about. Passionate enough to accept ostracism. All through the game Hawke (and I) expected her to tell Hawke to get the bloody heck out of her life. It never happened, but it should have.
The crowing o_O moment came when Merrill (max rival) stuck with Hawke even though Hawke supported the templars. That was beyond believable, imo. Respect for differing opinions is one thing, blatantly denying a passionate believer their life-goal and foremost ambition is another.
This happens with almost all the companions. After the max is hit, it doesn't matter if friend or rival, they will stick with Hawke not matter how much her actions and beliefs go against theirs. In RL I could perhaps try to trust a friend, because I know him/her. I would never do that with a rival.
Take Merrill. No, Hawke was never outright mean to her, but she did deny her many things, especially the one thing Merrill was very passionate about. Passionate enough to accept ostracism. All through the game Hawke (and I) expected her to tell Hawke to get the bloody heck out of her life. It never happened, but it should have.
The crowing o_O moment came when Merrill (max rival) stuck with Hawke even though Hawke supported the templars. That was beyond believable, imo. Respect for differing opinions is one thing, blatantly denying a passionate believer their life-goal and foremost ambition is another.
This happens with almost all the companions. After the max is hit, it doesn't matter if friend or rival, they will stick with Hawke not matter how much her actions and beliefs go against theirs. In RL I could perhaps try to trust a friend, because I know him/her. I would never do that with a rival.
#63
Posté 13 avril 2011 - 12:10
JabbaDaHutt30
-
- Members
- 1 008 messages
xkg wrote...
JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...
Caralampio wrote...
Sure you can stretch your mind to find an explanation, something in the "opposites attract each other" dept. But frankly. In any dictionary you can find, a rival is an enemy. An enemy hates you. But in DA2 rivals don't hate you. They don't leave you, they don't backstab you.
source? what dictionary did you use?
Maybe not ENEMY but RIVAL is opposite of an ALLY - so it is up for your interpretation
here is link:
http://dictionary.re...om/browse/rival
scroll down:
rival
...
—Antonyms
1. ally.
Edit:
And yes it is not about "i Like/Hate him".
You can hate someone but you can be forced to ally somoene you hate (for example: in Stargate SG1 they have allied themselfs with Ba'al to defeat Anubis but they still hate each other)
You can be rival with someone but still you two can like (even love) each other.
there are plenty of times when rivals can also be allies. they are not always... mutually exclusive; they oppose each other in some cases, but work together on the things they agree with. a rival outside a rivalry may be an ally in another battle... or something like that. Oh nevermind, I'm sure you get what I'm trying to say!
Modifié par JabbaDaHutt30, 13 avril 2011 - 12:12 .
#64
Posté 13 avril 2011 - 01:42
Caralampio
-
- Members
- 372 messages
The typical way of explaining it is as a "good sport" type of rivalry. We're rivals on the football field but friends out here. I could understand that, but my point is, that isn't how it works in the game. I offend someone, he gets rivalry points (logical), but that rivalry actually is beneficial to our relationship and makes us closer friends (illogical).
Suppose a boy likes a girl. Girl is a rabid democrat, boy a fanatic republican. Girl is atheist, boy is devout mormon. Girl likes rock, boy likes classical music. Girl likes cats, boy likes dogs. You could call them rivals, but they might well be friends, complement each other, fall in love even, right? This is rivalry as it is supposed to be in the game.
But to be friends you need to be nice, even if there are differences. If the boy goes about preaching all day to the girl, burns an effigy of Obama in front of her, turns off the radio if she is enjoying rock music, and strangles her cat in front of her, that is not very conducive to "friendly rivalry" right? This is rivalry as it really works in the game. You can even plan ahead; I want Aveline to be my rival in this game so I will offend her in every possible way. So she will end up being my very special rival-friend, instead of putting a knife in my ribs as would be the normal reaction.
Suppose a boy likes a girl. Girl is a rabid democrat, boy a fanatic republican. Girl is atheist, boy is devout mormon. Girl likes rock, boy likes classical music. Girl likes cats, boy likes dogs. You could call them rivals, but they might well be friends, complement each other, fall in love even, right? This is rivalry as it is supposed to be in the game.
But to be friends you need to be nice, even if there are differences. If the boy goes about preaching all day to the girl, burns an effigy of Obama in front of her, turns off the radio if she is enjoying rock music, and strangles her cat in front of her, that is not very conducive to "friendly rivalry" right? This is rivalry as it really works in the game. You can even plan ahead; I want Aveline to be my rival in this game so I will offend her in every possible way. So she will end up being my very special rival-friend, instead of putting a knife in my ribs as would be the normal reaction.
#65
Posté 13 avril 2011 - 02:03
thermalware
-
- Members
- 46 messages
The Rival system in DA2 is just dumb. In DA:O (and to some extent ME2) I put an effort into characters I wanted to like me, and not much into others I didn't like (e.g. sten). Rivalries and friendships add another dimension to the story telling because it can change how you play your character. When there are no consequences and it's just a number that's plain boring.
#66
Posté 13 avril 2011 - 02:27
Cutlass Jack
-
- Members
- 8 091 messages
Sabriana wrote...
This happens with almost all the companions. After the max is hit, it doesn't matter if friend or rival, they will stick with Hawke not matter how much her actions and beliefs go against theirs. In RL I could perhaps try to trust a friend, because I know him/her. I would never do that with a rival.
Not entirely true. Some companions have lines they will not cross. Some actions they won't forgive you for regardless of where on the meter you are. Which is more realistic.
If you let Anders live after murdering the Grand Cleric you will lose Sebastian. He doesn't decide he's okay with it because he's got a full meter. Isabela won't decide she's okay with you turning her over to the Arishok. Nor obviously Fenris if you turn him over to Denarius.
Merril sticking with you if you go Templar isn't such a close personal issue for her. At least not to the same level as Anders. She may greatly dislike the option but may also decide to trust your choice since you seem to be more worldly than her. She's really bad at seeing nuances and knows this.
---
Anyway, back on topic I loved the Friendship/Rivalry system. I hated that in Origins you had to purposely game your conversations to always say what your companion wanted to hear. Otherwise risking permanetly losing them or being unable to romance them. Gives you motivation to play the personality you want to play and watch how it unfolds.
Could it be better? Absolutely. Anything could be really.
#67
Posté 13 avril 2011 - 02:34
Loc'n'lol
-
- Members
- 3 594 messages
Wulfram wrote...
I really don't understand why they didn't make it more like Mass Effect where you can accumulate both.
Yes, this. I liked the system, but this would have been better, being able to accumulate (and lose points) in both, but not necessarily in correlation, ie : in some cases you can gain friendship without losing rivalry and vice versa, or if you're just being a dick you may lose from both.
#68
Posté 13 avril 2011 - 02:34
Mantaal
-
- Members
- 442 messages
I think it makes no sence.
I mean, the Group members you have in DA2 only have very little reason to be with you anyways. They could all just go away and do thier own thing. they need your help every 3 years and thats it.
The only reason they stay with Hawke would be if they are good friends.
But if you tell Fenris he is a whiny **** you get rivaly points and he still stay with you? If you disagree everything Anders says he still stay with you? If you tell Isabella she is an ugly moron she still stay with you? They just get Rivaly points and dont like you but thats it?
I cant see any sence in that.
Isabella "Please Hawke help me or im dead!"
Hawke" No i have no interest helping you"
+ 20 Rivalry Isabella
Isabella "Ok just lets move along and kill those waves of badits together!"
wtf?
I mean, the Group members you have in DA2 only have very little reason to be with you anyways. They could all just go away and do thier own thing. they need your help every 3 years and thats it.
The only reason they stay with Hawke would be if they are good friends.
But if you tell Fenris he is a whiny **** you get rivaly points and he still stay with you? If you disagree everything Anders says he still stay with you? If you tell Isabella she is an ugly moron she still stay with you? They just get Rivaly points and dont like you but thats it?
I cant see any sence in that.
Isabella "Please Hawke help me or im dead!"
Hawke" No i have no interest helping you"
+ 20 Rivalry Isabella
Isabella "Ok just lets move along and kill those waves of badits together!"
wtf?
Modifié par Mantaal, 13 avril 2011 - 02:35 .
#69
Posté 13 avril 2011 - 02:40
Icy Magebane
-
- Members
- 7 317 messages
The system is kind of bogus... personally, I would have liked the option to "fire" some of the companions whenever I want. For the most part, you're stuck dealing with these people, and if you become "rivals," they just insult and argue with you from time to time. Befriending them can be equally annoying, because you wind up metagaming and taking specific people on specific missions simply to earn the most points. It's a little frustrating... I mean, I don't like approval systems in general. In ME2, you do a loyalty mission and that's the end of it... no constant interruptions during conversations with NPCs, and no "+5 rivalry" because you took a job they don't like... bah. We're stuck with it. I just hope they don't add this crap to ME3.
And why in the hell do certain companions give you rivalry when you ask to be paid for doing work? If they bought their own equipment, that would be one thing, but Hawke handles the finances... would they rather use the same damn sword for the whole game, or whatever crap we find on bandits, simply because their annoying morality dictates we should be doing this stuff for free?
Yeah... I hate approval systems...
Uh... looks like I didn't even answer the original question... yeah, "rivalry" makes no sense, specifically because of what Sabriana posted regarding the endgame. Maxing out the rivalry bar shouldn't allow characters to simply forget that you're doing something completely against their code of morality... It might make sense for friendship, but wouldn't a rival be much more likely to oppose you? I don't know... the overall system is clumsy.... Sebastian's was well-designed though. It related more to his viewpoint regarding his role in the world, but even then, he ... you know, I don't want to spoil anything... let me just stop there and say it was well done.
And why in the hell do certain companions give you rivalry when you ask to be paid for doing work? If they bought their own equipment, that would be one thing, but Hawke handles the finances... would they rather use the same damn sword for the whole game, or whatever crap we find on bandits, simply because their annoying morality dictates we should be doing this stuff for free?
Yeah... I hate approval systems...
Uh... looks like I didn't even answer the original question... yeah, "rivalry" makes no sense, specifically because of what Sabriana posted regarding the endgame. Maxing out the rivalry bar shouldn't allow characters to simply forget that you're doing something completely against their code of morality... It might make sense for friendship, but wouldn't a rival be much more likely to oppose you? I don't know... the overall system is clumsy.... Sebastian's was well-designed though. It related more to his viewpoint regarding his role in the world, but even then, he ... you know, I don't want to spoil anything... let me just stop there and say it was well done.
Modifié par Icy Magebane, 13 avril 2011 - 02:48 .
#70
Posté 13 avril 2011 - 02:48
Sabriana
-
- Members
- 4 381 messages
Cutlass Jack wrote...
Sabriana wrote...
This happens with almost all the companions. After the max is hit, it doesn't matter if friend or rival, they will stick with Hawke not matter how much her actions and beliefs go against theirs. In RL I could perhaps try to trust a friend, because I know him/her. I would never do that with a rival.
Not entirely true. Some companions have lines they will not cross. Some actions they won't forgive you for regardless of where on the meter you are. Which is more realistic.
If you let Anders live after murdering the Grand Cleric you will lose Sebastian. He doesn't decide he's okay with it because he's got a full meter. Isabela won't decide she's okay with you turning her over to the Arishok. Nor obviously Fenris if you turn him over to Denarius.
Merril sticking with you if you go Templar isn't such a close personal issue for her. At least not to the same level as Anders. She may greatly dislike the option but may also decide to trust your choice since you seem to be more worldly than her. She's really bad at seeing nuances and knows this.
---
Anyway, back on topic I loved the Friendship/Rivalry system. I hated that in Origins you had to purposely game your conversations to always say what your companion wanted to hear. Otherwise risking permanetly losing them or being unable to romance them. Gives you motivation to play the personality you want to play and watch how it unfolds.
Could it be better? Absolutely. Anything could be really.
Well, as for Sebastian, don't have him, won't get him, so for me the issue is really a non-issue. I wouldn't expect a companion to return to my side if I hand them over to their enemies.
Fenris is not able to come back, I can't say why, it would be to much of a spoiler. Isabela should be able to come back and kick the living day-lights out of the PC.
Merrill is a mage, and a blood mage at that. She has a sort of "kinship" to both kind of mages. She should be saying: "I'll have no hand in this, this is your cause. You denied me mine, I'll deny to help you in yours."
Anders is dead in my finished play-through, and he will be again as soon as get there in my second one. He is also the one and only NPC with his little arrow right in the middle. No friend, no rival, just an annoying pest as far as Hawke is concerned. I also read somewhere (don't ask me where, but I know I've read it) that Anders can be persuaded to join in against the templars if fully rivalled and romanced. However, the game bugs out on that one.
I would applaud the 'there is a line I won't cross' option available for the companions. Not where they are forced to leave due to being given away, but because the PC really went too far.
#71
Posté 13 avril 2011 - 02:50
Aaleel
-
- Members
- 4 427 messages
I didn't really like the whole friendship/rivalry thing. If you constantly do something that goes against another person's beliefs it makes more sense that they would eventually walk out on you or turn on you. What are you doing to inspire loyalty in them. Why would they let you romance them. Why would you get some kind of bonus from them, it makes no sense. There should be penalties.
People say I don't think you should have to say certain things to be able to romance someone. If you're trying to date someone and you say and do things that go against their beliefs, are they going to continue dating you, no. People want to role play and have choices matters, but only when it suits them.
People say I don't think you should have to say certain things to be able to romance someone. If you're trying to date someone and you say and do things that go against their beliefs, are they going to continue dating you, no. People want to role play and have choices matters, but only when it suits them.
#72
Posté 13 avril 2011 - 02:52
Cutlass Jack
-
- Members
- 8 091 messages
Mantaal wrote...
I think it makes no sence.
I mean, the Group members you have in DA2 only have very little reason to be with you anyways. They could all just go away and do thier own thing. they need your help every 3 years and thats it.
The only reason they stay with Hawke would be if they are good friends.
Think of it like being a regular on a game forum. There are people you recognize who you disagree with on nearly every point, whom you'll never get to change their mind. Sure you can go somewhere else and do your own thing. Like play games you enjoy. And yet you keep returning every day because you find the jousting entertaining.
Forums would be incredibly dull if everyone got along on them. As would real life friendhips. You can have friends who blindly seem to agree with everything you say, and other friends who aren't afraid to challenge your opinion.
#73
Posté 13 avril 2011 - 03:17
Saephy
-
- Members
- 61 messages
I personally really like the Friendship/Rivalry system and find it to be one of the most interesting features in the game, but my interpretation of it might differ from yours.
I don`t see it as necessarily being enemies or competitors, but rather that you are friends who are very different and as such are prone to disagreements.
Occasionally, as other posters mention, perhaps also actual dislike, yet a respectful one.
I do consider that you can disagree with a friend, and agree with a "rival", but the Friend/Rival meter is more of a general summary of your relationship.
They could have named it "Friend that you don`t always see eye to eye with" or "Friend that disagrees with you a lot of the time but still respect you" or something similar, but that´s less catchy.
Aside from that I´ll just get behind Rheia and DreGregoire if they don`t mind, in their original interpretations.
In short, the Rivalry makes an awful lot of sense to me, and is something I wish they had implemented sooner and more widely.
I don`t see it as necessarily being enemies or competitors, but rather that you are friends who are very different and as such are prone to disagreements.
Occasionally, as other posters mention, perhaps also actual dislike, yet a respectful one.
I do consider that you can disagree with a friend, and agree with a "rival", but the Friend/Rival meter is more of a general summary of your relationship.
They could have named it "Friend that you don`t always see eye to eye with" or "Friend that disagrees with you a lot of the time but still respect you" or something similar, but that´s less catchy.
Aside from that I´ll just get behind Rheia and DreGregoire if they don`t mind, in their original interpretations.
In short, the Rivalry makes an awful lot of sense to me, and is something I wish they had implemented sooner and more widely.
Modifié par Saephy, 13 avril 2011 - 03:18 .
#74
Posté 13 avril 2011 - 03:22
Monica83
-
- Members
- 1 849 messages
The new system is quite strange..... I miss the party interaction problems with different members ala Baldur's gate but with this new direction tend to streamlize so much things...For example in baldur's gate 2 if you have a bad interaction with companions or your character is very different from them.. They can betray or attack you.. In dragon age you can be a deplomatic guy... a sarcastic jerk.. or a aggressive ass... And they still follow you.... Why?... Simple.....
Less roleplay choice in favour of more gameplay elements... That's its just for... tards..
Less roleplay choice in favour of more gameplay elements... That's its just for... tards..
#75
Posté 13 avril 2011 - 03:27
lobi
-
- Members
- 2 096 messages
ThisMonica83 wrote...
The new system is quite strange..... I miss the party interaction problems with different members ala Baldur's gate but with this new direction tend to streamlize so much things...For example in baldur's gate 2 if you have a bad interaction with companions or your character is very different from them.. They can betray or attack you.. In dragon age you can be a deplomatic guy... a sarcastic jerk.. or a aggressive ass... And they still follow you.... Why?... Simple.....
Less roleplay choice in favour of more gameplay elements... That's its just for... tards..
(is why I loved being bad during 'The Ashes' quest in DAO)
Modifié par lobi, 13 avril 2011 - 03:29 .
