44 réponses à ce sujet

[Revakeane]

Ok, I just posted this under the Constructive Criticism thread, but I was wondering how everyone else felt about the new relationship system in DA2.

One thing I didn't like about DA2 was how our companions, while very
well written and definitely entertaining, were quite extremist in their
views and did not let up on them unless in very specific circumstances.
This kinda infected my party dynamic because I liked using Fenris,
Anders and Merrill, but I couldn't stand having them all in the same
party because of the constant mean-spirited bickering. This was not the
funny bickering between Morrigan and Allistair in DAO... it seemed like
downright confrontational and bullying at times, especially with regards
to how Fenris and Anders speak to Merrill. I get that the issues and
tensions in Hawke's storyline are polarizing, and I admire how each character's views inform their identities and storylines, but I think that such
extreme dichotomies between group members (and the lack of
reconcilliation between said dichotomies over a period of 10 years) is
just depressing and somewhat unrealistic. Considering all the trials and
tribulations they go through as a group, and the uncountable number of
times everyone saves/heals everyone else, I would expect my companions
to be able to come to some sort of compromise or understanding. Perhaps this wasn't
possible with Anders/Justice with his possession and everything, but it would have been nice to see
non-possessed companions show the signs of how living and fighting and
ultimately surviving with one another through the years has created
strong relationships. I would think that as companions, they would have been able to get to some middle-ground over the years, or at least agree to disagree and be civil about it.

That being said, my favorite companions are Isabela and Varric, because they are able to hang on to their values and identities and have strong beliefs while disagreeing with other characters. That's cool and the kind of dynamic I'd want to foster in my party. I know everything can't be peaceful and flowers and whatever, but the constant antagonisms got quite grating at times, and I just wanted to turn around and give my companions a TIME OUT. And later a hug-out. But it never came to pass, alas.

I know that Hawke can eventually change
their minds if he fully pursues a rivalry path, but I think this tactic
is lacking in subtlety and nuance. As a friend, I would think that I
would still be able to change someone's mind, without resorting to
completely disagreeing with them every chance I get. Similarly, i would
think that I was able to disagree/agree with a companion in degrees.
Like with Anders, I sympathize with the mages, and I wish things were
better for them. But I don't agree with his revolutionary zeal or with
the notion that mages were necessarily slaves. It would have been nice
to develop this relationship along these lines, rather than having to
fully agree/disagree with him to get full friendship/rivalry points. I
preferred it in DAO (although I know that it is not necessarily better),
that you could disagree with Morrigan on the concept of love, but still
pursue a loving relationship with her, and agree with her when it came
to issues like survival and power.

The thing is, I loved the
companions in DAO and DA2. But in DA2 with its extremely significant and
polarizing issues, I would have loved even more to be able to forge a compromise
with my companions, most of whom I'm very fond of. It kinda sucked that
it had to be either one way or the other, and it didn't accurately
reflect how I felt about the subjects in question, or how I wanted my
relationships with my companions to develop. Like how in most instances and quests I would have chosen the option that maximized Anders' friendship points with me, but I still wanted to point out that he was becoming increasingly irrational and way too over-the-top in his quest for Justice. I wanted the Rivalry ending while pursuing the Friendship path, in other words.

I'm not saying that
the Friendship/Rivalry system is bad, but perhaps more nuance could be
added into it? Along with the possibility of being able to change your
companions' minds in terms of degree rather than kind?

Thanks for reading Bioware. I seriously hope DA3 trumps them all.

[88mphSlayer]

pros:

-you no longer feel like you have to coddle your companions because you're afraid they'll walk out on you

cons:

-they'll never walk out on you based on what you say to them

/is that a catch 22?

[IanPolaris]

I basically agree. Why you get friendship or rivalry should count for more than it does. Take Fenris, for example: If I become Friends with Fenris despite earning rivalry for being pro-mage (or even a mage myself), the result should be different than if I were a overt slave-trader and dishonorable person that happened to back the Templars every time (and a romance shouldn't be possible in the later case).

Ther are a few places it matters (such as selling Feynriel's soul to Torpor kills any chance of an Anders romance), but those are few and far inbetween.

More nuance is needed.

-Polaris

[Revakeane]

Crap, my post came out weird. How do I fix this?

[Iosev]

I'm not sure how realistic these changes would be, but here is what I would like to see:

1. Get rid of the meters, and instead, relationships should be shaped largely by dialogues/decisions.

For example, let's say that your character lets a mage get away from the Circle. Instead of merely getting rivalry points, Fenris gets a particular "plot flag" that signals to him that you value magi freedom. In turn, any following dialogue between you and Fenris regarding magi will be based around you disagreeing on that subject.

Then, let's say that you let some slavers escape. This activates another plot flag with Fenris that alters dialogue between the two of you, indicating that you tolerate slavery, which in turn may perhaps have even harsher consequences (such as Fenris eventually leaving you).

Overall, having different "plot flags" for each issue helps create more multi-faceted relationships between you and your companions.

2.  Allow companions  to "know" of your decisions, even if they are not currently grouped.

For example, if you free some slaves without Fenris in the party, he would still know that you did. Contrastingly, if you let some slavers continue their business, he would know even if you took him out of the party. This way, players wouldn't have to meta-game so much with friendship/rivalry points (and constantly switching people in and out of the party), and just make decisions based on their character's particular personality.  In addition, your actions would carry more weight with your companions, because they would be affected regardless of whether or not they are in your party during a particular quest.

Obviously, I don't know how feasible this is, but I would love to see something like this done. With that said, I enjoyed the friendship and rivalry differences. I'm on my third playthrough, and am still discovering differences in dialogue, which I think is pretty damn amazing.

Modifié par arcelonious, 03 mai 2011 - 04:46 .

[Wulfram]

Either the friendship/rivalry should be more strictly focused on one issue, or you should be allowed to accumulate points on both sides, like Paragon/Renegade in Mass Effect.

The current situation where you have to disagree with someone on everything for them to respect you is pretty silly.

I think Fenris and Anders being jerks to each other and Merrill is a seperate issue, though.

[erynnar]

I really despise it now that I had to take Fenris on missions and deliberately make choices I wouldn't have just (like letting certain groups live that I would have killed) just to get him to the bedroom later. The gifts may have been over the top (well not until the Saturnalia ones which you could spam with imo) but I felt it was a more natural way for me to develop my Warden's personality.

With the friendship rivalry system I wasn't developing my Hawke's personality and character, I was just trying to get someone into bed. Supposedly my character development was meant to be the wheel o' stupid (not that the people who like the dialogue wheel are stupid, the wheel is).

I prefer the more complex and nuanced sentences to choose from in conversations. Oh, and actually having more in depth conversations with the characters outside of their quests? Just a thought. All of it felt incredibly shallow and forced (more so than DAO, where I could choose when, where, how often, and how much of their convos I did or whether I gave them gifts to placate them or not).

Like everything else I felt railroaded.

[Xezcente]

arcelonious' post made sense to me...

And I like how we can't spam gifts like in DA:O.

Modifié par Xezcente, 03 mai 2011 - 05:12 .

[BigEvil]

I liked the friendship/rivalry system a lot more than I did the approval/disapproval system in DA:O. In Origins I felt I had to bend over backwards to get everyone to like my Warden, giving them gifts and trying to agree with them so they'll like the Warden (something I found next to impossible in Awakening with Velanna without refering to the wiki for every convo, which isn't a good thing). On my first playthrough of DA2 I was still in that please everyone mode a bit, so I ended up middle of the road with a couple of companions (hence them abandoning me at the end) but once I was used to it I found it much more natural. I didn't feel I had to be careful with every conversation, I could stick to what my character would choose, not what would win my shallow companions' affections.

It's still not perfect, not that I'd ever expect perfection and everyone's idea of that will be different. I like Polaris's idea about it having more impact on things, that's something I'd like to see. It's a tough thing though, to balance the need for enough companions for variety and gameplay while allowing you to play a character who would drive away certain people with opposing beliefs.

I'd also like to see something like the personality our Hawke develops with dialogue choice happening with companions too. For example, Isabela has a mostly sarcastic personality, and snarky Hawke tends to get on well with her, and if you're diplomatic Hawke Isabela will still be sarcastic towards you (perhaps more so). But she might throw aggression back at aggressive Hawke. I don't know how well that would work out, just a rough idea at the moment.

[Pathforge]

I'm not quite sure how I feel about the entire thing. I will say that one aspect I did like was with Fenris. His rivalry ability is described as - Fenris agrees to disagree.

I liked how IF you go out of your way to help Fenris, even though he may hate what you stand for, he still has a great deal of respect for you. On the other hand, I also liked that if you did NOT help Fenris, he might necessarily join you at the end depending on what choice you make.

I did NOT like that I was able to convince him to rejoin me by simply choosing one choice statement. It took away a lot from the moment. I remember in Dragon Age Origins I thought it made more sense to keep Logain alive because I wanted as much support as possible (thought it would improve the ending or final battle). I also remember my reaction of "WTF!" when Alistair leaves for good because of how pissed he was. I was upset...NOT at Bioware because I thought that moment of story in the game made sense and was a genius plot point.

I guess the final scene with Anders kinda goes in that direction...but I was drawn into Anders nearly as much as Alistair.

The game needed moments like that in regards to character friendships and relationships...where you're left thinking "Oh crap what did I just do?" I think Erynnar was right about being nice just to get them into bed. I kinda felt like Hawke the character was like a man **** lol. Sorry Bioware...but you can flirt with everyone in your party except Varric I think. I didn't like that feeling.

In DA: Origins I felt like my character developed genuine friendships with npcs like Alistair and Sten. I especially loved how it went with Sten.

[Bigdoser]

arcelonious wrote...

I'm not sure how realistic these changes would be, but here is what I would like to see:

1. Get rid of the meters, and instead, relationships should be shaped largely by dialogues/decisions.

For example, let's say that your character lets a mage get away from the Circle. Instead of merely getting rivalry points, Fenris gets a particular "plot flag" that signals to him that you value magi freedom. In turn, any following dialogue between you and Fenris regarding magi will be based around you disagreeing on that subject.

Then, let's say that you let some slavers escape. This activates another plot flag with Fenris that alters dialogue between the two of you, indicating that you tolerate slavery, which in turn may perhaps have even harsher consequences (such as Fenris eventually leaving you).

Overall, having different "plot flags" for each issue helps create more multi-faceted relationships between you and your companions.

2.  Allow companions  to "know" of your decisions, even if they are not currently grouped.

For example, if you free some slaves without Fenris in the party, he would still know that you did. Contrastingly, if you let some slavers continue their business, he would know even if you took him out of the party. This way, players wouldn't have to meta-game so much with friendship/rivalry points (and constantly switching people in and out of the party), and just make decisions based on their character's particular personality.  In addition, your actions would carry more weight with your companions, because they would be affected regardless of whether or not they are in your party during a particular quest.

Obviously, I don't know how feasible this is, but I would love to see something like this done. With that said, I enjoyed the friendship and rivalry differences. I'm on my third playthrough, and am still discovering differences in dialogue, which I think is pretty damn amazing.

This is quite interesting I don't know if the devs could get this to work but if they do, DA3 will be awesome.

[Sussurus]

I like it, it needs work a fair bit tbh, but I did like the variables.

It changes the single focus of the game and more importantly myself when I play.
No longer do I build up a favourite and get blinded by their shiney friend personality.
Now I can scream at them, feel sorry, rage, take the ****, love them, like them or just ignore them.
Sometimes all at once, and always off screen.

As I said though it really needed more work and time to shine through, as did the companion themselves.

[Ulicus]

I thought it was a fantastic step in the right direction for all BioWare's titles. Perfect? No. As has been mentioned, being able to capture greater degrees of nuance would be very welcome... but I'm definitely in the camp that wants to see the system increasingly refined, rather than dropped or replaced.

Perhaps if, in addition to the sliding left/right scale, you had "depth" as well? By which I mean a measure of how many times you'd had the opportunity to gain Friendship/Rivalry with a companion. This would increase irrespective of what direction you were heading in, and allow the game to note your investment in a companion no matter where you wound up on the "agree/disagree" meter.

At the minute, if you took a companion with you everywhere and gained an even 50/50 F/R split (unlikely but it helps to illustrate the point), it'd be the same as if you'd never taken the companion with you anywhere. Some sort of depth system would, I think, rectify that and completely remove the sense that only "full" friendship or rivalry were worth pursuing.

Modifié par Ulicus, 03 mai 2011 - 07:35 .

[TheAwesomologist]

Friendship/Rivalry works a little better than DA:O's method that's for certain. It just needs work.
1) Change the name of the system. Rivalry has a negative connotation when in fact it's not often negative at all. My first play through I shied away from Rivalry since I was afraid I would end up losing characters (a la DA:O). Also a better explanation of the system in game or in the game manual would be nice.

2) As Autolycus pointed out, ME2 does it better because it puts the "Blue/Red" points in the player's hands not the computer's.

3) Need a way of understanding character motives better. Example: My first play through I simply stopped using Isabella except for her quests, for one while she does great damage she is the definition of a glass cannon, but mainly because I never knew what was going to earn me F/R points! At least with Morrigan it was easy to understand; she doesn't like anyone. However with Isabella you would have to tread this weird middle road which made no sense considering how often she agreed with me in other conversations.

4) Being a Rival often meant being a tool and being a Friend often meant being an enabler. As the OP pointed out, it would have been better if I could agree with Anders about the plight of mages without agreeing to his becoming an abomination.

It's a better system. Just needs more work.

[Mr.House]

I like the system, it needs more tweaks tho(like each party member having three gifts, LI having four) more conversations and more dialog change in romance. Other then that, I found it better then the system in DAO.

[Ulicus]

Ulicus wrote...

I thought it was a fantastic step in the right direction for all BioWare's titles. Perfect? No. As has been mentioned, being able to capture greater degrees of nuance would be very welcome... but I'm definitely in the camp that wants to see the system increasingly refined, rather than dropped or replaced.

Perhaps if, in addition to the sliding left/right scale, you had "depth" as well? By which I mean a measure of how many times you'd had the opportunity to gain Friendship/Rivalry with a companion. This would increase irrespective of what direction you were heading in, and allow the game to note your investment in a companion no matter where you wound up on the "agree/disagree" meter.

At the minute, if you took a companion with you everywhere and gained an even 50/50 F/R split (unlikely but it helps to illustrate the point), it'd be the same as if you'd never taken the companion with you anywhere. Some sort of depth system would, I think, rectify that and completely remove the sense that only "full" friendship or rivalry were worth pursuing.

Elaborating on this, something like the following could be a good step, I think:


It could be called the "party pentagon".

Modifié par Ulicus, 03 mai 2011 - 08:11 .

[Sarcastic Tasha]

What I liked about the system is I could get an idea of Hawke's personality in my head and naturally certain characters would end up friends others would end up rivals. For example a pro-templar Hawke naturally ends up friends with Fenris but rivals with Merrill and Anders and vice versa for a pro-mage Hawke. You don't have to worry about upsetting a party member with a decision so much because you can go down the rivalry path instead. In Origins having Morrigan and Alistair in the same party could be annoying because one of them is bound to be pissed off with a decision, be nice and get Morrigan disapproval or be cruel and get Alistair disapproval. In DA2 I can take Fenris and Anders out, be nice to mages and be pleased to get friend points from Anders and rival points from Fenris. Not to say the system is perfect, I agree it could be improved. Blood mage Hawke can gain full rivalry with Anders by supporting Merrill and making deals with demons and Anders will assume Hawke is pro-templar even though she's a blood mage.

Some of the banter between companions did seem more mean spirited than in Origins, Anders certainly ended up annoying me. But I think the relationships between characters did change over the years. Aveline and Isabela didn't like each other at the start but over the years became friends. Fenris was never going to like Merrill or Anders but he did make friends with other companions and seemed to loosen up a bit. Anders just got worse as time progressed, he went from being concerned about Merrill using blood magic to outright hating her. I'm glad Merrill stuck up for herself and called him an abomination.

[Alamar2078]

I like the idea of a friend / rivalry system but perhaps not quite the way it was implemented on the rivalry side.

A lot of the things that get your rivalry points should also be the things that make companions leave you forever. I wouldn't mind a shifty, angry, evil, highwayman Hawke having Aveline walk out on him fairly early in the game.

[Sussurus]

The one point I don't like about is that it still quite static.
The idea of gaining friend or rival points even if out of the party is a good one.

Myself I'd try to remove the meter all together, having it set in such a way and to such hard requirements.
25, 50, 75, 100 points is not open to any manevuer.
I'd prefer it to be behind the scenes and based on player actions than points.

As for not knowing what your companion likes, dislikes that is the beauty to the system I loved.
Scripted chaos, Morrigan was "evil", Isabella is wild and emotional backed up with a lust for money and freedom.
Take bribes, demand payment, joke and stay on the side of freedom over order.
Oh and she has a "thing" about husbands, due to her history.
With all that knowing whether she is a friend or rival means little to me.

Modifié par Sussurus, 03 mai 2011 - 09:10 .

[Ulicus]

Having it entirely behind the scenes would be great, actually, yeah. Sadly, I think it'd probably ****** most people off.

Modifié par Ulicus, 03 mai 2011 - 09:25 .

[CalJones]

Liked it, overall - it was one of the better things to come out of DA2. Whilst it isn't perfect, it works pretty well for the mostpart.

[spoe71]

I think it works pretty well, though I'm on the fence as to whether I prefer the DA2 system better or worse than the DA:O system.

As one other mentioned, I like that I do not have to coddle the DA2 companions, but I felt the DA:O companions had more character development, more depth, which is likely related to the fact that DA:O companions had explorable backstories: there was just so much more dialogue with them.

I hope DA3 has a combination of the two: the depth of DA:O with the ingenuity of DA2. Bioware has been creating memorable characters for years on years. They can do it.