305 réponses à ce sujet

[Zjarcal]

Brockololly wrote...

And quite frankly, the F/R system doesn't make much sense in DA2 but would have worked much better in Origins. In Origins your companions are with you for a common purpose, whether they like you or not, which would seem far better suited to the F/R mechanic as they might disagree with your means, but won't bail on the party as you have the world to save.Whereas in DA2, you lack any big important thing binding the companions to Hawke and so they just linger around like a bad smell even if you hate their guts.

Eh, that doesn't mean the companions don't have they own personal agendas that they need help with. Isabela needs help with Castillon and if you didn't build enough F/R, will leave for good at the end of act 2 (at which point she'll only come back because you've had an influence on her). Merrill needs someone to guide her in human society (and at times even serve as mediator between her and her clan). Fenris owes you for helping him and needs help with Danarius.

Granted it does get pretty bizarre with some companions, Sebastian in particular (and even Anders to an extent), but I don't see anything strange about the rest of the rivaled companions sticking with Hawke despite disliking her/him.

[Master Shiori]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Also, rivalry seems to be that they are still buddies. That means that companions can't actually hate Hawke. They can be pissed at him / her, but not genuinely hate. In Origins, they can genuinely hate you and even try to kill you.

The approval system, as it was in Origins, was extremely restrictive when it comes to roleplaying your character and developing relationships with companions. It rewarded you for pursuing friendship, but punished you whenever you disagreed with them on something. This meant I could roleplay a character with certain beliefs or views of the world, but rather had to adjust his personality and beliefs according to which companion I'm talking to atm. So with Leliana I had to support the Chantry and with Morrigan I had to agree with her views that Chantry is evil. Doing otherwise would result in losing one of them as a companion. 

Hatred means that somebody dislikes you to the point that he/she wants nothing to do with you or your goals. Rivalry in DA2 means that Hawke and the companion in question have a proffesional disagreement about something important, but otherwise get along. It's still possible, during the rivalry path, to get to the point where a companion will suggest that you part ways, but they will never hate you or attack you as long as your rivalry or friendship is maxed out.

I feel that friendship/rivalry system is a huge step in the right direction, since there is now no longer a "correct" way to handle a companion. How you get along depends entirely on the personality and beliefs of the character you're roleplaying, but the game never punishes you for your choices.

[tonnactus]

Alistairlover94 wrote...


Bolded part: This. How DOES consorting with demons make him want to assume the throne of Starkhaven?

Because the demon sees that desire in him(a desire demon,right),he thought about it and realized that this is true perhaps?

Modifié par tonnactus, 14 mai 2011 - 10:26 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

For me, being an ass to a person should be punished by making that person not care about you. And if you were an ass to them in the first place, you wouldn't really care.

I understand what you mean by punish, but for me, that's a good thing. People should react to what you say, do and think accordingly. Origins didn't handle that perfectly of course, but in that regard I thought it was better than DA2.

[KnightofPhoenix]

tonnactus wrote...

Alistairlover94 wrote...


Bolded part: This. How DOES consorting with demons make him want to assume the throne of Starkhaven?

Because the demon sees that desire in him(a desire demon,right),he thought about it and realized that this is true perhaps?

And why would he be pissed off at Hawke? And he still kills the demon anyhow.

Plus, if I want to maximize rivalry, I have to constantly insult the Chantry and ****** him off (what does me being rude to Elthina have anything to do with him being ambitious?). I wouldn't mind if I can convince him to dislike the Chantry, but that doesn't happen and all I do is keep pissing him off while I am trying to make him a potential ally.

[Master Shiori]

Brockololly wrote...

And quite frankly, the F/R system doesn't make much sense in DA2 but would have worked much better in Origins. In Origins your companions are with you for a common purpose, whether they like you or not, which would seem far better suited to the F/R mechanic as they might disagree with your means, but won't bail on the party as you have the world to save.Whereas in DA2, you lack any big important thing binding the companions to Hawke and so they just linger around like a bad smell even if you hate their guts.

Yes, unlike Origins, there is no great overall purpose or mission that binds companions to you. However, each companion has his/her own specific problems that he/she needs help with.

Fenris needs an ally to protect him from Danarius and his hunters.
Isabela needs your help to deal with Castillon
Anders needs your aid to help mages in Kirkwall
Varric needs your help to deal with his brother
etc

So it's really a case of " you stick around to help me and I'll do the same for you" rather than "let's save the world together!".

[KnightofPhoenix]

Master Shiori wrote...
So it's really a case of " you stick around to help me and I'll do the same for you" rather than "let's save the world together!".

It could have been "Well this place is a mess. Let's do something about it, shall we?". But of course that was not the case.

[naledgeborn]

I think this thread is probably well of topic from it's original post (I don't know, just guessing 11 pages later...)

But @ the thread title. I was seriously disappointed. I beat this game twice when it first was released and I haven't picked it up since. Comparing it DAO that's terrible. I probably did 7 different playthrus in Origins, all of them vastly different. The saddest part about this is that I played Origins on the PS3.

Try again Mike and David. Either it's Dragon Age or Jade Empire. It can't be both.

Modifié par naledgeborn, 14 mai 2011 - 10:38 .

[Master Shiori]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

For me, being an ass to a person should be punished by making that person not care about you. And if you were an ass to them in the first place, you wouldn't really care.

I understand what you mean by punish, but for me, that's a good thing. People should react to what you say, do and think accordingly. Origins didn't handle that perfectly of course, but in that regard I thought it was better than DA2.

But you don't need to be an ass to rival somebody. The best way to earn rivalry points is to perform actions and make choices that the companion disagrees with.

Example:

I can be a diplomatic/funny Hawke and still pursue rivalry with Merrill by making decisions which support the templars or by takng a stance that dealing with demons is wrong. Once I''ve gained enough rivalry to activate her rivalry bonus called "Outcast", it won't matter what I say to her or what tone I use. I'll always disagree with her views, but I can either try to be friendly and explain to her what I think she's doing wrong, make fun of her or be rude to her. 

You and I can disagree about certain things, but at the same time we can respect each others opinion or even be friends.  Professional disagreement doesn't need to result in those involved hating each other or coming to blows.

In Origins, it was "You either agree with me or I'll leave/kill you". This made the companions come across as immature children more than anything.

Modifié par Master Shiori, 14 mai 2011 - 10:48 .

[Master Shiori]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Master Shiori wrote...
So it's really a case of " you stick around to help me and I'll do the same for you" rather than "let's save the world together!".

It could have been "Well this place is a mess. Let's do something about it, shall we?". But of course that was not the case.

I got the impression that was the case with Aveline and her being a guard captain. Basically, a case of "help me get this city in order".

[KnightofPhoenix]

Master Shiori wrote...
But you don't need to be an ass to rival somebody. The best way to earn rivalry points is to perform actions and make choices that the companion disagrees with.

You and I can disagree about certain things, but the at the same time we can respect each others opinion or even be friends.  Professional disagreement doesn't need to result in those involved hating each other or coming to blows.

And that's fine, but I also want the possibility to have companions hate Hawke if it's warranted (at least in their perspective). Say that you keep insulting the Chantry, insult the Maker all the time, consort with demons at every turn..etc, there is no reason for Sebastian not to hate you. This is not simply an intellectual or theological difference of opinion. If you are doing and saying things that offend every thing he holds to be dear and true, he should hate you. Or at the very least, dislike you.

Likewise, if you keep assisting Templars, keep spitting on mages and killing them everytime and keep telling Anders to stfu, there is no reason why he shouldn't hate you. By that point, the cause of mages is in essence his entire being. If you offend it, he should hate you and just stop caring.

In Origins, it was "You either agree with me or I'll leave/kill you". This made the companions come across as immature children more than anything.

How? They only left when it was what they percieved to be a critical issue / decision that offends every fiber of their being (whether it's warranted or not is besides the point and that's human nature). Or you got their approval at -100 after constantly disrespecting them and offending them. Or keep lying to someone about love while cheating on him / her all the time.

That's not being children, that's reacting naturally. And even if some cases can be arguably childish, that's a good thing, sometimes people do act childishly.

Of course what I am saying about Origins is weakened with gifts, I know. You can do all kind of things they hate and you can just make them shut up by spamming gifts. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 14 mai 2011 - 10:57 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Master Shiori wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Master Shiori wrote...
So it's really a case of " you stick around to help me and I'll do the same for you" rather than "let's save the world together!".

It could have been "Well this place is a mess. Let's do something about it, shall we?". But of course that was not the case.

I got the impression that was the case with Aveline and her being a guard captain. Basically, a case of "help me get this city in order".

Aveline is certainly much more proactive than Hawke. She should have been the Champion.

[billy the squid]

Yrkoon wrote...

Chugster wrote...


maybe its because ive been playing video games for nearly 30 years. And in that time ive played some real howlers....maybe kids today just dont know how lucky they are (god i sound like an old man)

Indeed.  I suppose if   one is used to playing games like Pac-man and Pong, a Game like DA2 would seem like a true masterpiece.  lol

It is true, to a certain extent, we the current generation have perhaps higher expectations, but just because I can catch a plane to go on holiday doesn't mean I want to go in a biplane, even if it works, rather than a jet. If developers have had years to learn from their mistakes, technological improvements and perfect techniques or build upon previous examples it doesn't wash that they should be given leeway because a game 5 or 6 years ago was much worse so its okay to do it now.

Particularly when one considers the benchmarks set by other deveopers, it proves it can be done even if the weight placed on different aspects of the game is different to each player. It is partly an issue of competition as well, the current younger generation, myself included are not going to buy games based on the premise that it was better than the games in the early 1990's rather we will part with money based on expectations of current experience.
 
I know it does sound a great deal like "me,me,me,me,me" but thats consumer society. The game industry is based on pandering to people's tastes and expectations, hell its why some people by a particular type of game over another, taste, a change in desires and what you expect from the game. Chugster, Yrkoon this is not directed at you or any one in particular.
 
I have flicked through several threads where I have read, go into DA2 without expectations or expectations are too high, its rather meaningless, as why did you buy it in the first place? Expectation( that it would not be riddled with bugs! or that it would the "successor to the RPG of  year 2009"). Or another I have heard or it has been implied around here "it's your opinion/ your not being objective." Well, of course it's my opinion its implied, I'm sayin what I think, its not gospel. Where as my feelings on  the game are entirely subjective regarding what I think is good or not, I wouldn't have bought it otherwise. So saying judge the game on its own merits is ludicrous, as how do you judge something in isolation, it is always going to be on previous experience of another game, you liked/ hated etc.  the closest being its predecessor, unless people are Amish, then maybe not. 

Judging a game like this in isolation or on its own merits is spurious analysis I may as well say "DA 2 is better than a cheese sandwich, but not one with pickle (I like pickle)" 

Judging something without a completely objective system is impossible, as the predisposition towards individual tastes is always present. Other than does it have bugs and how are sales there is not really objective criteria, and those don't neccessarily determine whether DA 2 is good or not. (ps. I don't like DA2, but it not a 0-3 on metacritic) 

  

Modifié par billy the squid, 14 mai 2011 - 10:57 .

[Master Shiori]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

And that's fine, but I also want the possibility to have companions hate Hawke if it's warranted (at least in their perspective). Say that you keep insulting the Chantry, insult the Maker all the time, consort with demons at every turn..etc, there is no reason for Sebastian not to hate you. This is not simply an intellectual or theological difference of opinion. If you are doing and saying things that offend every thing he holds to be dear and true, he should hate you. Or at the very least, dislike you. 

That's fine, but the game doesn't allow you to do that since even agressive responses only encourage Sebastian to take up the mantle of Prince of Starkhaven. You never have the option of being insulting towards him.
The best you can get is the situation where the 2 of you have a debate over your beliefs and try to convince each other that you're right.
After Anders blows up the Chantry you can have Sebastian leave your group or even fight against you depending on your choices and your relationship with him by that point.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


Likewise, if you keep assisting Templars, keep spitting on mages and killing them everytime and keep telling Anders to stfu, there is no reason why he shouldn't hate you. By that point, the cause of mages is in essence his entire being. If you offend it, he should hate you and just stop caring.

He does, but he's trying to get you to change your mind by explaining his views on why mages need to be free (and is quite persistent about it, to the point of annoyance..). If that doesn't work he'll suggest you part ways at one point and, at the very end, he can turn against you should you side with the templars and will openly attack you, though I've never reached that point with him so can't say what the criteria for it is.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...



How? They only left when it was what they percieved to be a critical issue / decision that offends every fiber of their being (whether it's warranted or not is besides the point and that's human nature). Or you got their approval at -100 after constantly disrespecting them and offending them. Or keep lying to someone about love while cheating on him / her all the time.

But pursuing disapproval with them didn't earn you anything. You couldn't unlock their personal quests, you couldn't get new dialogue and they'd even refuse to talk to you at all.

The whole system was set up in such a way to force you to nod your head at their every word.

Why couldn't I disagree with Wynne's vision of the Circle or the Grey Wardens and still earn her respect? Why is it that every time I said something she didn't agree with (even if I've done it in a respectful and friendly manner) she would get angry and treat me as her worst enemy? Would having her agree to disagree really been so bad or unrealistic?
If we both agree that the Blight is a grave threat that needs to be stopped, does it also require us to be friends in order to do so?

KnightofPhoenix wrote...



That's not being children, that's reacting naturally. And even if some cases can be arguable childish, that's a good thing, sometimes people do act childishly.

But they should realize when they're being childish and accept that they are, possibly even apologize for it.

You could argue that Fenris is sometimes being childish when he paints all mages with the same brush, but he will realize that and apologize to Hawke for it.

Why can't characters in DA:O do the same?

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


Of course what I am saying about Origins is weakened with gifts, I know. You can do all kind of things they hate and you can just make them shut up by spamming gifts. 

My opinion is that the problem with DA:O was the approval system only worked one way, where as the DA2 system rewards you for going either way as long as you're consistent in your actions and beliefs.
Had the same been true of DA:O, the gifts would have been completely unnecessary.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Master Shiori wrote...
That's fine, but the game doesn't allow you to do that since even agressive responses only encourage Sebastian to take up the mantle of Prince of Starkhaven. You never have the option of being insulting towards him.

You can be insulting to Elthina and to do things he dislikes. You can't maximize his rivalry with him without Hawke being an ass, at least with him. And some rivalry points due to some choices has nothing to do with him being ambitious.   

He does, but he's trying to get you to change your mind by explaining his views on why mages need to be free (and is quite persistent about it, to the point of annoyance..). If that doesn't work he'll suggest you part ways at one point and, at the very end, he can turn against you should you side with the templars and will openly attack you, though I've never reached that point with him so can't say what the criteria for it is.

After years, I think he should give up and hate Hawke. But that maye be Anders' personality, so I'll concede.

But pursuing disapproval with them didn't earn you anything. You couldn't unlock their personal quests, you couldn't get new dialogue and they'd even refuse to talk to you at all.

And that for me is good and natural. A consequence for your choices and what you say.

Why couldn't I disagree with Wynne's vision of the Circle or the Grey Wardens and still earn her respect? Why is it that every time I said something she didn't agree with (even if I've done it in a respectful and friendly manner) she would get angry and treat me as her worst enemy? Would having her agree to disagree really been so bad or unrealistic?
If we both agree that the Blight is a grave threat that needs to be stopped, does it also require us to be friends in order to do so?

That's part of her personality. Whether you like it or not is besides the point. At the end of the day, she felt more natural to me than DA2 companions, even if I disagree with her a lot.

But they should realize when they're being childish and accept that they are, possibly even apologize for it.

Why can't characters in DA:O do the same?

Why should they? To ego stroke the PC?

They don't believe they are being childish, even if they are, and they are more real for it. Some do admit being mistaken. But up to a certain extent, people can be very stubbornly childish. Should they admit it? Yes. Do people do that all the time? No and it's natural.  

My opinion is that the problem with DA:O was the approval system only worked one way, where as the DA2 system rewards you for going either way as long as you're consistent in your actions and beliefs.
Had the same been true of DA:O, the gifts would have been completely unnecessary.

For me, that's not a bad thing. I would like it if sveeral meters are implemented like like / dislike and respect / disrespect or something like that. 

[Master Shiori]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

You can be insulting to Elthina and to do things he dislikes. You can't maximize his rivalry with him without Hawke being an ass, at least with him. And some rivalry points due to some choices has nothing to do with him being ambitious.   

Calling Elthina inefficient in dealing with Kirkwall's problems (which I'd aruge is true and backed by evidence in the game itself) is hardly the same as insulting her. Doing things that Sebastian dislikes doesn't equal insulting him, just that we disagree on certain issues.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


And that for me is good and natural. A consequence for your choices and what you say.

Fair enough if it's good and natural to you. For me, it completely unnatural since, even in real life, there's very little chance that everyone in a group would react in the same way, especially when each of them has a different personality and ideals.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


That's part of her personality. Whether you like it or not is besides the point. At the end of the day, she felt more natural to me than DA2 companions, even if I disagree with her a lot.

Except it's a general reaction shared by everyone in the party, not just specific to Wynne. As such it's more due to how the approval system works than to Wynne's (or anyone else's) personality.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


Why should they? To ego stroke the PC?

They don't believe they are being childish, even if they are, and they are more real for it. Some do admit being mistaken. But up to a certain extent, people can be very stubbornly childish. Should they admit it? Yes. Do people do that all the time? No and it's natural.  

Having every single companion follow the same patern of behaviour doesn't make them real. Quite the opposite.
Such a behaviour becomes a result of a general flaw in the system, not of a single character's personality.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


For me, that's not a bad thing. I would like it if sveeral meters are implemented like like / dislike and respect / disrespect or something like that. 

You have those in DA2, except they're all combined in one meter.

Maxed friendship = I like you and respect you

Maxed rivalry = I disagree with you on certain issues and actions, but I respect your opinion and your beliefs

Friendship below 50% = I like you but don't respect you and may leave your group (example: Isabela during To Catch a Thief)

Rivalry below 50% = I neither like you nor respect. We have issues that we haven't worked out yet and may never do.

In DA:O respect was tied to a character liking you. It wasn't possible to have someone dislike you, yet respect you at the same time.

Modifié par Master Shiori, 15 mai 2011 - 09:09 .

[Majikks]

I have but one word



MORE!!!!!!!!

[Cutlasskiwi]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Yellow Words wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Something I've grown to appreciate about DAII is how reactive NPCs are to my Hawke's tone. In Origins you also get several responses, yet often you get the same response from the NPC, no matter what you say to them (I recently created another city elf & just finished Ostagar). I stopped playing after Ostagar because no matter how snarky/snippy my CE was, nobody seemed to notice it.

I feel the same way.  They did a great job of weaving Hawke's personality into the dialog and NPC interactions.  That's why Hawke feels more alive to me, and not necessarily b/c s/he's voiced.

In Origins, the different options seemed to be there more for the benefit of having "many dialog choices", but didn't effect how others perceived you.

This is why I liked and felt more attached to Hawke. The voice helped and the reaction Hawke's responses got was really good. It sure helped with my immersion in the game.  

Not if you're playing as MageHawke. Immersion is thrown right out of the window.

I had no trouble playing mage Hawke. Sure, it would have been better if templars had reacted to Hawke being a mage but I don't know how BioWare could implement it without leaving warrior and rogue Hawke hanging. Maybe if warrior/rogue Hawke would have gotten some class specific quests while mage Hawke could have templars trying to hunt her/him down.  

[Persephone]

Yellow Words wrote...

Alistairlover94 wrote...

Yellow Words wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Something I've grown to appreciate about DAII is how reactive NPCs are to my Hawke's tone. In Origins you also get several responses, yet often you get the same response from the NPC, no matter what you say to them (I recently created another city elf & just finished Ostagar). I stopped playing after Ostagar because no matter how snarky/snippy my CE was, nobody seemed to notice it.

I feel the same way.  They did a great job of weaving Hawke's personality into the dialog and NPC interactions.  That's why Hawke feels more alive to me, and not necessarily b/c s/he's voiced.

In Origins, the different options seemed to be there more for the benefit of having "many dialog choices", but didn't effect how others perceived you.

This is why I liked and felt more attached to Hawke. The voice helped and the reaction Hawke's responses got was really good. It sure helped with my immersion in the game.  

Not if you're playing as MageHawke. Immersion is thrown right out of the window.

I had no trouble playing mage Hawke. Sure, it would have been better if templars had reacted to Hawke being a mage but I don't know how BioWare could implement it without leaving warrior and rogue Hawke hanging. Maybe if warrior/rogue Hawke would have gotten some class specific quests while mage Hawke could have templars trying to hunt her/him down.  

Being a mage in Kirkwall worked just like being Ferelden's Most Wanted in DAO worked. Plot Armor, plain and simple.

[Khayness]

Persephone wrote...

Being a mage in Kirkwall worked just like being Ferelden's Most Wanted in DAO worked. Plot Armor, plain and simple.

Atleast you had a few assassins on you.

[Dormiglione]

Alistairlover94 wrote...

@Perse Remember that scene with Cullen in the Gallows? I believe it was the Keran quest. There's an option that says "Hey! I'm a mage!". I pick that option, and what does she say? "I have friends who are mages". What?!?!?!

Yes, i remember it very well. I thought "finally, now we get a confrontation .. " but as you said "i have friends who are mages"

[KnightofPhoenix]

Master Shiori wrote...
Calling Elthina inefficient in dealing with Kirkwall's problems (which I'd aruge is true and backed by evidence in the game itself) is hardly the same as insulting her. Doing things that Sebastian dislikes doesn't equal insulting him, just that we disagree on certain issues.

And what does that have to do with him being ambitious?

Fair enough if it's good and natural to you. For me, it completely unnatural since, even in real life, there's very little chance that everyone in a group would react in the same way, especially when each of them has a different personality and ideals.

How do companions in Origins react the same way?

If anything, those in DA2 react the same way because all of them have to like Hawke.

Except it's a general reaction shared by everyone in the party, not just specific to Wynne. As such it's more due to how the approval system works than to Wynne's (or anyone else's) personality.

Not all leave due to a specific issue, let alone the same issue. But yea if you have an approval of -100, there is no reason for them to follow you, especially since most of them are not Ferelden. Why should they care?

As for specific choices, I call that consequences. The approval system had nothing to do with Wynne's reaction to the Urn. This is something that offends every fiber of her being period, it doesn't matter if she likes you or not.

Having every single companion follow the same patern of behaviour doesn't make them real. Quite the opposite.
Such a behaviour becomes a result of a general flaw in the system, not of a single character's personality.

How do they follow the same pattern of behaviour when they approve and dissaprove of different things, often opposite things?

The only same pattern they follow is gifts and I have said the gift system was bad.

I really fail to understand how a character thinking he is right and not willing to admit he is childish is a flaw of the system. It's a character flaw and it's natural, but not that of the system.
For me, having everyone necessarily love Hawke is a system flaw.

You have those in DA2, except they're all combined in one meter

There is no hatred. There is no outright disrespect. Just a scale of respect and liking, but it's not negative.
Furthermore, some actions may have nothing to do with liking and should pertain only to respect. And some acts have little to do with respect and are more about liking.

So even if, for the sake of argument, let's admit that DA2 does have both in one meter, it feels inadequate because liking and respecting are two different things that that should not be piled up into one meter.

In DA:O respect was tied to a character liking you. It wasn't possible to have someone dislike you, yet respect you at the same time.

Sure, that's why I am saying, I'd rather have two meters. Which is not the case in DA2, because an action that increases respect can be very different from an action that increases liking.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 15 mai 2011 - 02:16 .

[Silver]

I guess I have to agree with the people here who mentioned that the game has a lot of untapped potential, so it could have been a lot better than it is.
If anyone but BioWare would have made this game under a different title, they probably would have been praised for it, but as it stands the community is used to higher standards.
BioWare has raised the bar so high, that with such a short dev-cycle they have failed to reach that bar, unfortunately.
At the moment i'm on my fourth or fifth playthrough, simply because I bear no love for either TES: Skyrim or The Witcher 2, and because Mass Effect 3 is still a ways away.