204 réponses à ce sujet

[xkg]

i dont want to pick any sides in this conflict but
Merill says "I hate you . I want you get out of my house and i dont want to see you again" - that means ... she hate me ? i think she do

Beside that 2 of you need to go out and catch some fresh air
Your Relationship metter is way down the scale about hmm Friendship/Rivalry -90

Few more words and you 2 gonna hate each other - is that what you realy want and came here for ?


PS. dont bash me in any case - English isnt my primary

Modifié par xkg, 13 avril 2011 - 04:20 .

[Monica83]

Ryzaki wrote...

Monica83 wrote...

Ok now this is defend bad implemented things climbing on the glass with nails and theets: Useless

mmhmm. And this is where your opinion uttery fails. You haven't played the game. And I daresay you haven't even bother watching any youtube vids of rivalry interactions. 

There is no hatred. 

There is agitaition. And butting heads. There is no "I HATE YOU GO DIE IN A FIRE!" that you seem to believe. Closest to that is Anders' "I wanna strangle you sometimes." and Aveline's beatdown. But both are said in moments of frustration. 

Fenris snarls and takes offense at all your gifts but there is no hatred of Hawke. Just agitation and irritation. 

With the rivalry climax that agitation and irritation becomes a friendship (one born of butting heads) if you make the right decisions. It maxes out rivalry but it is a form of friendship. You'd know that if you did the rivalry. 

That said I do see the agitation about the douche options sometimes leading to rivalry (but there's some douche options that lead to friendship) so eh. 

Again? I writed an accurate rewiew in this forum on the game.. feel free to think what you want but that don't interest me... You haven't played the game because you have not registered it its not an excuse...

[Aaleel]

Too many things make no sense.

If I'm constantly siding with templars. Andres is just going to say 'Okay, I'm still with you,' no.

Aveline is responsible for law enforcement in the city, and you constantly break the law and do underhanded things right in front of her, and she'll continue to follow you, no.

What is inspiring the loyalty. In DA:O if someone didn't agree with what you were doing or you hadn't earned their loyalty they would not let you romance them, turn on you when ???? hit the fan, or outright attack you if you did something that went against their most core beliefs. That is realistic.

In this game they will still romance you even though they believe in nothing you stand for, and more so, they'll still follow you into battle even if they don't believe in your cause.

Modifié par Aaleel, 13 avril 2011 - 04:28 .

[ejoslin]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

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 ...

What about DA2 with some common sense house rules ("Hawke cannot initiate or reciprocate romance if he was mean/insulting/etc") then?

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)

Huh, I thought both Morrigan and Zevran were pretty true to life.  You could go against everything the two of them believed in, but as long as you made it up with lots of jewelry (Morrigan) or sex (Zevran), they could gloss over those small details.

/flame proof suit on!

[Ryzaki]

Monica83 wrote...
Again? I writed an accurate rewiew in this forum on the game.. feel free to think what you want but that don't interest me... You haven't played the game because you have not registered it its not an excuse...

An accurate review when you're not even aware of how the rivalry system works? 

And yes it is a reasoning. Why should I believe you own the game without it being registered and not knowing how the system you're calling "retarded." works? 

[Ryzaki]

ejoslin wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

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 ...

What about DA2 with some common sense house rules ("Hawke cannot initiate or reciprocate romance if he was mean/insulting/etc") then?

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)

Huh, I thought both Morrigan and Zevran were pretty true to life.  You could go against everything the two of them believed in, but as long as you made it up with lots of jewelry (Morrigan) or sex (Zevran), they could gloss over those small details.

/flame proof suit on!

I could hug you right now. 

[Tirigon]

Aaleel wrote...

Too many things make no sense.

If I'm constantly siding with templars. Andres is just going to say 'Okay, I'm still with you,' no.

Aveline is responsible for law enforcement in the city, and you constantly break the law and do underhanded things right in front of her, and she'll continue to follow you, no.

What is inspiring the loyalty. In DA:O if someone didn't agree with what you were doing or you hadn't earned their loyalty they would not let you romance them, turn on you when ???? hit the fan, or outright attack you if you did something that went against their most core beliefs. That is realistic.

In this game they will still romance you even though they believe in nothing you stand for, and more so, they'll still follow you into battle even if they don't believe in your cause.

Exactly.

Well, at least there is a rather easy way to avoid this stupid system: Just don´t go down the rival route. It doesn´t even make sense.
For example, if I constantly ****** off Merrill and Anders by being anti-mage, I wouldn´t want an abomination and a bloodmage behind me in battle anyways.
If I intend to break the law, I must either be a very bad roleplayer, or roleplay a complete TardHawke to take Aveline with me.
Etc....

Only thing that is a bit of an exception is Fenris because in his case his prejudices are justified and may be changed. But even in his case I would only take him with me as pro-mage if I am otherwise his friend and try to show him not all mages are as he thinks.

[Ryzaki]

Aaleel wrote...

Too many things make no sense.

If I'm constantly siding with templars. Andres is just going to say 'Okay, I'm still with you,' no.

Aveline is responsible for law enforcement in the city, and you constantly break the law and do underhanded things right in front of her, and she'll continue to follow you, no.

What is inspiring the loyalty. In DA:O if someone didn't agree with what you were doing or you hadn't earned their loyalty they would not let you romance them, turn on you when ???? hit the fan, or outright attack you if you did something that went against their most core beliefs. That is realistic.

In this game they will still romance you even though they believe in nothing you stand for, and more so, they'll still follow you into battle even if they don't believe in your cause.

When those mages are untrained and have no where else to go (Faynriel brings up the Dalish but them not accepting him is very likely not to mention it brings attention to the Dalish and can get them in trouble with the templars) are plain dangerous (Grace and co). ....I think those are the only mages you really hand over to the templars. Anything else is just saying how dangerous mages are. 

And Anders isn't an idiot. If he stops being useful to Hawke what's to stop Hawke from turning him in? Hawke knows he's an abomination. The templars don't. Self preservation is inspiring the loyalty. The mages he can't help with Hawke but he can still help others when Hawke's not around. Later on in game knowing Hawke is the only thing that stops him from being locked in the gallows. If you dont know anything about the Anders rivalry ending don't bother trying to say it doesn't make sense. 

Fenris has Danarius to stop. He stays with Hawk because even though they're not friends Hawke helps him. Hawke helps him track down Hadriana and even though they may argue they still talk. Hawke is there for him. 

Aveline is in the guard and has feels a kinship with Hawke since they escaped the blight together. She gets a little irritated at Hawke's prodding and making her question herself (as well as breaking the law) but at the end of the day she and Hawke can rely on each other. (And if you make the wrong choices I believe she is the only one whose rivary breaks and she just can't stand you). 
Varric...I can't seem to max out varric on rivalry. He keeps giving me random friendship points.  But even so you're highly influential and people want to know about you. Why not stick around and get juicy info? 

Merrill's rivalry is about you stopping her from summoning a demon. You in the end take responsibility for her stupidity and she ends up with a dead keeper. You helped her through that. She needs your aid before that. You help her so she has no reason to leave. She's also another apostate that benefits from knowing you. 

Your sibling is your sibling. 

Isabela...on rivalry she looks at you and sees a better version of herself (even in douche mode rivarly Hawke is a helpful person (that's the only way you're maxing her rivalry) who is willing to lend aid without payment). And the person Hawke thinks she could be. She comes back because Hawke's good will and helpful nature rubbed off on her and made her self reflect on her own actions. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 13 avril 2011 - 04:48 .

[Heather Cline]

This is more along the lines of the influence system from KoTOR 2. Where you could influence certain characters to be good or evil depending on your actions. It's not perfect but it's interesting. Does it actually work? Dunno. Does it make sense? I can't really say for sure. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. All I know is that it's there and it isn't going away for this game at least.

[Fieryeel]

xkg wrote...

i dont want to pick any sides in this conflict but
Merill says "I hate you . I want you get out of my house and i dont want to see you again" - that means ... she hate me ? i think she do

Beside that 2 of you need to go out and catch some fresh air
Your Relationship metter is way down the scale about hmm Friendship/Rivalry -90

Few more words and you 2 gonna hate each other - is that what you realy want and came here for ?


PS. dont bash me in any case - English isnt my primary

Merrill understands deep down that you denying her the Arulin'home was also your way of protecting her.

She doesn't agree with you, she even hates you, but she does acknowledge you do it to protect her, and she respects and even comes to love you for it.

[Persephone]

Mecher3k 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.

It's impossible to lose party members unless you are too stupid to use a thing called gifts. Oh wait...

Yes, the "Have a gift or two!" -> "Hmmm, you're hawt!" system in DAO had SO much depth and immersion. /Sarcasm

[Persephone]

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.

Neither. It's absolutely correct. None of the two patches are necessary to achieve this.

[Tirigon]

Fieryeel wrote...


Merrill understands deep down that you denying her the Arulin'home was also your way of protecting her.

She doesn't agree with you, she even hates you, but she does acknowledge you do it to protect her, and she respects and even comes to love you for it.

You know, it would be so much better - and actually make sense - if there were TWO meters.

One is for Friendship / dislike, the other for agreeing or disagreeing with their worldview.

Let´s use Merrill as example:

Refusing her quest nets you "differring opinions" points.

Then you talk about WHY you refused to help her. If you explain that you worry for her and want to protect her from herself, you can gain friendship and possibly even a rival romance in the long run.
If, on the other hand, you tell her she´s a stupid wh*re and should stop dabbling in bloodmagic like a f*cking ******, you gain Dislike points and eventually she might even turn on you / leave you.



On the other hand, Helping her gains you "shared worldview" points.
Then talking about it, you can explain your reasons. If you are nice and all you gain friendship and may end up as good friends or lovers.
If you tell her you don´t care for her quest but you hope to get a reward, or a chance to gain power for yourselves, or you say you think she´s doing the right thing here but don´t like her, you gain dislike points and - depending on your other conversations - she either may start to respect you, even though you are rivals, but united by a common goal and worldview, or she may leave you EVEN THOUGH you have the same attitude towards magic, elves and whatever simply because you don´t get along on a human level.

[Miashi]

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.

And why not? What's so bad about playing an hypocrit character? I'm pretty sure a lot of people irl are hypocrit to avoid confrontation or lose allies.

[Ryzaki]

Miashi 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.

And why not? What's so bad about playing an hypocrit character? I'm pretty sure a lot of people irl are hypocrit to avoid confrontation or lose allies.

So you can play your hypocrite by doing all friendship. 

And I can play my non-hypocrite by doing friendship and rivalry. 

See everyone wins!  

Well except those who want to force people to play the way they play and frankly I don't care about that lot. 

[Persephone]

Miashi 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.

And why not? What's so bad about playing an hypocrit character? I'm pretty sure a lot of people irl are hypocrit to avoid confrontation or lose allies.

It's being forced (People who complain about DAII being too linear should get this) into being a hypocrite or being forced into believing that the ah so flawless DAO companions are THAT shallow that in only takes 3-4 gifts to make them forget terrible things you said or did or that it takes 3-4 gifts to get someone to be attracted to you. Without Feastday gifts, romances could be almost over after Lothering and effectively over after Recruiting quest Nr. 1. (I.E. Leliana) There are valid complaints about DAII but IMO the Friendship/Rivalry System beats the rigid "Approval" system by a mile.

Modifié par Persephone, 13 avril 2011 - 05:15 .

[atheelogos]

I like it. Plus i makes a lot more sense than the dislike in DAO

[Abispa]

None of the relationships in Bioware games are completely natural, but I applaud them experimenting with a new system. In ME, Ashley, Liara, and Kaidan all light up with that "oh, I'm in love!" look the first time you say anything nice to them. *shudder* In DA:O, ESPECIALLY if you have all the DLCs, it was way too easy to get 100% approval from someone who should hate your guts. Play a game as a stereotypical paladin and Morrigan loves you because you gamed the system by buying her gifts all the time. Pathetic.

The DA2 system isn't perfect, but I enjoy it a hell of lot more. It provides a more convincing illusion that the characters have lives of their own and aren't just standing around for you to say the right thing to get them into bed. Depending on how I play my Hawke, I've been pleasantly surprised at how I don't have a favorite LI, but my individual Hawke does. Heck, I've even had a couple of play-throughs where I didn't romance anyone, or where a character challenged me, sometimes violently, and didn't feel ripped off.

[Miashi]

Persephone wrote...

It's being forced (People who complain about DAII being too linear should get this) into being a hypocrite or being forced into believing that the ah so flawless DAO companions are THAT shallow that in only takes 3-4 gifts to make them forget terrible things you said or did or that it takes 3-4 gifts to get someone to be attracted to you. Without Feastday gifts, romances could be almost over after Lothering and effectively over after Recruiting quest Nr. 1. (I.E. Leliana) There are valid complaints about DAII but IMO the Friendship/Rivalry System beats the rigid "Approval" system by a mile.

Sure, I'll concede that rivalry serves a purpose when you want to maintain your companion circle in the game, but at the same time, it's a double edged sword; a lot more characters have events where friendship or rival status will make them stay or leave the game. I'm talking more precisely about the endgame. If you're neutral with a character and you pick the side they are inherantly against, they're gone. If you're neutral with characters in DA:O, most likely they will not do special favors, but will stick with you.

That's why I prefer the friendships in DA:O and preceeding games. But I'm not saying it's perfect. I like Shepard's renegade and paragon options because they're mostly character-centric.

[Abispa]

I think too many people are thinking that a 100% rivalry means they hate you. From my experience, the higher the rivalry rating, the more likely they person who disagrees with you will at least understand where you're coming from. It's kind of like me and my girlfriend, she's usually right -- and I hate it -- so I wind up going along with her. It's not perfect and it still needs more work, but I'm curious to see what modifications they've done with the system in ME3.

[17thknight]

It's idiotic. KotoR 2's system made much more sense. As did Baldur's Gate 2.

[Persephone]

17thknight wrote...

It's idiotic. KotoR 2's system made much more sense. As did Baldur's Gate 2.

Baldur's Gate 2 had no system to speak of. (Much as I love that game)

And thanks for reminding me of the fact that we gals were stuck with Anomen.

[17thknight]

Persephone wrote...

Baldur's Gate 2 had no system to speak of. (Much as I love that game)

Oh really?

Get a reputation at 1 and see what happens with Aeirie, Minsc, Jaheira, etc.

Or get a maxed reputation and see what happens with Viconia.

[Abispa]

Hmm, Baldur's Gate II is a favorite of mine, but I've actually started up a game two months ago and cringed at the way EVERY female character started fighting over me. Hell, all you had to do was tell someone you weren't interested and who ever was left standing was your personal love slave. One thing I have to admit, though, is that the scripts for some of the cat-fights featured some awesome low blows.