44 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvianus]

I like this system may be even better if it is improved. I support those who say it is not perfect, and there is still more to operate and better way. But I think the direction is correct.

Anyway it's better in dao​​. Let's be honest. Apart from a minority, everyone made ​​sure to win the loyalty of each character, being all the time agree with him.

Why? because we do not want to risk losing them. At least in DA2, I can express my true feelings all the time.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 03 mai 2011 - 11:14 .

[IanPolaris]

Meh. You stood virtually no chance of losing anyone unless you actively went out of your way to be hostile to them (descrating the Ashes counts here I think). Wynne is the one most likely to leave/aggro on you (not great loss IMO).

The only NPCs you really have to get to a reasonable friendship level to keep is Zev, and even that doesn't have to be especially high (26+ I think).

Otherwise, unless you take choices that cause them to quite or really work hard to tick them off, they stay in DAO.

-Polaris

[frustratemyself]

IanPolaris wrote...

Meh. You stood virtually no chance of losing anyone unless you actively went out of your way to be hostile to them (descrating the Ashes counts here I think).

Like giving Wynne rotten onions to ****** her off so she leaves. I promise I only did that once.

The friendship/rivalry system is a good idea in theory but wasn't implemented as well as it could have been. It was too simplistic and very open to abuse with meta gaming. Spamming gifts allowed the same thing in DAO but certain actions could still affect approval even if party members were left at camp.
Playing Awakenings I was still getting + approval from Oghren when doing the Blight Orphans quests even though he was back at the keep.
I also don't think it should have been locked once you received 100%  friendship or rivalry. It should have remained fluid & open to influence by your actions.
Probably one more thing that received less attention during development than it should have.

[Ulicus]

Hm. I appreciated the lock. If it had to remain open to influence, I'd have wanted something like... getting twice as many friendship points and half as many rivalry if you'd ever reached full friendship. Or something. Which would effectively be the same thing as a lock, anyway.

[Morroian]

Sylvianus wrote...

I like this system may be even better if it is improved. I support those who say it is not perfect, and there is still more to operate and better way. But I think the direction is correct.

Anyway it's better in dao​​. Let's be honest. Apart from a minority, everyone made ​​sure to win the loyalty of each character, being all the time agree with him.

I agree with this, the system is an improvement but still needs more refinement.

[Andraste_Reborn]

The new friendship/rivalry system was my favourite part of DA2. I mean, it could still use some refinement, but it's much better. I just wish I could go back in time and tell BioWare to put it in DAO! A rivalmance with Morrigan would have made a lot more sense for my Warden than disagreeing with her in conversations then showering her with presents later.

[Crow_22]

I loved the friend/rival system. It was a good boon to the game, because realisticly you can have a rival, but at the same time they be your greatest ally.

And I have to admit.... it was sucky that they don't have the risk of walking out on you. That adds some drama and suspense to the story in my opinion. The only person to walk out based on YOUR decisions are Hawkes Brother, and in a way Sister but she doesn't go willingly. Still, I agreed with the system of friendship/rivalry they had on it.

[Rifneno]

I hate it.  It fails hard because there's no distinguishing respectful disagreement with hate.  Taking the "Tevinter is evil, but not all mages are and they deserve fair treatment" route with Fenris is the same as "Slaves are awesome!  Mow my lawn, knife-ear." route.  And as such, if you oppose slavery but also oppose the Chantry's treatment of mages, you don't get  good rivalry points with him and in the end he may leave you to work with Meredith where he'd stick by a Hawke that sided with slavers.  It's silly.  The only character I've managed to get max rivalry without breaking character for the sole purpose of approval points is Merrill.  And that's only because you have so many opportunities to shoot first and ask questions never with demons.  Forbidden Knowledge in particular.

Modifié par Rifneno, 04 mai 2011 - 01:38 .

[GavrielKay]

Crow_22 wrote...

And I have to admit.... it was sucky that they don't have the risk of walking out on you. That adds some drama and suspense to the story in my opinion. The only person to walk out based on YOUR decisions are Hawkes Brother, and in a way Sister but she doesn't go willingly. Still, I agreed with the system of friendship/rivalry they had on it.

Isabella will leave if you don't have sufficient points to either side.  Surprised me the first time as I rarely travelled with her and then poof she runs off the with book.  I'm still glad I managed to avoid that spoiler.

Maybe it's my analytical mind, but I'd like to see actual numbers as a hover help or something in addition to the slider.  I read the forums and it says "at least 50 points" and I'm trying to guess if I'm at 50 or 45.

[Maria Caliban]

1. I thought it was an improvement over Origins.

2. There are areas where getting rivalry/friendship was difficult, such as Fenris because he is anti-slavers and anti-mage. I believe the majority of people who are going to be against enslaving others will want to help the mages. I'm not sure if that difficulty was intended.

3. Getting Isabela to the right level of friendship/rivalry before the end of Act 2 took work, but in this case, I believe it was for the better. I don't want all companions to be the same level of 'difficulty' and I appreciate the dramatic swing the relationship with Merrill can take.

4. It's a system I'd like BioWare to continue to develop in future games.

5. This one is personal, but I still find myself struggling to go for rivalry or use the red fist dialogue options. I think there are interface and communication changes BioWare could make that would make this options more appealing to players who desire to be 'good' people and be 'friends' with their companions.

The rivalry paths are great stuff, but I still think the majority of players are going to miss that content because they associate rivalry with the companion disliking them.

[ObserverStatus]

I think the system had potential, but like everything else in DA2, it was underdeveloped.

[TheBlackBaron]

I think it was an improvement over the Origins system, but it could still be refined. The problem is that with Friendship-Rivalry it kind of removes the possibility for somebody to really dislike you; "Rivalry" here seems to simply mean that they respect you but don't agree with you. Perhaps having two bars, one tracking how you interact "on the issues" (which is what Friendship-Rivalry really comes down to) and one tracking personal relationships (BFFs versus "I hate your guts") would be best.

Of course, one could make the argument that if somebody hated your guts there's no reason for them to stick around, so maybe the F/R bar is all you need.

[Foolsfolly]

I don't know if the OP's actually against the Friendship/Rivalry system or the writing.

Because I feel those are two separate issues.

The first issue I'll address I'll the system. The Friendship system in DA2 is vastly superior to the old one in DA:O. No longer does your character have to act so out of your roleplaying to keep companions around. There are also valid but different bonus passive abilities added regardless of their opinion, so the game doesn't really reward one more than the other.

And then there's the fact that their status with Hawke changes the intent of their companion missions, their Questioning Belief missions, and their gifts. All of which makes the relationship feel more important.

This is a great improvement. There's still room to continue to work on it, however. It is a great new system that I want to see more of.

The writing is vastly different from Origins. In Origins the companions were companions. They had their personalities and they had things they liked and disliked and they sometimes reacted by walking away. But at the end of the day they were followers and would always be followers.

With DA2 it feels like the writers wished to make the companions more their own people. Isabela will run off with the relic which causes the Qunari uprising. Anders will blow up the Chantry. Sebastien will leave if you don't kill Anders. Carver will join the Templars to find his own path.

They have their own agendas and goals. Some characters (namely Varric) will remain with you no matter what but the others will hang around as long as it suits their needs.

That's more realistic than DA:O but it has an affect on the player, one I think the OP got.

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.

Because they have stronger characterizations and are not just followers first. It's more realistic (like Morrigan and Sten would ever get along, really) but I can see it annoying players. I was fine with it, I liked that the companions had these stronger personalities and weren't just side characters in a larger tale (Hawke's their side character in many instances).

But it's a valid question. In the commentary for Half-Life 2: Episode 1, the Valve guys talk about how they originally had Alyx more opinionated and forceful, telling the character what to do and where to go. But playtesters, instead of growing fond of Alyx, began to hate her.

They hated her 'bickering' and her constantly pushing them along. Valve discovered that players preferred playing the game when Alyx commented on their actions, rather than directed their actions. And by changing her from active to reactive to the player's actions the testers began to form a positive relationship with Alyx. They began to like her more.

What does that have to do with the DA2 characters? I'm not saying all characters should become more passive and supportive regardless.....but it is an interesting area of discussion.

I love Alyx Vance from the Half-Life games and I love the companions of DA:O and DA2. I don't know what I can offer to this discussion other than showing that it is two separate issues. The system and the writing.

[Revakeane]

I'm not against the new system, but I believe it needs some areas of improvement. My main gripe is that it doesn't leave sufficient room for compromise, and this is reflected in relationships that do not accurately reflect my Hawke's stance on things (like how my quest choices would max out a friendship with Anders despite the fact that I disagree with him fundamentally on several issues) as well as in intra-party companion relationships which are somewhat stagnant over a 10 year period.

I'm not looking for a party that supports everything my Hawke believes in, or a party that has little conflict. But what I was hoping for throughout the course of the game was for some compromise to be reached between characters such as Merrill and Anders, or Merrill and Fenris. It just seemed to me that 10 years of bickering over the same issue, without any progress made on either party's side, to be somewhat unrealistic. I also felt that it oversimplified the relationships and banter. It was like disagreement over the blood-magic was the one thing that defined Merrill's relationship with Anders and Fenris, when I would imagine they would have found many other things to talk about and interact with throughout the decade. What I'm arguing for is more nuance and subtlety in companion relationships. While the new system did bring many improvements over DAO's, I think it still needs significant improvement in terms of conveying degrees in relationships, something I think DAO did quite well.

What I didn't quite like about the new system was that you had to max out either the Friendship or Rivalry vein in order to fully develop a relationship with a companion or to affect a compromise in their beliefs. The maxing out part was difficult (in some parts for me) because it depended on both dialogue and quest choices, and the two didn't always correspond to each other. It also sucked that a Friendship with a character seemed to indicate that I supported them wholeheartedly in their paths. So while I privately thought Merrill was a crazy person to play with blood magic and told her so several times, the fact that I didn't want my Hawke to seem judgmental or controlling meant that she seemed to think my Hawke was ok with it and went on trafficking with demons instead of destroying that damn mirror.

I know that the system and the writing are two separate issues. I guess I was wrong when I termed the thread title, but I think my main critique of the new relationship system is that there is very little room for nuance and compromise, and I was wondering if there were people that felt the same.

[Foolsfolly]

It just seemed to me that 10 years of bickering over the same issue, without any progress made on either party's side, to be somewhat unrealistic.

I can see that. But I'm sure you have friends who just don't like each other because of some reason. I mean, I have a very very pro-Republican friend and a very very pro-Democrat friend who will be sometimes friendly but most times will not talk to each other. They've known each other since high school.

I think in this game it's not really a team. The Warden had a team. Shepard has a team. Hawke has friends and acquaintances that are called upon. There's no big drive to the story (a definite weakness of the game) and as such Hawke largely just tools around with a group.

That's the way I see it. I'm totally fine with seeing them as a team. But they don't work enough like a team for me to see them as such and the story doesn't seem to require them to be a team.

[Forst1999]

I think the new system was an improvement, but many points made in this topic are good ideas. Unless you do something secretly, your companions should react to it, even if not in the party. Points only for the present companions just inspires meta-gaming. My companions obviously do talk to each other in my absence, and at least the bigger decisions should be known to them.
And i would strongly approve of two sepearate meters for friendship and rivalry. Coming along on a personal level and agreeing on politics/ideology can be two very different things. Being sympathetic and polite to someone you disagree with results in a neutral standing, which is the worst possible standing with someone in DAII. If your relationship to a companion isn't pure coddling/confrontation it is hard to get to know them (questioning beliefs). I needed 5 playthroughs before i first got Fenris final dialogue. Two seperate scales would solve many problems of the system (though i already hear some people crying that two scales is to much like Mass Effect, and therefore doesn't is good for Dragon Age...).
The only thing that really annoyed me was that sometimes friendship was misinterpreted by the companions, the worst case being Anders. In a friendship he always assumes that you support the cause of mages. So my moderate templar Hawke, who only seldom took him along (common sense, not meta gaming), kind of slipped in a friendship (due to quests involving tranquility), and suddenly Anders dialogue sometimes made no sense. A more complex system like suggested on the first page would be welcome. I guess it would be hard to implement, but Bioware should really look into it.
As for the OP's other point, the relationships between companions, i think that some companions do get to a compromise in the course of the years. Look at Aveline and Isabela. But in the case of Anders and Fenris, it is a part of their characters that they hold extremist views. The only relationship that bothered me sometimes was Anders/Merrill (Merrill might be a Blood Mage, but Anders sometimes is a bloody hypocrite. Not trying to start a "how bad is blood magic" debate here, but he does enough questionable things with magic himself, so i would expect a little sympathy).

[Revakeane]

@foolsfolly: I definitely have friends like that. But the thing is, if they don't like each other that much, it's usually for a variety of reasons, and not just one. Also, they've never saved each others' lives countless times. That's got to have some kind of reconciliation effect, I would think.

I agree with you on the team bit tho. The DA2 party definitely did not feel like a team, or at least not a tight-knit, cohesive one. I think that's why I prefer DAO's companions, because Hawke's companions are sometimes seem like strategic place-fillers and manifestations of conflicting issues rather than living, breathing characters.

Anyway, Aveline and Isabela is a good counter-example. They did get on each other's nerves at first but got along in the end. Although, they never really represented two conflicting viewpoints; they got on each other's nerves more due to differences in personality than differences in worldview... at least that's how I saw it. Fenris and Sebastian would be another good example of intra-party compromise, as Sebastian seems to have turned Fenris back to the Maker by the end. However, again this was probably because they did not have major differences in world view.

With the main issues of the game revolving around mages, magic and slavery, I would have appreciated a more varied and subtle (I may be over-using this word lately, but I'm not great at synonyms so apologies) presentation of opinions, as well as be granted the possibility of an evolving opinion... like I may start the game out completely pro-mage, but after certain quests become more moderate in my opinion. That was why quests like All That Remains were in right? To show people more than one side? This evolution should be reflected in game.

[Paeyne]

I didn't really like either the approval/disapproval or the friendship/rivalry system as it only uses one metric.

Sternbergs Triangular theory on Relationships uses three metrics and would probably be easy to implement if one wanted to improve the relationship system.

Basically, all relationships are based on three components.  Intimacy, Passion and Commitment

Intimacy – Which encompasses feelings of attachment, closeness, connectedness, and bondedness.
Passion – Which encompasses drives connected to both limerence and sexual attraction.
Commitment– Which encompasses, in the short term, the decision to remain with another, and in the long term, the shared achievements and plans made with that other.

If your decisions in the game affected one of these components it would alter the relationship you have with that companion depending on what they were looking for.

Isabella, as an example, might initially only be looking for lots of passion and a certain degree of commitment but actually resist intimacy initially.  Anders might want Intimacy and passion but be affraid that committing would interfere with his desired goals.  Aveline might want a certain degree of intimacy and commitment but would resist passion, especially so soon after her husband's death.

Using three solid metrics rather than just the one would alow for alot more story depth and companion interaction.

If anyone is at all interested, Sternbergs theory is here.

Modifié par Paeyne, 04 mai 2011 - 11:19 .

[Revakeane]

It just occurred to me that the "Questioning Beliefs" quests could have been better utilized to show progression in party relationships, but these were severely underused. All most of the companions do is provide standard reflections on the state of their relationships with Hawke, rather than show any significant questioning or evaluation of their belief systems, despite the quest title.

[Avissel]

I really liked the system. it was great to finally be able to have my character respond the way they really would, instead of having to pick what I thought the companions wanted to hear or having to scour the land for crappy gifts for them so they would talk to me.

The system needs some refinement but the fact that the friendship and rival scores actually changed some dialogue along the way was a great start.